Change Your Image
hscholler
Reviews
The Hills Have Eyes (2006)
hard to "top" this movie
Congratulations!
You are either a) a witness of this movie b) a person to be informed about it
ad) a): I am curious how you liked it?! Are you on of those who liked it? Or one of the couple of total dislikers? Well, opinions about this kind of film are impossible to judge.
ad) b): It is hard to find words for it. Let me tell you my first viewing experience: I went with my girlfriend to see it in the theaters. I guess, one could choose a more convenient flic to watch with your girl, maybe. But the interesting part was, we both fell asleep after an hour. From time to time I woke up by the actions scenes with its special gabba sound. And I never fall asleep in movies. It felt like having a disturbing nightmare with you realizing it is just a very strange surrounding. My girlfriend and I left the movie before the ending slightly amused about this surrealist trip. 1 year later I held the "The Hills have Eyes" in my hands in my local DVD store recalling the special movie experience in the theaters. The gabba music scenes finally got me interested in re-watching it. Maybe I had fallen asleep because of working too much? A second analysis should clearify my opinion....
My "objective" observations:
- The nuclear testing areas have mostly been cleared in the USA. The rest is heavily guarded by military area (I've been there, no way to get in unless you like to be arrested by the military or shot) Sounds realistic that common people just walk in there... - The nuclear ignition grounds, like the ones the democrat walks into, may still exist. But the radioactive dust you inhale there would kill you within several days/hours (depending on the kind of nuclear bomb). Guess why the scientists/technicians wore suits and gas masks to explore the area that were obviously not even the ignition grounds. - The politically satirical parts with the gun raising republicans and the gun-hating democrat are attempts to bring some wits or laughs in the movie. Except from that, there is absolutely no (funny) message. - Brutality: Showing the gas station guy blasting his head of in detail, burning a man alive, raping a teenager by two guys, aiming a gun at a baby. I have seen many gory movies but this one really showed it all - in total detail. Some movie makers have the talent to present brutality either in "funny" way ("Braindead") or in a way that tells you brutality is not at all funny ("Platoon"). The first kind is a parody/satire, the second kind is criticism. But this movie fails for both categories. - Music/Sound is a necessary tool to stimulate a movie's atmosphere. Listen to the action sequences and you know what I mean. I think, this added perfectly to make the sadistic and gory scenes even more extreme. There seems no limit to this visual and acoustic slaughterhouse. - The storyline is so low, you can tell it in 2 Minutes. Typical logic of splatter movies with mutants without any logical explanations (it is the nature of this special horror genre) No explanations of the character's motivations, the scenery and the plot framework. Of course not, this movie only focuses on visual/acoustic experience: a movie expressing unexplainable homicide - and ONLY that.
One remarkable scene is the following: The giant mutant gets killed by the democrat sticking the American flag in his neck. This is the only scene that has symbolic character: The US have nailed these victims of nuclear testing. Apart from that, don't expect any further stylistic elements.
In terms of entertainment in its basic sense this movie has not totally failed: I have to admit that it did not at all bore me, there was a certain fascination how far a movie can go. At least it keeps you wondering how the intensity of physical violence can still be increased (Thought this would be impossible after having watched "The Thing")Maybe showing the raping scene in pornographic detail and killing the baby with a shot in the head could be worth another remake. The next increase can only be taking an axe yourself... In terms of "quality" of a movie (I don't mean high cost CGI effects or expensive cast) the films fails on all lines:
- no imaginatory power - no real suspense - too high paced cutting - poor cinematography - poor acting - poor plot - senseless violence - stereotype choice of soundtrack
To sum up: Apart from the "meta-entertainment" of the brutality experience, "The Hills have Eyes" is the worst I have ever seen. It succeeded in topping another all-time-worst-movie (unfortunately forgot the title). The worst about it is, that some people really like it. Enjoy!
Falling Down (1993)
Excellent Michael Douglas in an uncomfortable movie about American society
The scenery is starting in a traffic jam: The protagonist, William Foster played by Douglas, is caught in the usual stress of not being able to get away from this annoying every-day scene. Surrounded by people who also have to cope with it. Children shouting, drivers swearing, phoning, honking and other ways of bearing the waiting time. The cinematography is reflecting well the uneasiness of Foster as he sweats and seemingly looses his temper during the stay. Not being enough, a fly in his car makes him slap around aggressively while a little girl watches his movement from the backseat of a car as if she knew what dangerous potential of "D-Fens" Foster will show later on. Then he makes a decision: He WILL leave this situation, leave the car and climb up the hill to go home...
This is the starting point of Foster's mental "falling down". It seems to be a strange behaviour to leave your car behind and escape from the jam. But to be honest - haven't you ever thought of just doing this?! Such a behaviour seems strange yet one could understand it as it means no real harm to anyone around him.
Later, one gets to know that this man has lost his family, job and is not "economically viable". In this hostile situation, thoughts about what you have forgone in your life may explain and defend this naive escape motivation. He escapes this dead-end - symbolized by a jam - to get home.
In the next scene the sympathy towards the protagonist gets lost or changes into a feeling of unsettlement and pity. He might have just chilled out a few moments on the top of the hill/walked around to calm down and return to his car. But he does not. Instead, Foster get sucked into a maelstrom of aggression which he of course provokes.
The movie is full of details about Foster's anger about society. A general anger which everyone has felt before but not uttered in such a direct and crude way. There are dozens of pictures of the decadence of the USA (a decadence which can be found in all western societies but to a special amount in the US): Overpriced goods in stores, gang-land area, people carrying guns (even automatic military weapons), the delusion of fast-food, racism, neo Nazis having their freedom, drug addicts, aids-suffering folk, beggars begging for money, D-Fens constructing weapons of mass destruction, divorce and a man not being allowed to see his child anymore, decadence of golf-sites, economically non-viable people,...... See for yourself your will find many examples throughout the film. And Foster is in the middle of it, realizing that this is not only unjust. He knows the he has also fallen victim of his surrounding society. Especially the scene where the cops get hold of the black guy protesting in the front of the bank is addressed to Foster. The police car stops and the protestant stares at Foster to tell him "don't forget me". This scene seems to be Foster's point of no return. He won't forget, he will get his right to go home! In fact, it is a desperate right, a right of socially marginalized person, an illusion.
Noteworthy is the way how Foster's potential violence comes to life. When he enters the Korean corner store the viewer does not realize that he will turn out to be a dangerous man with aggressive behaviour. Everything stars harmless when Foster just asks for change money to use a phone. It is the usual counter aggression of racism that drives Foster to use inappropriate measures. "No change, you have to buy something". Foster hesitates but still accepts this silent offense by purchasing a coke. When he realizes that the price of this drink is exaggerated and will not leave enough money for his phone call he makes a last effort. He asks for 50 cents in exchange for a dollar (!). Even that offer is refused by clerk. Now Foster gives way to his anger and gets started about the inflicted rights of the consumers. His rage cumulates to point where the clerk feels unsafe and tries to produce a bat to force Foster out. Violence creates counter-violence and Foster gets hold of the bat palpability. Now having the power he "interrogates" the clerk of the prices of the other goods in the store relieving his anger on batting around in the corner store. But Foster never hits the clerk and finally even pays for the coke taking his change from the cash and leaving the store like a normal customer: "It was a pleasure of frequenting this establishment!".
If you carefully revise this scene you see that it is not Foster who starts to be aggressive. It is an understandable reaction of his to get angry facing provocations like these. Also the way of taking out a weapon as a defence is inappropriate. Maybe a short palpability as reaction might not be seen as Foster's guilt. The situation gets out of hand. It seems to be an aggression based on racism of an Asian and white guy. But still the above mentioned sympathy for the protagonist is vanishing as his behaviour is unsettling. Foster's potential violence is present now. Nevertheless, the viewer is left with the feeling that Foster had a bad day and does not really want this.
Michael Douglas plays Foster's psychotic development in a very plastic and authentic way. Douglas does not just emerge as a violent berserker. He reflects Foster's inner despair ambiguously: Foster is not a man without feelings, yet, he is a man letting out too many feelings on the spot. Driven by his love for his daughter he fights his way through a hostile environment and society. He is only dangerous when people provoke him. He has lost his inhibition. Foster goes amok. In fact, this has happened several times in reality. Think about it.