Bad, Worse, "The hills have eyes"

Rating: 2/10 (1 April 2006)

I can't believe that people from other websites gave this movie 8 points of 10. I really can't. I thought it could be quite good after such an evaluation but I was deeply disappointed. I also asked myself why an actor like Ted Levine (who plays very funny "Stottlemeyer" in the "MONK" series) is part of such a BULLSHIT movie. Why is it so bad? 1.) NO story. - What is this? Of course a family prefers driving through a few-thousand-miles (nuclear-contaminated)desert instead of flying. And of course they take an abbreviation a stupid and obviously crazy hillbilly shows them. 2.) Moral? - Where? Was this movie accusing the US government for doing a huge amount of nuclear tests? Or not?! I don't know it looked more like glorifying these tests to create a very very small message.
This movie was just showing violence to show violence. Now sense in it, no reason. Did these creatures (that once were "normal" human beings) kill for "food"? Or just for fun? The audience won't get to know. And then there was this most strange son-in-law who develops to a fighting killer that stays most dumb the whole time. But therefor he can "receive" a lot of violence against himself and survives anything (almost with a smile). The daughter looks pretty bitch-like and is the only reason to keep watching (for the first 10 minutes). Only once before I considered leaving the theater like by "The hills have eyes" but then I thought of my money and then I decided to keep on. It was surely wrong. Nobody will give me my wasted time back. The only reason why it is not a "1" is that there may be other films that are even worse (although I hardly can imagine that). Sum: B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T ; don't watch it and don't pay 1 cent for it, it's really not worth.