Very effective horror

Rating: 8/10 (15 March 2006)

I am not a gore-hound, but I also don't wince very easily at most nastiness in horror films. I do, however, enjoy a horror film where I am not supposed to laugh or find levity with the villains. I can't stand Friday the 13th films, Nightmares on Elm Street, or even the Wes Craven Scream flicks. I personally enjoy the rush of even being a little shocked by scenes or situations in horror films. Therefpre...
Bottom line...this remake of the Hills Have Eyes is NOT a date movie. Trust me, your lady will hate you for making you go see this with her. The film is intense, visceral, and (bonus) not very predictable. The camera does not pull away from the violence or gore. The moments of "down time" for the viewer are usually when there is simply no atrocity being committed. In short, I did not love the film, but only because I'm not one of those horror fans who crave the on-screen violence, blood, guts, etc. The film works - the characters are given enough screen time and depth to make the audience care about what happens to them. They are not "cool ways to depict movie deaths" waiting to happen. And since I feel badly for some of what happens to this family, I can't love the movie.
But man was it an effective movie. You are shocked, repulsed, and taken beyond where most horror movies stop enough times to get your money's worth. Frankly, this is a strong "R" rating, approaching NC-17 (where the film was originally rated). The film does not follow a formula. You cannot predict what happens to whom, nor when, nor how. This film left me feeling a little disturbed. In short, I give it all the credit in the world for NOT being what most horror has been for so long.