"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOkay, let's not get confused here. If this is a sequel to a remake of an original horror classic, does that mean it also automatically is a remake of the original horror classic's sequel? Here's to hoping that's not a general rule, as Wes Craven's own sequel to the original \"The Hills have Eyes\"  released somewhere during the mid-80's  is easily one of the worst and absolute most redundant horror movies ever made. Part two didn't have an actual plot and re-used footage of the original only to further exploit the success of the genuinely gritty and petrifying premise. Craven also wanted us to believe even dogs suffer from flashbacks and painful memories, as the loyal German Shepard of the Carter family re-experienced his bloody fight with one of the mountain hillbillies. There were quite a bit of alarming signs indicating us that this sequel would be a horrendous failure as well. The remake came out barely one year ago and here's the sequel already? The incredible speed of its release righteously causes you to question the quality of the script. Don't they need a little more time if they want to come up with a film that should be scary, menacing and disturbing? With his excellent film, Alexandre Aja nearly single-handedly altered the general opinion about horror remakes, as he had the courage and intellect of changing essential elements in the plot and adding more nauseating gore than anyone could ever had hoped for. Also, Aja is quite a talented young director and made himself noticed with his French instant cult classic \"High Tension\", but who is this new director? Aja's \"The Hills Have Eyes\" was an unexpected hit, appreciated by both experienced and older generations of horror fans as well as the younger and over-enthusiast target groups. It's a really good film and, even though an avalanche of new sequels and clones will be inevitable, it's highly unlikely that one of them will ever equal the surprising quality level of Aja's smashing hit. Bearing all this in mind, plus a rather large dose of personal skepticism, I must admit this rushed sequel really isn't as awful as anticipated. The screenplay is routine and clichéd horror fodder, introducing a fairly large number of characters with few or even no backbone and tastelessly depicting how they get slaughtered by traditionally repulsive-looking freaks. After the events of the first film, the US army has set up a camp in the middle of the New Mexican desert to investigate the effects of the nuclear tests, which took place there in the 50's and 60's. For the horribly mutated survivors of the miner's community that stayed there during the radioactive testing, the scientists and researchers form a tasty starter until the main course of incompetent soldiers arrives by truck. They are just supposed to drop off food and supplies but encounter their ultimate military training exercise when faced with the relentless humanoids that live inside the remainders of the mines.
This basically is just another by-the-numbers slasher with dumb characters who are, even after losing several of their friends already, still stupid enough to separate themselves from the group and act like easy targets to kill. It's also very easy to point out which ones will make it out of this adventure alive, especially when one of the soldiers is against all types of violence and another one continuously stares at video images of her cute 3-year-old son. \"The Hills Have Eyes II\" completely lacks  as to be expected  originality, logic and plausible situations. The mutated miners aren't nearly as menacing as their colleagues in part one, mainly because they aren't organized this time and only just behave like drooling and sex-hungry prototype monsters. Since you don't care for the amateur G.I. Joe \"heroes\" and definitely don't feel any sympathy for the eyes in the hills, this film is a whole lot less compelling and involving than last year's original. Most peculiarly, this second film isn't nearly as violent and gory as the first! Sequels usually compensate the lack of suspense and the absence of surprise-twists with extra bloodshed and more graphic killing sequences, but the action in this sequel is really tame compared to the sick footage featuring in its predecessor. There are a handful of scenes to satisfy the bloodthirsty horror fanatics  mainly showing soldiers falling down cliffs or getting shot by their own guns  but there sadly aren't any outrageous pick-axe battles or virulent dog attacks. What a shame! What's the point of a sequel if it even fails to surpass the level of grossness and/or gratuitous filth of the original? Luckily enough the film is never boring or unnecessarily sentimental, and you'll have the most fun spotting all the things that don't make the slightest bit of sense! For example, wallets falling out of people's bloodied heads, women without any muscle power cast as tough-ass soldiers and  my personal favorite  assigning the ONE soldier with a speaking disability to operate the radio communications.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"