On the way to California, a family has the misfortune to have their car break down in an area closed to the public, and inhabited by violent savages ready to attack.
The Hills Have Eyes veers off the road and into a dusty narrative landscape. Having watched Aja's remake a good few times, I felt obliged to watch Craven's cult classic for the first time. Y'know, so I can compare and see how identical the remake was to the original (or perhaps not...). Suffice to say, and it is incredibly rare that I do mutter these words, the remake is far more effective. That's not to say this cult favourite is bad. Oh no no! Just the extremely low budget has meant that the final product has aged unremarkably, to a point that it is now ineffective. A family travel across the Nevada desert where where they crash and are left stranded. During their desperation, they are targeted by a cannibalistic family living in the hills.
Because guess what? The Hills Have Eyes! Now, I shall view the merits of this original by not comparing it to the recent remake. There's no point, and seems unfair. Having said that, the remake certainly made better narrative choices and thematically immersed me more than this did. Craven initially travels down the horror route, setting up a whimsically optimistic family. We've got the detective father who acts as the alpha-male. An over-religious mother who is sweeter than bag of sugar (although irritating beyond belief). Then the children who range from eternally screaming to performing gymnastics in the middle of the desert. Not to mention the peculiar running style that Bobby acquired! Shoulders first? Yeah, sure. It's all fine and dandy, with Craven luring you into a false sense of security.
Then, the savages arrive to ruin their day, and the narrative suddenly becomes inconsistent. Aside from the infamous rape scene and the unexpected deaths that occur at the halfway mark, Craven could not find a balance between the semi-realistic horror and the offbeat visual comedy. Beast, who is the canine will all strive to be, hilariously knocks a savage off a cliff whilst locking a walkie-talkie within its jaws and delivering it to the remaining family members. That's just silly, yet strangely captivating. The problem is, it doesn't blend with the ferocious rage-induced scenes that preceded it, and consequently results in this unconventional horror film that ironically lacks the trepidation.
Peake's score further illustrates this, as we witness both parties running around aimlessly in the desert to the tune of something found in a TV police drama. 'Kojak'? 'Hawaii Five-O' perhaps? A bizarre choice to say the least. Craven occasionally got somewhat excited with the camera, zooming in excessively and rattling it around more than a rattlesnake's tail, but for the most part maintained solid direction. The lighting was perfectly adequate during the day time, but completely obscure when night falls. The actors, whilst in the middle of the desert, have these surreal spotlights above them so that they are visible to us. Yet when the background is filmed using natural light, it created this artificial aura that didn't click with me.
And that sentiment is what I share with the entirety of Craven's cult classic. It just didn't necessarily click with me like the remake did. Sure it's amusing to watch the Carter family grow increasingly more savage like the cannibals residing in the hills. And whilst the backbone of Hooper's 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre' was prevalent throughout, Craven never reached that level of horror or technical prowess. That's without mentioning the abrupt cut-off ending that left various questions unanswered. A patchy horror that is as jagged as the hills being depicted.
