Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.

Excellent, Without a doubt!!

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

I have absolutely never seen anything like this movie before. You have to see this movie.

I saw this for the first time in the late 80s. Found it to b disturbing then. But when i saw the remake in 2006, i found this to b very mild. Jus revisited it again. The plot is about a family taking the wrong turn off the main road and finding themselves being hunted down by a cannibal family. Talking bout this original, some scenes i found to b comedic. Maybe if the remake didn't exist, this movie wud have still been disturbing. Well this movie does deserve some respect among horror fans. The dress of the mother of the cannibalistic looked as if she is some gypsy woman. One member wearing bear skin in a desert n most of em wearing necklaces made outta some teeth. The cannibalistic clans looked more like dirty hippies n Mexican bandits rather than ferals. The scene where the kids on the radio r asked about their defence strength n the reply they get..... was really comedic. Sitting ducks. Hahaha... The scene wher the old ex cop is roasted alive n his eyeballs r shown.... Comedic? This movie lacked the tension, atmosphere n suspense. It lacked the brutality. Remember Texas chainsaw massacre being brutal, atmospheric n tensed without blood n gore. Agree the remake by Aja is hands down much superior than this original but Craven shud b applauded for making this n Last house... in the 70s. Except for Berryman, the cannibalistic male members looked more like Mexican bandits who hasn't taken bath for months. Avoid the 1984 sequel like plague. The sequel contains unnecessary tremendous footage from the first part.

The film is worse than I remembered it to be, I just skimmed though it again. Rather lame, stereotypical horror slasher film - standard stuff. Car will either breakdown or refuses to start, in this case it breaks down, and will leave some people stranded so they will be killed. YAWN! This one has no element of suspense or an air of mystery to keep it interesting enough to keep my attention for more that 5 whole minutes - then it's time for me to move on - next film! Yes it is true, the film is nothing more than: talk-talk-talk, talk-talk-talk, stab-stab-stab. The End. If that is your style of horror then I highly recommend this film for you. If not then you should look else where for a good horror film.Dee Wallace well liked among horror fans, including me but this film does not do it for me at all. I have no idea why this one has such a strong, loyal fan following.1/10

This often-hailed "cult" film from 1977 was clearly no Texas Chainsaw Massacre.To me, The Hills Have Eyes lacked plenty, especially the essential ingredient of heart-pounding brutality that's a necessary requirement of any good horror film of this one's grim nature. In my opinion, this film was far from deserving the special status of being ranked right up there as a genuine horror-movie cult classic.Besides all of the hammy acting that seemed to prevail, the clan of repulsive, inbred maniacs in the story were such a bunch of bungling idiots that I couldn't help but laugh out loud at their dim-witted behavior. Their goofy shenanigans, at times, bordered right on the very edge of pure slapstick comedy.The Hills Have Eyes was the sort of film that just couldn't build and sustain even the slightest bit of genuine suspense and terror because the viewer could plainly see everything coming a mile down the road, well in advance.In its time The Hills Have Eyes may have been considered a real "shocker", but that ain't the case today. I cannot believe that this bit of so-so horror-movie mediocrity actually spawned a sequel, and, even worse yet, a frickin' remake.Here is my version of The Hills Have Eyes' finale in a nutshell - Stab! Stab! Stab! Stab! Stab! Stab! Stab!... The End!

I'm not a big fan of the subgenre of horror that is about people terrorizing, raping, torturing, mutilating each other with glee. I've seldom found any of these films to have true scares, just repellent exploitative imagery designed to disgust the viewer. And frankly I don't see the point to that. Nothing about that says "good time" to me. The reason why I give The Hills Have Eyes a better rating than most of the other films of this type I've seen is because it is somewhat original, well-directed, has some good atmosphere, and only dips its toe into the vile rather than soak itself in it as more recent films of the type have done. If you have to watch a film about this type of subject matter and you don't like gratuitous rape and violence, this is probably your best bet. It's not rated PG but it's still pretty tame by today's standards. For those like me who are not fond of these types of films, know that it is not as bad as the torture porn of the 2000s. For those who view that as a negative and want more rape, torture, and graphic imagery: seek professional help.