WRONG!! You told me to point out the reviews that stated the reviewer did NOT like the Scenes of Rape being in the movie and I did JUST THAT you Shlub, so it doesn't ruin my case.. If anything, it shows you that YES Zing, Alot of folks didn't care for this being in the movie and it could've been deleted from the film all together and been just as effective and shown in a different way to enact revenge..

i never saw full on penetration, some people must make themselves believe they saw things that weren't there.

That boob pic above is explicit.
There was no such shot in the movie.

As far as the necessity of the rape scene goes,
yes it was necessary because I think it was actually the plot.
Kill the adult family, take what they got, and impregnate the fertile women/kidnap the children to replace the population.
That's why the first rapist was pulled off the girl. He was impotent from the radiation.
Ruby took care of the children...I think.

Forgive you for having a decent soul? Could you be a little more melodramatic? It's a HORROR MOVIE, not a romantic comedy. If you're being such a good person with a "decent soul" when you object to a rape scene then what are you when you watch and "enjoy" a woman see her husband burn to death? or a guy get his fingers cut off? or someone watch as another eats their mother's entrails?
You haven't even seen the movie, and this isn't one of those movies where you don't have to see it to know it's bad (ie Sleepover, or Gigli). Lots of people love this movie, and some didn't. I liked that i actually cared about the characters. They didn't make everyone jerks or theives, so that it was okay that they died horrible deaths. They were run of the mill people with good qualities, and bad qualities. Part of the movie is that the ones who survive the initial attack want revenge. They were violated and lost loved ones and that pushed a normal, "geeky" guy into being an "action hero". In regards to the people who walked out cause they couldn't handle it, they are just as weak-stomached as you are, apparently, and perhaps you should all get together and go see She's the Man.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/show ... p?t=469775

Now I switch over to RT now for their collective responses to this subject being in the movie.. Here's one from Return_Of_Fett at RT:

I agree there was hardly any gore in the film. A couple of bullet hits and a couple of pick-axes to the head. That was about it. The rape was sickening and should not have been in it at all. It instantly turned me off to the film.


Here's one from someone who calls themselves "Bialas"

The movie is very tough to watch. Friends of mine saw it and walked out after the "milking" scene which I just don't seem to recall for some reason.


And one more from soneone who calls themself "Surgical"

I haven't seen it but my girlfriend walked out of it. Said it was the most repulsive film she's ever seen which makes me all the more curious. It was the rape scene that got to her.

On that note, I've proven my point Zing and you've been OWNED: This very well could've been left out of the movie and another scene or reason put in to guve the family a reason for Revenge.. Hell, swiping their Baby was good enough as it stands from the looks of it..

How exactly does you giving examples of other people who agree with you "prove" that you're right? Zing and i could go and find a bunch of reviews to support our points also, but we're not going to and don't need to do that. One reason we don't need to is that we actually saw the movie. You didn't.

He asked me to provide evidence that supported my claim that there were viewers clearly turned off by The Rape scene with some actually walking out and I did just that and as a result, he was OWNED.. What more needs to be said??? Perhaps when the DVD Comes out, Lions Gate Entertainment and the Director will be gracious enough to give us 2 versions of this: One with the Rape scene and Extended Rape Scenes for all those who get off on this sort of thing and the 2nd version would be without it and working it into the storyline to where the movie would be equally as effective, but with a different motive for the family to gain Revenge, a new scene in place of the Rape if you will..

Yeah, cause that will happen. They are going to remove the rape scene, get the cast together again and go through all the make-up madness because a bunch of pussies couldn't take it?
What don't you get? It's not that people who aren't whining about the rape scene get off on it, or relish in the character's misery. It's a movie. A movie about deformed cannibals who kill and eat people. The rape scene had just as much point as any other scene. I don't buy your argument that it wasn't "NEEDED" because what was "NEEDED"? Why not cut out the guy blowing his head off? It could just cut away after he pulls the trigger. And they could cut out a couple slowish scenes here and there so people aren't burdened with getting to know these people, then they could add a scene where we see the people kick the dogs around so it's okay that the people die. And maybe they could cut away when the bird gets its head bitten off, and when Doug gets his fingers cut off? Oh, you know what they should have done? Just edit out the violence so they could get a PG13 and more teens in opening weekend...except that is everything that's wrong with horror nowadays.
They were mutated cannibals living in the desert with no "pretty" girls around. What do you think they would do when they get their hands on one? Take her back to their place and they could watch Divorce Court together, then have a fine meal of her family's parts. If you didn't like the movie (that you didn't even see) then let's just stop talking about it.

Perhaps Lions Gate could provide a DVD release minus the rape, though I expect Fox Searchlight will release the R-rated and uncut on DVD.

Seriously though, I do take offense when action/horror films glorify rape as 'sexy' with Playboy-style cinematography, and out of context to the story. The rape in this film did not offend me. I think most of the audience sat through it because we were waiting to see how the Carter family was going to defend themselves.
I fault the film based on its character logic, cops who forget how to use a gun, scientists who vanish without a search by the government, etc. Unless the government is evil in the uncut version, I don't know why they did that.

Best bet to avoid the rape scene is to wait for the broadcast t.v. showing I'm afraid, but I think the rape scene minus the 'milking' inserts (mutant's head blocking the lady in a strategic place to the camera; nothing visible except for the disdain on her face) would run uncut even with current FCC standards. The gore in the rest of the movie won't.

Wow. I can't believe a horror film is being criticized for accomplishing the exact thing horror films are made to do - horrify.

If you can't grasp the notion of a filmmaker pushing the envelope to invest you emotionally in the proceedings, you should probably stop watching movies.

Oh, oh, oh... you're posting user reviews? I was under the impression that you had real reviews from actual critics. Well, from what you posted, yeah, you proved that there are over-sensitive people like yourself.

But until you see the film, you can't even call the scene unnecessary. You have to actually watch the whole film, which you haven't done, so I still can't take anything you say seriously.

Hardly ownage.

Hey horror movies are not for everyone, but let's remember one thing....as Wes Craven said with Last House on the Left, "It's only a movie."

Hmmm... interesting. Hopefully it delivers on the title's promise, but it does reek of B-movie schlock. Overall though, sounds promising! Frankly, the only thing I see missing from it right now is a part for Kip Pardue.

Oh no, wait! He's in it too?! Best film ever.

Ok, I just saw the original The Hills Have Eyes a few weeks ago and the trailer scenes don't really compare. The one in the original is a walk in the park compared to the anal rape and boobie sucking in this one. Not that it makes or breaks this movie either way (I myself thought this was the point when the movie started to enter the completely over-the-top range), but it's a world of a difference in the two films. In the original, the trailer is bigger and Brenda is pretty much in a back room (her being so far back also makes the "Watch the baby Brenda!" scene much more believable). I don't recall seeing much more than some shadowy rustling and bustling. But in this one, you see the one mutant grab Brenda, turn her around, and then when the other one is holding a gun to the baby's head you can see in the background pretty clearly what's going on.

I find the main problem with this film being that there isn't enough there to sustain a full 90 minutes. I thought so in the first one, but the campiness and the family-as-victims twist on the TCM formula made it good enough. This one though, once we get through the trailer scene it just drags on and on and the inconsistencies and idiotic moments compile at a rapid clip. How the baby's father is still able to walk after everything that happens to him is some sort of medical, superhuman feat. The last 30 minutes or so is basically a mishmosh of the blonde girl and her brother screaming and crying, mutants bursting through walls and going "BLAAAAAAAARGHH!!!!!!", and the other guy running around covered in blood searching for his baby.

At least they tossed in a humorous portion where one mutant is watching an episode of Divorce Court, but other than that the film takes itself far too seriously. It doesn't help that it seems like there's an endless supply of mutants, none of which we really get to know or understand. How can you make a movie about mutants and not exploit that opportunity to create colorful, creepy characters!? In the first one there's really only a handful of them, and we understand exactly why they are doing what they're doing - it's their livelihood. I guess this one is trying to be ominous or scary by keeping their motives a secret, but I found it really distanced me from the story. Plus, once the last one is offed in the original we know it's over. In this one, how are we the audience supposed to believe that it's a wondrous happy ending when they're still in the middle of nowhere and it seemed like there was an entire city full of mutants? And a big ugh at the Little Red Riding Hood symbolism, how corny can you get.

As for the gore, I thought there was a lot of it myself, and no I don't think I'm saying that because I was disturbed, because I wasn't at all. I just remember going "ew" a lot. It really depends on the horror film whether or not gore is good or bad for the film itself, and I think in this case it went far enough that it became almost completely unbelievable and nearly comical. It didn't really cross the line of decency or anything (if such a thing exists in horror, anyway) but I thought it knocked the credibility and believability of the story down a few notches.

In the end, I ended up being pretty much bored by the movie and waiting for it to end as the superhuman baby daddy dodged death for the umpteenth time and proceeded to fight the mutants off with a baseball bat and an American flag (why didn't he have the sense to take a gun?) with the help of the dog whenever the screenplay dictated it was time for him to come to the rescue. The mannequin town was a peculiar touch that really did nothing for the story other than the stretch the running time, and make the proceedings all the more ridiculous and tedious. and lastly, as far as the acting goes I thought the guy that played the baby's father did put in the best performance, everyone else was pretty much average for a horror flick. Nothing to write home about and nothing to kvetch about.

I'd give it a C- overall. and call me an abomination to horror fans everywhere, but I enjoyed the When a Stranger Calls remake a little bit more than I enjoyed this.

Second of all, you'll have to show me every single review you've read that complained about the rape scene before I can take your side seriously- Zing

I did exactly what you asked me to and posted the reviews from folks who felt the scene wasn't necessary and what are you doing that you normally do when you get caught with your britches down and proven WRONG about something: You flip flop it and turn it around and try to reword it when you know exactly what you asked me to do and that's post reviews proving that it was true and I did.. On that note, OWNAGE AGAIN!!

Congratulations for finding people who actually saw the movie and have a reason to criticize the film.

But, like I said, you have no credibility because you haven't even seen the film you're criticizing, making your whole argument stupid and a waste of time to read.

Well, as some people know, I'm not a particularily big fan of the low-horror genre. However, I did get out to see The Hills Have Eyes yesterday, and have to admit that I loved the whole set-up in the first half! It reminded me of other "reality" based horror movies like Hostel or Open Water - movies where you could imagine yourself accidentally stumbling into a horrific situation.

Unfortunately, the movie lost me in the second half, when the son-in-law heads into the cave with the bat and dog, and shortly thereafter acquires superhero powers. Even that might have been rationalized by the fact that he's a parent trying to save his baby, but then the story logic comes off the rails too. Especially irritating to me was the scene where he's in the house and Beast, the dog unexpectedly comes to his aid. Instead of double teaming his adversary at that moment of weakness, he chooses to ridiculously barricade himself into the dead end room with the bathtub. Another example was the blowing up of the Airstream trailer - looked good, but as a strategy was sorely lacking - I mean they had to count on the guy breaking out of the handcuffs and not seeing them run away from the trailer through the window and then going around and opening the door to set off the explosion.

Okay, okay - I know that conclusion is classic low-horror stuff, but that's where they lose me. For horror to be truly scary, I like it to have a full logical underpinning in it's story. (Of course, the other way it could have gone was into full ridiculousness - eg: after the son-in-law got super powers - kill him off, then show the baby, because of the mutating radiation get psychic killing powers - with close-ups of his eyes focusing on the mutants as they catch fire and explode.)

Anyways, it was half good in my book, so how about a...

3 out of 5.

I'd give it a [b]C- overall. and call me an abomination to horror fans everywhere, but I enjoyed the When a Stranger Calls remake a little bit more than I enjoyed this.[/quote][/b]

That is just wrong.

I find it so silly that such a disposable (not in terms of quality, but in terms of connection to real life) film is provoking such "heated" debate.

Come on, guys, The Hills Have Eyes is not exactly a movie like Syriana or Munich or something. This is as dumb as having intense battles over a movie like The Shaggy Dog.

Mutants living in the New Mexico desert for teh last 40 years with no police intervention or discovery of the abandoned trailers and missing person is totally believable. You are talking about America, right?

Reading through this read, I am convinced that no matter what they're saying, people were genuinely disturbed by this film. I say that because I'm seeing a lot of people flat out making up shit they say they saw happen during the rape sequence. There was no visible penetration. I have no idea where that came from, but you can't show that in anything but a porno film. Also, I don't know how you could possibly deduce that it was anal rape from what was shown, either. You'd have to have quite the active imagination to think that.

Thing is, this is the mark of a great horror film. It's the same thing the original Texas Chainsaw did back in the seventies. People thought it was much gorier than it actually was because of how disturbed they were by the film.

i agree. people seem to be seeing stuff go on that actually didn't happen. there was no penetration or anything like that in the rape scene. the scene really wasn't that bad, and i don't see why people are so upset about it. pretty much all you see is the freak laying on top of the girl kissing her...big fuckin' deal.

The only people I've seen that had a problem with that scene are BKB (who hasn't seen the film, making his opinion irrelevant) and the people he posted about from RT and CHUD.

Normal people wouldn't be upset over a short, 30-second "rape" scene that shows absolutely no nudity and cuts away to another scene during the 30 seconds. Just people like BKB.

maybe bkb was raped by a mutant in his parents' trailer

I was also wondering where people got the idea that it was anal rape. I never quite saw that. Images are being made up as you go along, and the comparrison to the first tCM are relevant. Everyone thought that you actually saw the hook go through the woman's back, when in fact like others have mentioned, there is hardly any on screen violence. But what is implied sometimes is more harrowing than what is seen.