The guns of The Hills Have Eyes

[The Real Hawkeye]

Just saw it. Really portrays gun owners as stupid. At first, I was happy to finally see a movie of this genre where the intended victims are armed pretty well right off the bat, but then the gun folks were quickly portrayed as total idiots, and the hero is an anti gun Democrat who kills the freaks with their own axes and such. The two gun folks in the movie shot their guns wildly into the air whenever they heard something, never connecting with an antagonist monster freak. One scene had a gun toting teenager chased by an unarmed freak monster, and instead of standing his ground, taking aim and firing, he runs away while shooting wildly into the air behind him.

The message of the movie is that gun people are stupid, guns are worthless in self defense, and gun people are generally unsafe with firearms (At one point, the teenager jokingly points a loaded pistol at the Democrat, and when he complains, he says "don't worry, the safety's on"). There were lots of freak monsters, lots of rounds fired from the intended victim's guns, and lots of freak monsters ultimately killed, but with three guns in the hands of the intended victims, not one freak monster was killed by gunfire in the entire movie.

I don't recommend it. The whole time watching it I was constantly frustrated with the stupidity of these people. I ended up deciding they would help the human gene pool best by becoming meals for these freak monsters.

 

[UberPhLuBB]

It seems foolish to use a movie to show how ineffective guns are against zombies when there are so many other movies which prove the contrary.

I have an antigun friend who never wants to go shooting and won't concede to the logic of concealed carry, but in his own words he said "when the zombies or aliens invade, you're the one person I'll be headed towards."

 

[Mauserguy]

Hawkeye, I totally agree with you. I went on Saturday night with my girlfriend. When the atomic mutants attacked the trailer, and the mother sat up with brain spurting out of her, my lady friend just could not take any more. We ended up going in to see the Shaggy Dog.

I like the concept of atomic mutant miners, but Hollywood just can't get firearms right, then they make everything overly graphic. It's cheap and shows that Hollywood doesn't have much left in it.

I told my brother about the incident, and we are now talking about making a camping trip out in the desert. Now I am wondering what I can do for perimeter defense against flesh-eating, desert-dwelling mutants. I think I need some trip lights.
Mauserguy

 

[MatthewVanitas]

Has anyone seen the original version? It was Wes Craven's second film ever, back in the '70s (after his far more unpleasant "Last House on the Left", which even I couldn't hack).

The contrasts are quite interesting: there is about ZERO politicized gun content in the original. Folks just happened to have guns as a matter of course, and it wasn't portrayed as unusual when the dad gives his teenage son a .45 and tells him to keep an eye on the family.

I thought the new one was moderately anti-gun, but not horrendously. Definitely a relative statement these days.

The part at the end with the kid running wildly while firing was rather odd. But if you'll recall, he actually connected every third hit, but Jupiter (the bearded miner in black coat) barely even flinched at each impact.

Also do note that the point where the liberal son-in-law takes up the shotgun is actually portrayed positively: the movie makes a climactic point of his deciding to take charge of his life and use force to save his daughter.

I'd say that, by modern standards, it was 50-50 on gun issues. Most of the negative was just the unsafe gun handling by the son, which made me cringe in my seat.

Go see the original, it's a little campier, and the back-story is nowhere near as good, but it has its charms.

Side note: I'll admit I'm not terribly clear on the weapons used in this version. The original had the gas station attendant's 870, the cop's S&W revo, and the teen's .45, but I had a harder time postively IDing in this version.

-MV

 

[c_yeager]

I enjoyed the original in a cheap drive-in-movie kinda way. I thought parts of it were genuinely frightening. I was looking foreward to seeing the remake (dawn of the dead changed my mind about remakes). Im really dissapointed to see that they injected this political nonsense into a horror movie, which is the absolute last place where politics should be.

 

[LAK]

UberPhLuBB

It seems foolish to use a movie to show how ineffective guns are against zombies when there are so many other movies which prove the contrary

It is - and it isn't.

Hollywood is, and has been all along, a tool of the change agents. Collectively it is a slow, patient programming of peoples' perceptions about various subjects. The Real Hawkeye has outlined which one this is aimed at.

-----------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

I'd say that, by modern standards, it was 50-50 on gun issues. Most of the negative was just the unsafe gun handling by the son, which made me cringe in my seat.

What about the fact that the first intended victim to attempt to use his gun in self defense missed every time, and ultimately had the gun taken from him by the antagonist freak monster, which gun was later used by the freak monster to kill the man's daughter and wife. Doesn't this resonate perfectly with the antigun message that a gun in the home is many times more likely to kill a family member than an attacker? It also resonates perfectly with the antigun message that says if you attempt to use a gun in self defense, you will not be successful, and the gun will just be "taken from you" (had to put that in quotes) and used against you and/or your loved ones. Pretty hard to mistake the message from this movie.

To us gun savvy folks, those messages seem so laughable as to be not worth even responding to (if you could manage to keep a straight face long enough to in the first place), but to folks not familiar with 1) guns, 2) the effectiveness of proper gun handling, and 3) the general effectiveness of guns in self defense, this movie may subconsciously solidify those antigun notions in their minds, due to ignorance of the realities, and their previous brainwashing from public school and the media.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Also do note that the point where the liberal son-in-law takes up the shotgun is actually portrayed positively: the movie makes a climactic point of his deciding to take charge of his life and use force to save his daughter.

Yeah, but notice that even after landing two solid hits with the shotgun, the freak monster still would have killed him if it were not for the actions of a turncoat deformed girl to save him.

PS I hesitated to use the word "freak" throughout my posts, because it suggests that all people suffering from deformity and/or disfigurement are evil weirdoes, and this is a shame, but that is sort of what the movie portrays, with one exception, that being the deformed girl who helps the intended victims.

Not being PC. Just feel bad that a group of people that had nothing to do with their own condition is being so negatively stereotyped here.

For the purpose of definition, I intend the word "freak" to refer to the fictionalized "monsters" portrayed in this movie, which is why I paired the word monster with it. Most people with deformities are, naturally, not monsters, any more than the general public. They are victims of their circumstances.

Sorry if that all sounds PC.

 

[jerkface11]

If they showed guns being used and working realistically horror movies would be 15 minutes long. "here comes the slasher!!!!" BAM BAM BAM BLAMMMMM "ok call the cops" wouldn't exactly sell tickets.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

If they showed guns being used and working realistically horror movies would be 15 minutes long. "here comes the slasher!!!!" BAM BAM BAM BLAMMMMM "ok call the cops" wouldn't exactly sell tickets.

I completely disagree. I anticipated your response, and have been waiting for someone to give it. My answer is that they can realistically portray the effectiveness of firearms and have an even better thriller horror movie by simply having few or one firearm in the hands of the intended victims, and a limited amount of ammo. In my case at least, that would be very realistic, as I carry a .45 with no reloads, and I think this is very common.

Remember the scene in Blackhawk Down? The two snipers had been dropped off to assist the downed chopper pilot. The mobs kept coming and the snipers kept shooting. Then out of rifle ammo. Now down to their 1911A1 .45 ACP sidearms, and then out of ammo altogether. The mobs moved in and killed them. Are you telling me that was a boring scene or made the movie too short? Now, these guys were armed to the teeth. A family on a cross country trip might have had one revolver, with maybe one extra speed loader. Or one auto pistol, with maybe one extra loaded mag. Or no reload at all.

The limited ammo supply could have been used very effectively, and then out of ammo, back to the raw horror scenario. The limited ammo supply could even have been used with 50% effectiveness, implying a lack of recent training, and then back to the raw horror scenario. I would have had a good deal of respect for the movie if either one of those two scenarios was portrayed. But they chose to have an antigun message, perpetuating ignorant misconceptions about guns and typical gun folks. Could have been an even better horror movie if guns and gun folks were portrayed accurately, without the antigun propaganda.

 

[Thefabulousfink]

I'm a big fan of the original, still haven't seen the new one as I am afraid it wont be any good. IIRC, In the original the dad had a .45 because he was a retired sheriff. The rest of the family didn't know much about guns, but they weren't afraid of them. (not even slightly anti-gun).

One thing I don't like about the new one is that the people are created by an "atomic test". This strikes me as campy. In the original the people were just crazy cannibals that lived up in the hills. That is much more scary in my opinion because it opens the possibility that people like this could be hiding anywhere, not just where there has been "atomic testing".

P.S. If you want to know about a real life example of "the Hills Have Eyes" look up the Sawney Beane Clan in Scottland...just don't accept their dinner invitation.

 

[VirgilCaine]

That's one reason I don't like most horror movies. Monster movies, yes. Vampires, werewolves, graboids, giant insects, giant snakes..yes. But horror movies, no.

 

[Thin Black Line]

When the atomic mutants attacked the trailer, and the mother sat up with brain spurting out of her...

Ah, dang it, quit giving the "plot" away.

 

[1911JMB]

Jurrasic park and Alien Vs Predator are exactly the same way. My theory is, if a new action movie comes out, and James Cameron or John Milius weren't involved, I probably don't care. Although, I will give Zack Snyder half credit for Dawn of the Dead.

 

[M.E.Eldridge]

I saw the original in my teens along with Last House on the Left(which I thought was a useless gore-fest. Dont get me wrong, I have no problem with gorey movies, when ever there is some logical reason for the gore i.e. zombies ripping a corpse apart, cannibals axe-murdering someone, a soldier getting hit the leg with shell srapnel, etc.) and I really liked it.

I remeber watching a movie with my then girlfriend called Valentine or something similar. Towards the end when two victems are left one suggests they get her fathers handgun from the study, to which the other replied "that'll just get us killed." WTH? The slasher was weilding a knife, a power drill or an iron depending on the time in the movie.

 

[SB88LX]

Well if I ever decide to take the scenic route out west, ill have a few rifles, plenty of ammo with them, and a satellite phone. That and don't divide yourself in a wrecked-in-the-middle-of-nowhere scenario. My 2 cents...

 

[WinchesterAA]

Thanks for the heads up, I was gunna watch that movie today but given the review I think I'll pass.

 

[MadMercS55]

Just saw the movie 2 days ago. I've yet to see the original, but I didn't think this one was too bad. It is very similar to the movie "Wrong Turn" in alot of ways. The shoddy gun handling was bothersome, as are the normal bad decisions the characters make in such movies. I found it entertaining though. The semi-auto pistol in the movie was a Beretta Cougar (unknown caliber). Not sure what the revolver or shotgun was though.
Also saw House Of Wax on the same day. A CCW firearm in that movie would have solved things early on IMO as well.

 

[half elf]

My uncle was doing his thesis in the White Mountains on the CA/NV border back in the 70's and came down one weekend. We went to the drive in (For the younger crowd this waws a place where they showed movies outdoors)and saw the original. He recognized several locations and wasn't real keen about heading back up on Sunday, so I got to spend the rest of the summer cruising around in the mountains with him, but didn't get credit for the samples I lugged back.

 

[Ruger451]

Some spoilers so don't read if you don't want to know

Good call MadMercS55,

The boy's semi-auto was a Beretta Cougar, I picked that up when he was first handling it. I definitely agree with what you are saying about "standard hollywood procedure" concerning the poor use of firearms by the characters in the movie. But I didn't feel that it ruined the film, in fact, I really liked this movie.

What was stupid, and a little irritating for people like us, were the two scenes where the Dad is shooting in the dark and when the boy is running and shooting. I caught myself thinking, "Damnit Kid! Just stop and light him up!". And the Dad, if he was a detective or sheriff or whatever, he would have known better than to A.) unload his gun when he could not actually see his target, and B.) to get into the dark car without checking the freakin back seat.

But as far as this movie being "anti-gun", I didn't see it that way. Like others have said, if these characters could have just gunned down the first wave or two of mutants, it would have changed the premise of the film. And what about the empowering of the son-in-law/p#$$y with the shotgun?

However, we should just forget the part where he just drops the shotgun next to the "dead" bad guy. It's Hollywood, what are you gonna do?

 

[MatthewVanitas]

SPOILER ALERT (yes, too late for rest of thread)

Am I the only one who thought that the kid actually managed to connect several times when he shot Jupiter while running away?

I found that interesting, in that one doesn't usually see "failure to stop" in movies. But I suppose it was meant more to be a comment on the durability of Jupiter rather than a general reminder that a gun is not a magic death ray.

Surprised nobody mentioned the silliness of the mother being knocked off her feet and against the trailer wall when shot with the revolver. Interesting that the revolver launched her, yet two shots of 12ga just put two bloody patches into Mercury's chest before he collapsed on the cliff at the end.

@thefabulousfink: IRT the atomic issue: don't forget, the original movie also blamed Jupiter's psychoses on atomic testing when his mother was pregnant. Recall, the gas station attendant stated that the testing caused Jupiter to be born hairy and sociopathic. Then Jupiter kidnapped a prostitute and had a variety of deformed children. So the original was just as nuke-related as the new one, but I'd say the new one had a far better back story. Come to think of it, the new one was far more anti-Big Brother in that gov't agents destroyed a town of peaceable miners.

-MV

 

[cubanpimp]

this is fictional but real at the same time. When I lived in texas....

gas stations do look like the ones in the movies.
they are about 4 hours away from each other
your cellphone really does not work
there are really some sick people out there


If you breack down in the middle of the desert, you better pray someone nice stops to help you and not someone trying to rob you.
Those drives with out a gun are beyond stupid!

 

[M.E.Eldridge]

After mulling it over for a few minutes, the only horror movies that I remember that somewhat portray armed citizens as not being idiots were the Scream movies. In the first one the killers are shot by a reporter who got the gun from a wounded, in the second by a guy named Cotton and in the third by that wounded deputy from the first one(he was injured to badly to continue to be on the force).

 

[MD_Willington]

R.E. Original Hills have eyes.

Original movie had Michael Berryman in it, I met him at a Starbucks in Vancouver BC, turns out I did some construction work with a few guys that also knew him from his appearance on the X-Files set... Small world.

MD

 

[atek3]

I don't think the movie was anti gun at all. Honestly, most THR members are the cream of the gun owner crop. I don't find it unreasonable at all the a retired police officer and his son handled firearms in a very poor fashion. Sure I would have liked the dad not to be such an idiot, but hey, it was a horror movie. And seriously, these horror movie victims were far less stupid than those in many other movies. As for the Democrat turned pick axe wielder, I say "right on"!

atek3