The rhythm of the film is tight, and the audience has a strong sense of substitution, but some parts are still unacceptable. Of course, it is also a common problem in many horror films: for
example, the boy Bobby, who experienced his father being burned to death, his mother and sister being shot, and his mentality adjusted. All day, the little man who took a pistol and took firm footwork all the way decided to fight with the savages and grabbed his mother's body. When he saw the ogre eating his mother's body, he stumbled and ran away! ! ! And waste all the ammo along the way! I also expect you to calmly lift a gun and shoot your head, okay? Are you still afraid of your ass? And the monster's hands are tied to the window at the back, and he hasn't rushed out to catch anything and stab her on the body, and how far is he running to wait for the monster to break free from the rope and open the door to blow himself up... It's rare that the monster cooperates so well. ...I think there is a dagger fighting tutorial that says it well - no matter what kind of damage you take, don't turn it into fear, it must be turned into anger.
Brother-in-law Doug, too, even brought a bat to the enemy camp alone! Who do you think you are? Seeing the big-brained trash can't do it, but American movies are like this. Maybe people have a stronger legal concept, and good people never take the initiative. In fact, in this kind of life-and-death battle, how can there be any right or wrong? If there is, survival is the right thing to do, and all those that may pose a threat to survival will be eliminated.
It was so easy to find the child, but I was lucky enough to think that I could hold the child secretly and walk away! Why didn't the fat man slap him to death while watching TV with his back to you? Can the child be silent? When you encounter an enemy, are you going to fight with your child in your arms or use your child as a weapon? Of course, the surrounding enemies should be cleaned up. Even if the child is killed in the process, there is no way. In the war, the first priority should be to avenge the relatives even if the relatives are killed, rather than die together with the relatives.
It's inevitable that the villain will rush in with a pickaxe, but when the brave dog pounces on his opponent and bites his opponent, why not rush up and do the pervert with his bare hands and leave the dog behind and run into the house with a bathtub. Block the door? Waiting for the enemy to kill the dog and then calmly catch the turtle?
It's easy to stab the enemy's stomach with a half stick, but can't you stir it hard? Can't you quickly pull it out, plug it in, pull it out, and plug it in until the other party's heartbeat stops? Of course, this is also one of the stereotypes of horror movies - after the good guy knocks down the bad guy, he never makes up for a few kills, but hesitates or runs away to make the bad guy stand up again.
When Doug killed the last bad guy, he even went over to pull a fart, and swiftly lifted his gun and blasted his head off, wouldn't it be more practical than anything else? As a result, Little Red Riding Hood was killed.
Sigh... not to mention, I always feel that a perfect horror film must be a good person. Even if you are brave and calm and fight back, you can't escape bad luck, instead of just screaming, crying, and panicking. It's too easy to be a bad person. Only then can the audience despair rather than regret. So although this movie is not bad, I personally don't think it can be counted as the best one.
View more about The Hills Have Eyes reviews
