People say that the first part was a great classic, and that the sequel was bad. Well, they are idiots! <br /><br />The first film was a piece of excrement, with flies on it and all, and the sequel should not even be described using words because no language has words bad enough to describe it. Can I call a film a "son of a bitch" or a "bloody idiot"? No? Then let me refrain from describing it till it becomes possible to just call a movie a "damn bastard".<br /><br />I won't go into stuff that others have already mentioned, save one: Behold: The dog had a flashback!! This is so groundbreaking stupid I think every single review should repeat it. The bloody dog had a bloody flashback. How stoned a writer has to be to think of such an idiotic thing?<br /><br />I'll jump over the laughable effects, colourless blood, and beaten to decomposition (not just beaten to death) clichés, and go straight to how annoying the flashbacks from the first movie were. I don't think I've ever seen a sequel that had as much content from the first movie. I was not clocking, but I know that if you take out those flashbacks, the film would be MUCH shorter.<br /><br />Let me finally speak of nudity. Films have different kinds of nudity, it might be essential (Malèna), it might be casual (Godfather), artistic (Manderlay), or exploitive (Basic Instinct). But nudity in The Hills Have Eyes 2 does not fall into any of these categories. Actually it needs a whole new category called something like "nudity that makes straight men go gay"!! It looked as if they approached the cheapest and most worthless actress and paid her an extra $50 to bare her ugly breasts when no such thing was due, needed, or fitting at all.<br /><br />Pure cinematic abomination.