Writer and director Wes Craven has brought something new to the horror genre every decade he's worked, solidifying his name as one of the "Masters of Horror." In the '70s, he made the gritty exploitation film "Last House on the Left." During the '80s, he brought us the tongue-in-cheek horror of "A Nightmare on Elm Street." And in the '90s, Craven developed the hugely successful satirical horror trilogy "Scream." But despite his previous successes as a horror director, the '00s have not fared well for Craven. Aside from the decent "Red Eye," Craven has had nothing but terrible films attached to his name, such as "Pulse" and "Cursed." Even with his son Jonathan at his side, Craven's latest screenwriting venture does little to boost his current horror image. As promising as it sounds for the father-son team to right the wrongs of the 2006 remake of Craven's cult classic "The Hills Have Eyes" by writing the follow-up, the results are again not up to par. Both Cravens stated in a recent conference call that working together on "The Hills Have Eyes II" was "great" and "exciting," but their product feels as though the two writers had little contact while writing a film neither of them particularly cared about — hardly the kind of cohesive movie a father and son tag-team should write. In the same interview, both of the writers claimed the film was a "fresh and original story," but yet again it turns out this is hardly the case. The Cravens continue the trend of tying several gore-ific events together with a bare-bones plot resembling what's found in every other horror movie playing in theatres. Even with a man known for his twisted and witty dialogue-writing at the helm, the discourse is nothing but standard schlock, stilted and laughable. Perhaps it was the inexperienced Jonathan Craven who brought the script down a notch. Maybe the horror director gene skips a generation. Jonathan admitted during the interview he was "never one for Halloween." What kind of horror aficionado doesn't love Halloween? While the dialogue leaves much to be desired, the character development, or lack thereof, is the more obvious cinematic downfall. Instead of creating distinct characters, the Cravens assemble a dull, predictable cast the audience is only able to distinguish based on superficial attributes and stereotypes, i.e. "the big fat dude," "the dumb Hispanic guy," etc. The inbred mutants stalking them have more character definition, though not by much. As wooden as the dialogue is, the acting is worse; the stiff actors do as little as possible to add to their characters. The cast is full of no-names and vaguely familiar F-list TV stars who do nothing to disprove their lack of talent to the point that it's downright annoying to watch. Never have characters' deaths been so satisfying. While the first "The Hills Have Eyes" followed a family into Sector 16, an old nuclear testing region in New Mexico, the follow-up finds a group of National Guard soldiers on a military exercise in the same area. Unfortunately for them, Sector 16 is home to a family of inbred mutants who have a taste for human flesh, which they need for procreation. Two characters emerge as the protagonists of the story: Napoli "Napoleon" (Michael McMillian), the reluctant boy-like hero, and Amber (Jessica Stroup), the token "dumb-but-sweet" horror-movie chick. These two lead the way in the fight for survival. The somewhat amusing fights are few and far between, even given the compact hour and a half-long film, resulting in a boring waste of time. In an attempt to elevate "The Hills Have Eyes II" above every other horror film that has come out in recently, the Cravens try to somehow critique the current conflict in Iraq. While Wes said they "never set out to exploit the war … and the film isn't meant to be political," the parallels are unmistakable: An unprepared group of military personnel is sent to a place where it is not welcome and attacked by unseen enemies. The National Guard soldiers were even shown on a practice mission in a fake Afghanistan, complete with a fake suicide bomber. But if real soldiers were as dumb as these ones, the war in Iraq would probably be worse than it already is. The Cravens even go as far as to suggest there are problems internally that are more terrifying than the current situation in the Middle East. Unfortunately, these ideas are undeveloped, and at times contradictory. When the subtext fails to raise the film above horror clichés, it relies on copycatting successful horror movies, and many of the scenes show a noticeable similarity to the modern horror classic "The Descent." But "The Hills Have Eyes II" comes nowhere close to capturing the excitement, tension or even the claustrophobia of that great film, which is perhaps a good thing, so that it doesn't tarnish its good name. The Craven writing team doesn't deserve all the blame for the issue-plagued film; the film shows an evident lack of a stylistic approach on the director's side as well. While the original "The Hills Have Eyes" had a gritty aesthetic, and the 2006 remake succeeded with a highly stylized feel, the follow-up lacks both. Director Martin Weisz phones in his job, allowing the film to fall in between the gritty original and stylized remake, and into a vast wasteland of boring, directionless meandering. As tempting as it sounds to kill an hour and a half watching a movie that promises thrills, chills and a lot of kills, it hardly fulfills any promise of entertainment. Even for hardcore fans of the genre who are satisfied by most anything with a lot of gore will find this film an underwhelming failure. Perhaps what's worst of all is that "The Hills Have Eyes II" sprang from the mind of one of film's horror masters, who even at his worst can still produce different and mildly entertaining schlock. It's far more worthwhile to go to the video store and relive Craven's glory days. Grade: 1 out of 5