User Reviews

This is a thriller about a young man (Leonardo Sparaglia) and a young woman (Maria Valverde) whose cars break down in the middle of a mountainous Spanish wilderness. They had bumped into each other briefly, so to speak, in a gasoline station rest room, but they're otherwise strangers. They are both lost.

They find themselves hunted by mysterious figures with rifles equipped with telescopic sights. And do those bullets make a racket on their arrival.

In Valverde's car they drive quickly away from the area where the bullets kept popping around them until they reach a dilapidated bar. The break in and Valverde is attending to Sparaglia's wound when two cops drive up, search them, and demand that they be taken to the scene of this so-called ambush. The two cops find the story believable but at a price.

Sparaglia and Valverde barely escape. Now without cars, they stumble through the damp woods and yellowed poplars, try to cross surging rivers, fall into pits, and do the usual things that pursued people in the wilderness do.

The movie is full of clichés. Let me mention a few without dwelling on them. (1) There are myriad close ups of sweating and terrified faces. (2) The camera wobbles as if it's had too many Anise del Monos. (3) Why did the fleeing couple decide to stop at a bar where it was obvious the hand of man had never set foot for at least twenty years? (4) When the two hostile cops accost the couple at the bar, why do they think the trembling couple are lying? Instead of asking if the couple had broken in, why didn't they ask to see Sparaglia's bleeding leg wound? (5) One glance at the cops and we know they are there for only two reasons -- to provide a sense of false hope and to be killed. (6) A cop is shot outside his car, within which the young couple of imprisoned, so why does he whirl about and aim his pistol at THEM? (7) Why did the two cops force the couple to take them back to the scene of the ambush in the first place? (8) When the second cop is popped, why don't they grab his pistol before scurrying off into the woods? (9) When escaping from a sniper, why not drive away in a car, even if it has a flat tire -- and to hell with the rim? (10) Why, when Valverde is trapped in a small pit and Sparaglia is out looking for a stick to pull her up with, and they both know that snipers are in the vicinity hunting them with a dog -- does she repeatedly shout his name at the top of her lungs? And what an unAmerican name it is -- "Quim." We can only be thankful than en Español it's pronounced "Keem." (11) The photography is in fashionable high contrast and draws colors from the ghoulish green area of the palette.

That gets the bad stuff pretty much out of the way. If the first two thirds of the film are exactly what you'd expect in this trashy genre, the same can't be said for the last third.

There is, for instance, no dead body that leaps back to life at an awkward moment, which is a refreshing change. I've been praying that, once dead, they stayed dead.

And -- I won't spoil this, but the heavies are not what you'd anticipate -- no skinheaded clowns in black leather with barbed wire tattoos across their chests. Nobody wearing a hockey mask or disguised as Karl Rove. Just a couple of empty headed refugees from a Middle School taking part in a kind of scavenger hunt in which everybody loses. And there are unexpected twists I won't get into.

The acting doesn't have to be particularly good in a movie that consists chiefly of people stumbling through the bushes or sneering at one another -- and it ISN'T particularly good -- but Sparaglia is believable as the young man scared spitless, and Valverde has great big moo cow eyes and an aquiline nose that falls just short of beautiful.

At the close, the hunting dog moseys up to the survivor and nuzzles him. I was glad to see that. There is nothing like the love of a good dog. I don't mean carnal love, of course, but fellowship, what the Greeks called "philia." A dog is a man's best friend. They're easy to read. You can tell when a dog likes you because he wags his tail, smiles, lets his tongue hang out, and drools. CATS never do that. Cats are too self contained. They're uncanny and know a lot more than they're letting on. If you and your cat traded sizes, your cat would eat you. Would your dog do that? No. No, your dog would not. Never trust a cat.

There's a lot of tension in this film, almost in spite of the stereotypes that are splashed all over the screen.

This minimalist Spanish thriller is yet another version of the age-old MOST DANGEROUS GAME story, yet filmed in such a way that it feels fresh and energetic despite the slimness of the plot. The Spanish have a way of taking the most simple elements of cinema - characters, a strong setting - and turning them into something often stylised and entertaining. KING OF THE HILL may not be up there in the ranks of REC and THE ORPHANAGE, but that doesn't stop it being a well made and beautifully shot little movie.

The story is simple. After an arresting sexual encounter in a public toilet, a man and a woman find themselves stranded in the wilderness and at the mercy of unknown marksmen who are hunting them with dogs and rifles. There's no more to it than that, and when a couple of disbelieving policemen turn up, you can instantly guess their fate. Even the identity of the killers is rather ho-hum given the recent successes of EDEN LAKE and THEM.

And yet still I found myself gripped by the unfolding events. That may be down to the lean, pared-down nature of the script or the genuine performances from the leading players - both Argentinian-born Leonardo Sbaraglia and his pretty sidekick, Maria Valverde, are fine at expressing stark terror at their impending doom. While I didn't agree with some of the plot twists that rob the movie of a single sympathetic character, I loved the bleak, beautifully-shot setting and the relentless nature of the action. Not a classic maybe, but still a serviceable outing.

Wow !!! I am still astonished by this superb flick. Very different from what we can see else where. We of course think of Severance, Deliverance, Open Season and some other movies released in theatres since some years; movies about human beings in face of the rude wilderness.

Spain usually gives us pretty good surprises; unfortunately, I do not remember all the titles...I am better comfortable with french, American and British cinema. Let's be fair, Spanish directors seem to be very free and inventive with what they want to shoot. No pressure from the producers.

What's very interesting in that feature is that it doesn't focus only on the lead characters but, after two third of the film, also on the hunters. And after seeing the film, we wonder, ask ourselves about the "bad guys". Very few things are explained. And that's entertaining, exciting at the most. This kind of film stays inside of you for a long while.

The only thing on what I could argue is about the wound of the "hero". At the beginning of the film, he is hit by a bullet at the thigh and near the end, he runs like a rabbit !!!

But if you forget it, it's really a great picture. Run for it!!!

Maria Valverde make for a sympathetic pairing, wisely the film doesn't stop to long to give them a relationship but they have a certain mild chemistry that makes their bond under adversity a compelling one. For around two thirds or so of its length King of The Hill is rather great, hardly earth shattering in its events or approach but sufficiently well handled that it really stands out, unfortunately it doesn't end the same way. Like most films of its mysterious ilk, there's a "big reveal" here, and it's deeply ill-advised, an attempt at sombre significance that flops hard. A turn in events that would be unlikely and fairly tricky to pull off even if it were a significant part of the film from the start, here the film expects us to just buy the plot turn and then continues in the same uncompromising vein as before. To say much about why it doesn't work would be going into spoiler territory and since other have enjoyed this much more than I and not been troubled by the finale I won't divulge events, but for me it was daft verging on laughable, it not only took all the wind out of the film's sails but also rather tainted what had gone before. A saddening turn of events, as I wanted to dig this one and it came close to being a winner, but I can only go by my final impression, which was one of disappointment. A 5/10 then, even though for a fair amount of the runtime this is more like a high 7.

Qim, on his way from A to B, has a knee-trembler in a service station toilet with a young woman who steals his wallet. Pursuing her into unknown, and fairly inhospitable countryside, he is shot be persons unknown, following which he ends up being hunted and on the run for his life.

This is not exactly unknown territory for a movie, albeit the characters usually have something by way of back story and motivation.

On one level this movie is quite successful - the action is suspenseful and fairly well done, the hunted are always convincingly in jeopardy, the landscape is against them as much as their assailants, and the characters are all well played.

On the other hand, the high concept is perhaps a bit too high - a bit more exposition would have helped, and a little more explanation as to what had happened, and why, at the end.

Low budget, decent enough concept, starts off well, occasionally well executed, good cast, great locations.

BUT... too thinly written, gets progressively more slow and tedious after the initial setup. Too many inexplicable scenes where the characters do stupid things (shouting & screaming, walking casually in an open clearing surrounded by hills when they should be trying to lay low). Then, amid much ponderous pacing, something will suddenly happen that isn't clear due to fast cutting or being off camera.

Actually quite liked the reveal of the kids at the climax. But I was so bored by this point that any development was welcome.

El Rey de la Montaña (known as King of the Hill amongst English speaking audiences) is set in Spain & starts as a man named Quim (Leonardo Sbaragalia) stops at a petrol station to fill up, there he meets a young girl named Bea (Maria Valverde). While in the toilets they have sex & Bea steals Quim's wallet, back on the open road deep in the Spanish countryside Quim sees Bea's car & decides to go after it but his car is shot at & he himself is shot in the leg by an unknown shooter. With no phone signal Quim cannot call for help, while driving along the shooter steps out in from of his car & Quim runs them down, Quim's car is shot to pieces & continues on foot where he finds Bea stranded with a puncture. They must work together to try & survive the continued onslaught as more shooters come after them, with no transport or food the odds seem stacked against them...

Not to be confused or anyway associated with the animated TV series King of the Hill this Spanish thriller was edited, co-written & directed by Gonzalo López-Gallego & feels like a backwoods brutality flick without the brutality. The basic set-up of some crazed killers shooting innocent people in some remote wooded location is fairly unoriginal King of the Hill doesn't strive for the excesses of the genre, the violence is minimal & there's no torture & next to no gore. The script mainly focuses on the survival of Quim & Bea, the script focuses on their struggle to overcome the odds in a harsh & unforgiving landscape while being hunted down like animals. The entire script is minimalist, we never find out either Quim or Bea's last names, what they do for a living, the precise details of why they were driving there in the first place or any significant personal information that might have fleshed them out a bit, I am sure many will like this but as a consequence I found it hard to like or relate to either of them & considered them not much more than cardboard cutouts. However, during these scenes where Quim & Bea are fighting for their lives & being hunted King of the Hill is a fairly effective thriller with a few tense set pieces & an unrelenting pace although it's not perfect, while Quim was handcuffed in the back of the police jeep why didn't the killers shoot him then? Did they not notice his hand & arm cuffed to the grill? Why didn't they shoot Bea when she went out to get the key for the cuffs from the dead cop? Then there's the ending, while some again might like it I found it rather silly. It seems two teenage boys are playing some sort of game, a game where everyone they kill they gets points & the one with the most points is the winner. Other than that there's no great reason behind it, we never know why these kids are playing such a game or who Quim ran down with his car. I quite liked King of the Hill as a tense little backwoods survivalist thriller while the focus was on Quim & Bea but as soon as the shooters are introduced it fell apart from & the obvious computer game references stood out a mile. Is that what King of the Hill is trying to say? That violent computer games turns kids into killers? That was the impression I was left with. Of course films such as King of the Hill are perfectly fine & it doesn't matter that they show young kids shooting people for fun as part of a game...

The final fifteen minutes switches the focus from Quim & Bea to the two killers & there are so many shots that replicate first person shooter games it gets silly, the classic one is the first person perspective shot with the gun in the bottom right hand corner of the screen pointed forward, or the reloading shot or the sniper shot seen through the telescope as they cover their backs & wander around like little soldiers. The violence & gore is minimal, a couple of people get shot & that's about it. In fact the body count is rather restrained too. The locations are suitably remote & harsh while the photography is very nice. Although the camera doesn't move that much director López-Gallego frames his shots very well with some striking imagery & makes use of the natural terrain.

The film certainly has nice production values & is well made but the locations used help a lot. Filmed in Spanish & subtitled in English the acting seems OK but you can never quite be sure what they are saying or how they are saying it.

King of the Hill is alright when it's a straight backwoods survivalist thriller but falls apart when it tries to say something, the computer game parallels may not be obvious to all but anyone who has ever played a first person shooter will notice them immediately. It has it's moments I suppose & is well made but overall I can't say I liked it that much.

In the first hour an exciting movie, cause you just don't know why things happen. Plus it's a classic horror theme - a man, a good looking woman and a police officer are caught accidentally in wild and lonesome hills. Somebody's shooting at them and they try to escape. But near the end (and with only one survivor left) the curtain drops and you see - some Kids trying Counterstrike with real guns and killing real people. Camera shows First-person-shooter-view (you see only the gun of an running person) so its obvious. The Kids also wrote down scoring points for shooting or killing people or animals. Very disappointing, I just get sick of this simple conclusion.

Great film. It has been released in France now, in Spanish of course with French subtitles, but that's OK because I speak some Spanish and read French well. It is just all very well done, very creepy. There are a few unexplained moments, like who turned on the big road machine? Who is it that shoots the man in the leg (do we see him or not--I have to see it again). Who is the man he runs down, and why did he point his rifle? Is it the same dog with him? Why are the police so weird? And finally, exactly what happened (earlier, before the film time) between the younger hunter and the woman? Whose car does she have? Well, these are just a few questions. Maybe the film deliberately doesn't answer them. There seems to be a spate of films where the bad guys are teenage boys (for example, Michael Haneke's Funny Games US, which I walked out of two-thirds of the way through because I just couldn't take any more--probably what MH was hoping for!) without consciences--sociopaths, I suppose, but blond seemingly innocent sociopaths. What does this say (aside from watch out for innocent-looking blond teenage boys)? Anyway, everything about the film is great: the acting, the setting, the camera work, the music, the kind-of sick satisfaction at the end. It really works. Bravo.

I thought this film was very good up until it is revealed that the sniper is a child with his brother who has a double barrelled shotgun out in the woods and mountains, playing a so called game called 'King Of The Hill'. If you weren't on the main character's side before, knowing now that the killers are a couple of stupid kids (the children are in no way menacing and i think the acting looks as if they should be, but couldn't quite do menacing as they are children) should have made you completely on his side by now.

I'm not saying that having kids as the killers wasn't an effective idea; as I had no idea it was going to be children, and indeed it worked a treat in my opinion. However, for me, this idea lead to a disastrous ending, with the film portraying a somewhat guilt filled, failed meaningful point from the main character's perspective that 'It's just a kid, I can't kill a child' (the struggling and biting child effectively pushes him to drown the boy), which seems to cross the main character's mind when he gets the upper hand on the child stalkers with guns. Here's the thing,If your entire day was being governed (to put it politely) by someone who was shooting at you (and who already shot you in the leg) regularly from a distance, pinning you down, killing your friend, randomly killing animals, effectively hunting you down into the ground; it's simply not conceivable that you would develop a conscience when you finally get to meet the one who was shooting at you.