Watch it at Amazon
48 out of 69 people found the following review useful: This film was absolutely ridiculous, atrocious, annoying, 30 March 2007 Author: amazinggrayling from Taiwan
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Lots of like-minded responses here. This film was asinine.The plot holes weren't just unbelievably silly. They were incredibly annoying. I registered just to come here and whinge about this pathetic film.By the end of the film, you're GLAD those two stupid college kids are being tortured by the hitcher.Why would you make yourself known in a dark basement/jail if you couldn't see the psychotic killer by yelling out nonstop - revealing your location - AND telling them you have a gun? Why would you be so stupid and selfish as to hide out in the toilet - where there are three sane people right outside who look strong enough physically to help you - when the whole point of you running into the diner is to call 911 (not just to order someone who obviously thinks you're crazy to call 911) and get an ambulance for the guy dying outside? Instead, you waste all your time getting PAPER TOWELS - which, yeah, are really going to help?!!! And if your boyfriend was in mortal danger of literally being pulled in half and you have a gun in your hand, why don't you just try and shoot him free or shoot at the wheels/engine of the truck? And to leave the experienced cop stuck to the car after an accident, without a gun, well exposed to the crazy dude when you're pretty crappy at using guns yourself to try and kill the bad guy is just unbelievably annoying. Other situations where the dumbest college kids on earth just endanger other people, especially members of the police by not communicating properly with them, and turn the audience against them.Many other similar plot holes that will drive you crazy. The female lead was written so badly. She was tragically annoying.Sean Bean can do so much better.
51 out of 81 people found the following review useful: Stupid Stupid Movie, 23 January 2007 Author: phantomemail from nairobi kenya
Need I say more? The first one was actually decent. Now are we going to remake a movie every 20 years and throw CG at them? How about working on the script, story, and believability? I stopped counting all the ridiculousness of this movie. But here's a few examples. Heading east on a highway to Houston, then in New Mexico, then north to Lake Havasu. Get an atlas! The 442 odometer kept showing 15509 every time it was shown, even after driving many miles. The struggle for the motel bathroom door, are you kidding me? She's holding him out, then when the door closes it's evident there's no lock on the inside, he can come right on in? The LT says he's going to take her to a Trauma Center in Albuquerque then parades the bad guy right in front of her, like that's not piling on the trauma? The Bible spouting family doesn't pull over when they fly off the cliff? She doesn't want to initially go back and pick up the hitcher, but later after they kill someone she wants to go back to them? Where does it end? There is no backstory on why he is the way he is, it's just random scenes with absolutely no rhyme or reason. Like I said, throw CG at the mess and hope people like it. It's an easy substitute for coherent storywriting, plausibility, and sense. Not even worth your time if they paid you to see it. Makes FD3 look like a masterpiece.
67 out of 113 people found the following review useful: A wild ride, 21 January 2007 Author: guyfromjerzee from United States
So it's no masterpiece. I wasn't expecting one. As a good ol' blood-and-guts horror/thriller, it delivers. I will say is that it's not for the faint of heart, though. This is definitely a gruesome flick, even for today's standards. I was pretty close to the edge of my seat throughout 80 % of the film--so I'd say the film did its job. And watching Sophia Bush (from "John Tucker Must Die") run around in short skirts and tops made the film even more fun to watch. I do have a few mild criticisms. There are some clichéd scenes, like the main characters getting arrested and being taken to one of those precincts that only exist in movies. Only about three people are on staff, making it convenient for the killer to stroll inside, murder the officers in cold blood, and track his prey. Sean Bean plays the villain/title character. Sean's a significantly talented character actor, who most people probably recognize by face, rather than by name. This could've been a much more juicy role for him, but he's not given much to do. His performance consists of sneering and delivering sadistic one-liners in a monotone. I blame this more on his character being underwritten, rather than the actor himself. He has proved in movies like "Goldeneye" that he's capable of playing villains with much more depth. On the other hand, character actor Neal McDonough is given a pretty juicy role as the somewhat sympathetic sheriff. "The Hitcher" is not a film that will go down in history, but if you want to kill an hour and 30 minutes with a kick-a** popcorn flick, it's definitely worth watching.
60 out of 103 people found the following review useful: see the original if you don't mind "older" movies (its not even that old), 18 January 2007 Author: hark2oo2 from United States
I just saw this at a preview screening, and I liked it. I think that if you haven't seen the original and have something against older looking movies then you will definitely enjoy this. On the other hand, I prefer the original and felt like society's money would be better spent actually purchasing the original on DVD (its cheap) then seeing this. That would be a great F YOU to Hollywood! Another idea would be for movie theatres to show the original movie for a little less price and see what kind of results they get.The movie itself is plenty intense, a decent amount of "boo scares", quick pace, attractive leads, decent acting (for the most part). Compared to the rest of the movies being released these days, I would say this is definitely above par. The only thing that I can't get over is how much alike the original it was.There are a couple differences (the girlfriend, and a few others) that didn't really add anything to the movie at all, and even with those differences (which you would think could actually change the movie a lot) a lot of scenes are almost shot for shot the same. Acting wise, I think the main male actor faired a little better than c thomas howell... and i like sean bean a lot, but unfortunately he seemed to be doing a rutger haurer impression the whole time (dunno if that was his choice, or the filmmakers) Sophia Bush, as attractive as she is... did not impress me very much acting wise, but she wasn't horrible either.All in all, I give this a 7, and I would personally give the original an 8.5. This one did some things better than the original, i think the original was more intense without feeling as "forced" as this one does (the level of brutality in movies feels pretty forced lately, you may understand what i mean, you may not) I honestly think that Hollywood could make some money if they would retouch some old movies and re-release them, and advertise them correctly.
31 out of 48 people found the following review useful: "The Hitcher" – A Ride into Familiar Territory, 20 January 2007 Author: frankwhat from Lakewood, NJ
Another horror remake? No real surprise there. However what did catch me off guard was this one was actually halfway decent. While it didn't offer anything new, as it basically was a hash between the original and the straight to video sequel, the movie as a whole was good especially when compared to the garbage remakes we've been bombarded with these past few years. But considering the original wasn't all that great of a film technically speaking, then it'd be impossible to really consider this in that caliber either. It is safe to say though that "The Hitcher" accomplished what it set out for.The plot is utterly unbelievable but if you can let that go it's enjoyable. The acting is appropriate and Sean Bean was great. While I did wind up preferring Rutger Hauer, it was mainly due to the dark sense of humor he added to his character. Another difference between the two was Sean came across as detached and suicidal, while Rutger was the more cunning and evil nemesis…almost like an alter ego of the protagonist. Nevertheless, Sean was thoroughly able to creep the hell out of me with great success and achieved it with more subtlety. Sophia Bush was really good and to call her a sight for sore eyes in this would be an understatement. Neal McDonough as always played his typical supporting role with ease, despite being slighted with very little screen time. This was the first time I've watched Zachary Knighton on the big screen and he came through perfectly as an everyday real-looking college guy. For what this flick was, there surprisingly wasn't any really bad acting as usual. In fact even the 1986 version had many moments of straight cheese. So praise is in order for the cast without a doubt. That is if the characters themselves were written in better, as enough depth wasn't provided for them that made the audience actually want to care about anyone in particular.One odd thing I noticed that while there were many scenes which were exactly the same as its predecessors, about three of the more important ones from the first installment weren't incorporated, and did add a strike against it. As for the gore factor, it was certainly bumped up a notch…even to a horror level at some points and did show an incredible amount of violence. Another factor that made the original work slightly better was its cooler back-story. The role reversal in this one actually worked against it in the end, as it didn't make as much sense and took away from the overall storyline.As far as thrills go it was sufficient in this regard and had a lot of parts that made the viewer jump – however nothing too shocking. My personal favorite scene was the car chase since it utilized the perfect blend of cinematography, music, and action. Other factors that this movie had going for it was there wasn't much downtime. Even the slower parts didn't get boring. This was mainly due to the overall short length of the film in general but can also be attributed to excellent pacing. The blend of genres alternating between thriller, horror, and action was also carried out very effectively. That and the ending does provide the desired level of gratification. But that's about where the praise stops.If you want to be swept away or completely engulfed into extravagant cinema then this isn't what you're looking for. If you're looking for an okay experience as far as remakes go then you probably won't go wrong with this. True fans of the original will doubtfully be enthralled by this rendition though and I'd advise them to steer clear as nothing worthwhile is added in any sense. Ultimately Sophia Bush learns to never slow down again for any hitchhikers, but this is one time that in the end, it was worthwhile for me to stop for…just this once.
45 out of 77 people found the following review useful: One of the Better Remakes Out There, Still Prefer The Original Though., 28 January 2007 Author: youshotandywarhol from Oregon
The horror industry has had quite a big boom in the past five years or so, and most of the horror films you see today are remakes of older films. Some of them are really good, some of them are atrocious - but "The Hitcher" is one of the better remakes I've seen. This movie focuses on Grace (Sophia Bush) and Jim (Zachary Knighton), who are on a road trip during spring break. While driving one stormy night in the desert, they almost hit a man who is having car trouble, but speed off in fear. Later that night, they meet the man who they almost hit at a gas station, and end up offering him a ride to the nearest motel. Little do they know, the man who calls himself John Ryder (Sean Bean), is a maniac, and ends up pulling a knife on the couple. They manage to escape at the time, but the following day they are terrorized by the murderous hitchhiker along the highway, and become framed for a series of killings that he has been committing.Barely twenty years old, the original "Hitcher" was a great horror movie that wasn't really in need of a remake - but most of the horror films that are remade aren't in need of it either, so I suppose that's irrelevant. I'm glad I saw the original film (just days) before I went to see this remake, because it was interesting to compare the similarities and differences between the two. In some instances, this remake pulls things right out of the 1986 film, but also reworks the story and adds and removes certain elements. The reworking of the plot here is done really well - it stays faithful to the original movie while making it something of it's own as well, and I was happy with the way that everything was done in the writing department. There was plenty of action and some great scare moments, so people with short attention spans (which is probably the majority of this film's primary audience) will never get "bored" or find themselves unenlightened. The action and kills were very well executed though and the gore factor is brought up a few notches from the original, but doesn't go overboard. The classic chase sequence from the 1986 film is done here very well and is just as (if not more) exciting than the sequence was in the original. I have to admit, some of the action sequences were a little far-fetched, but the same goes for the original film too, so I can't criticize that. The cast wasn't bad. Granted, some of the acting was a little underdeveloped, but all in all the performances weren't bad. Sophia Bush plays the heroine, Grace, and while she doesn't give a great performance, she's likable enough to hold up her role and keep the audience sympathizing with her. Zachary Knighton plays her boyfriend, Jim (who is a variation of the original movie's hero), and is very good. Sean Bean probably gives the best performance though, playing the menacing John Ryder very well. He has the perfect look for the role, plus he's a good actor. I thought it would be hard to live up to Rutger Hauer's great performance, but I was surprised at how well it was done. Overall, "The Hitcher" is one of the better remakes out there. It could have been better, but not by a whole lot. It doesn't live up to the original film, but I wasn't expecting it to so I was pleasantly surprised with the way this film turned out. If you're a fan of the original, you may or may not want to see this, but I can say that I really liked the original myself and thought that this was an above-average remake. 7/10.
86 out of 160 people found the following review useful: I was floored, 19 January 2007 Author: hungryyaweh-1 from United States
I almost didn't go and see this due to my standing semi-boycott of remakes, but I was happily surprised by this film. I really wanted it to be a bloody scary mess, and I knew Sean Bean had it in him to be a great bad guy, and I thought Sophia Bush could make a great protagonist. I was glad I was right on all counts, Sean was great, he pulled of the nice stranger /psycho switch really well, and without any cheesy theatrics, and he played really well off of Sophia Bush, who was really easy to empathize with given the great job Sean was doing of being scary as hell. Over all, a fun movie experience, I'll recommend it to friends and probably pick up the DVD.
12 out of 18 people found the following review useful: I just hope Rutger Hauer will not watch this!!, 5 February 2007 Author: CinemaLov from Canada
Unlike many horror fanatics, I have nothing against the trend toward remakes of classic genre films—there are cover songs, so why not cover movies? But the 2007 embalming of Robert Harmon's 1986 masterpiece The Hitcher is the kind of mechanical exercise that gives not only remakes but horror in general a bad name. Witless and pointless, it's compelling only as a lesson in the importance of style when it comes to scaring an audience. Though the plot is close enough to the 1986 version to earn a screen credit for that film's scriptwriter, Eric Red, the execution is so botched that what was terrifying in Harmon's film becomes coma-inducing in the remake. Like the 1986 version, the new Hitcher tells the story of a young couple relentlessly pursued by an unstoppable, completely psychotic killer who frames his prey for murders he commits. The key difference is that in the original movie the love interest, played by Jennifer Jason Leigh, didn't come into the story until late; a significant chunk of the storyline was devoted to a cat-and-mouse game between two characters, Rutger Hauer's chilling hitcher, and hapless victim C. Thomas Howell. In the new movie, the heroes are an item right from the start: college lovers Sophia Bush and Zachary Knighton hit the road, and after some random babbling that's evidently supposed to pass for character development, they find themselves the targets of the psycho hitcher, played by Sean Bean. What follows is essentially a feature-length chase, as the kids have to evade the murderer as well as the authorities after the hitcher, in a hilariously implausible chain of events, makes it look as though they are responsible for his bloody crimes. The Hitcher is directed by Dave Meyers, a veteran of music videos, who is to plot and character what airline workers are to luggage. He excels in individual moments, like an energetic opening-credits sequence and some well-timed bursts of violence, but when it comes to connecting these moments into any kind of involving drama, Meyers and his collaborators don't seem to have the faintest idea what they're doing. Even though the film is practically all action, it has no momentum or intensity—the set pieces don't build, they just pile up on top of each other. There's no terror because there's no emotional connection to the characters; the noir-ish doppelganger relationship between Hauer and Howell in the original has been completely stripped from the narrative, and the lack of psychological subtext makes Bean silly rather than threatening. Though the movie is superficially faster paced than the original, it seems longer because there are no strong characterizations to anchor the action. It doesn't help that Meyers has one lone weapon in his arsenal of scare tactics—in the place of suspense, he provides scene after scene in which the volume goes down really, really low before someone jumps out with a loud "BOOM!": This isn't film-making, it's shock treatment. The director also has no apparent understanding of what made the original film scary. Whereas Harmon mounted Eric Red's audacious screenplay as a sort of hallucinatory nightmare, Meyers shoots the same action as though he's directing a beer commercial. There's no sense of poetry in his images, and the result is that a villain who came across as a supernatural force of evil personified in the 1986 film just seems silly here—the plot is absurd, so to play it on a level of literal reality as Meyers does is a choice that defies common sense. The decision to turn the movie into a sort of teen romance is equally mystifying given how few dividends the love story yields. Bush and Knighton are appealing screen presences, but they have nothing to do here—their relationship has no definition or depth, and when the movie hinges on one of the lovers avenging the other, the violence seems uninspired and gimmicky because it isn't an extension of any internal tension. I realize, especially for its target audience, that complaining about the lack of substance in The Hitcher is a little like complaining about the lack of musical numbers in The Hills Have Eyes. But The Hitcher doesn't offer even the most basic payoffs of its formula. The action sequences are so slick and impersonal that when a key character is torn to pieces it has all the emotional impact of a grapefruit being squashed on screen, and so little actually happens in the movie that when the end credits start to roll it's a little shocking. As I watched the final fadeout, I was still waiting for the movie to begin.
45 out of 85 people found the following review useful: Not worth picking up..., 29 January 2007 Author: thismysterylife from United States
Maybe, my expectations of this film were set too high. Frankly, I pondered why anyone would want to re-make what many genre fans (and movie buffs in general) already consider to be a cult-classic. Didn't anyone learn a thing about what usually happens to those who try to reinvent a classic (i.e. the poorly attempted re-make of 'Psycho', anyone?).For those of you whom have seen the original 1986 'Hitcher', it is best to leave your experience to that. The characters in this 2007 version barely conjure up a heartbeat, much-less able to hold the viewers attention for more than a few mere minutes at a time! That is not to say that the lack of dramatic affect is due solely to sub-par actors. It's complacency and sterileness is mostly due to a lack of vision and direction, rather than for a lack of competency on any of the actors behalf. Also, severely lacking is the film's score, which was a haunting staple in the original version, but which is barely of notice in this version.Did the 'Hitcher' require a reattempting? The answer is clear: No. The producer's of this film also produced the 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre' reduxs and while those films were successful both artistically as well in terms of box office dollars, their attempt here is quite unsuccessful at attempting to recreate the nerve-pounding suspense that only the original appears to be able to offer.Do not slow down. Drive past this one and don't even bother taking a second glance.
5 out of 7 people found the following review useful: Too violent remake full of action and grisly killings, 16 February 2009 Author: ma-cortes from Santander Spain
This high-budget(produced by great producer-director Michael Bay) new version about the classic horror film deals about a young couple(a gorgeous Sophia Bush and Zachary Knighton) driving on a rural highway along barren landscapes. They pick up a hitchhiker(with decent acting by Sean Bean in the role of Rutger Hauer)with diabolic plans, and he results out to be a psycho.The sadistic serial killer terrorizes them while killing several people and framing them for his murders. The hitcher sets up machinations and the cops(Neal McDonough)won't believe them.In this big budgeted version is showed on screen overwhelming car crashes, breathtaking pursuits, kinetic action scenes, unflinching terror and extreme violence .The film is told with nimble edition and fast pace .There are some noisy scenes with gunfire and blowing up and also the pleasantly visual look is quite nice. Moving and thrilling musical score by Steve Jablonsky. Colorful and atmospheric cinematography by cameraman James Hawkinson. The tale is professionally directed by Dave Meyers, though with no originality. Not without interest, however is obvious needless thriller is justly a spectacular remake inferior to predecessor.The film transpires frenetic action, and sadism that will leave you emotionally and psychically affected.The previous films were the original, the superior ¨Hitcher¨(1986)directed by Roger Harmon with C. Thomas Howell,Jeffrey DeMoon and Rutger Hauer, ¨The hitcher II: I've been waiting¨(2003)with Thomas Howell, Jake Busey and Kari Wuher( in similar role to Sophie Bush).
Add another review
