|Page 1 of 27:||          |
|Index||269 reviews in total|
*** 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.
The plot is simple, a couple traveling on a dark and stormy night pick
up a man who was hitch hiking and soon find they should have passed him
The story has been often used but the immediate source for this telling is a film that starred Rutger Hauer as the title character. Hauer's John Rider managed to walk the fine line between insanity and reason as he upped the ante in everything he did in some twisted game that only he understood. In this remake Sean Bean is the psycho on the loose and its a wonderfully acted portrayal of a man on the edge of sanity. Unfortunately he's not very scary. Bean is somehow much to urbane to be frightening even as he's doing terrible things to people. He's simply to charming.
Whats worse are the people who pick him up. I hated them from the start and wanted some one-anyone-to kill them simply so I didn't have to spend anytime with them. Stupid and vacant they seemed less like people than the victims Bean kills. C Thomas Howell in the original may have been a bit of a twit, but I really felt sorry for him as Hauer turned his life into a living hell, here I felt they had it coming.
Different enough from the original to make comparisons pointless this film isn't very good on any level and really has no reason to be seen except for Sean Bean good, but nonthreatening villain
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Unlike many horror fanatics, I have nothing against the trend toward remakes of classic genre filmsthere 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 intensitythe 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 tacticsin 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 herethe 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 heretheir 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.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
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.
There is 1 good thing in this film Sophie Bush. Having watched the
original Hitcher with the legendary Rutger Hauer i always remember
thinking how creepy the guy was. He was a natural and also pretty much
unknown at the time. This remake however had nothing like the effect of
the original. Yes maybe because I know whats going to happen even
though there are some subtle differences but Sean Bean. I don't think
an actor that well known fits this part. The other annoying thing is
that no matter what happens to the kids in the film, Attacked, accused
of murder blah blah they still continue to their ultimate destination.
Any normal person would ring the police or turn around and go back...
Don't bother in my opinion
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
The original was highly enjoyable and Rutger Hauer had never been creepier.Jennifer Jason Leigh was memorable too,as she always is,even if she had limited screen time.In the remake they have sped everything up and added lots of more gore.The gore bit pleases all the bloodthirsty kids who usually shoot people's heads off in lame shoot-em-up video-games.More irritating still this one is shot like some long music video with totally out of place music.Sean Bean better watch out.Silent Hill was bad enough and he appeared in the ultra-silly Equilibrium as well.Now this.Fortunately the critics have given terrible reviews and this abysmal remake really deserves it.If you've seen the original don't EVER watch this remake.Learn this.Remakes are in 9 out of 10 cases a lot worse than the originals.Only remakes that are superior that come to mind is "the Fly" and "the Thing".
Look I am sorry but this movie was not a patch on the first. OK it was nice to have a little role reversal... but make a different film. The first Hitcher drew its intensity from the aloneness of travelling those massive highways in an attempt to get to your destination without stopping. And to the acting of C Thomas and Rutger although I did think that Sean did a good job I definitely thought that the first had more skin crawling moments. In the first I liked the relationship between the waitress and C Thomas, which couldn't be replayed between the charming and loving couple, which had its own watchable relationship but not the point. The isolation gave it far more drama. So three thumbs down to Hollywood remakes. This was not as bad or as bland as some but still up there on the annoying metre. Sorry guys seek more original roles next time 'cos your acting was good, just chose the wrong way to launch your career. And to Mr Bean great work well done! But don't fall victim to this again.
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',
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.
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.
Look, I am a horror buff and I usually will watch just about any horror
However, this remake stuff has really got to stop. This was yet another typical remake trash fest. Top 40 music songs spliced into the sound track, WB quality acting and actors, and of course bad writing. It is disgusting that these hack Hollywood writers can not come up with anything original. All these chumps can do is steal a premise that worked once 20 years ago and still find a way to destroy it. The writer of this filth, Jake Wade Wall, is a no talent hack that must have sold his soul to the devil to get gainfully employed. This bum also destroyed another classic horror movie called When a Stranger Calls.
Regardless, I believe that this horror remake craze has peaked judging by the ever diminishing box office returns for these movies. Since both the Dawn of the Dead and Texas Chainsaw Massacre remakes, each one of these movies has been doing poorer and poorer (can anyone say the Fog or Black Christmas).
|Page 1 of 27:||          |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||Newsgroup reviews||External reviews|
|Parents Guide||Official site||Plot keywords|
|Main details||Your user reviews||Your vote history|