IMDb > The Hitcher (2007) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
The Hitcher
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
The Hitcher More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 28:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
Index 271 reviews in total 

68 out of 101 people found the following review useful:

This film was absolutely ridiculous, atrocious, annoying

Author: amazinggrayling from Taiwan
30 March 2007

*** 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

38 out of 50 people found the following review useful:

Even if you don't compare it to the original this isn't a very good movie

Author: dbborroughs from Glen Cove, New York
10 February 2007

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 by.

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

Was the above review useful to you?

32 out of 42 people found the following review useful:

I just hope Rutger Hauer will not watch this!!

Author: Cinema_Love from Canada
5 February 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

59 out of 96 people found the following review useful:

Stupid Stupid Movie

Author: phantomemail from nairobi kenya
23 January 2007

*** 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

27 out of 33 people found the following review useful:

Totally Awful Remake

Author: Gezzerboy from London
3 May 2007

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... DOH !!!!

Don't bother in my opinion

Was the above review useful to you?

26 out of 34 people found the following review useful:

Enough with bad remakes already!

Author: ColinChapman
21 January 2007

*** 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".

Was the above review useful to you?

19 out of 21 people found the following review useful:

Stranger danger

Author: Cemetarygirl from Australia
30 June 2007

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

68 out of 119 people found the following review useful:

Not worth picking up...

Author: thismysterylife from United States
29 January 2007

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

71 out of 126 people found the following review useful:

see the original if you don't mind "older" movies (its not even that old)

Author: hark2oo2 from United States
18 January 2007

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

30 out of 45 people found the following review useful:

A lackluster remake that had everything from the first without the heart.

Author: razorgod-1 from Canada
18 January 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The 1986 version of the Hitcher is still among my favorite road movies and in this case yet another misguided attempt at a remake. Both movies feature John Rider fishing for a ride and torturing the feature characters through and intricate series of frame-ups. The major elements from the '86 original are all still in tact here from (SPOILER---STOP HERE IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE ORIGINAL FILM—SPOILER) picking up the Hitcher, kicking him out the door, killing an innocent family, killing cops, and tearing a featured character in half with a semi-truck. Really the only change is in the Jim Halsey character (Zachary Knighton for 2007 and C. Thomas Howell for the '86 version) with Jim driving out with his girlfriend for spring break rather than driving someone else's car from Chicago to San Diego. This may seem like a minor change but in fact changes the film quite a bit and not for the better.

With many remakes it becomes quite clear the filmmakers don't really understand the depth of the original material and would rather just regurgitate plot for the sake of a quick buck. In both films Jim is a highly moral character and it is the stature of his character that originally motivates him to pick up the Hitcher. Grace (Sophia Bush) acts as a little devil on Jim's shoulder; she's not a bad character, just selfish and fearful. One wonders in a world more controlled or motivated by fear if she wasn't the more easily associated to character rather than highly moral character like Jim. This may be why there is the major shift at the end of the film with (ANOTHER SPOILER YOU'VE BEEN WARNED) death of Jim in the Semi truck scene.

This dramatic shift also takes away from John Rider's character and motivations. In the original (MORE SPOILERS IN FACT CONSIDER THIS HOLE REVIEW A SPOILER AND SAVE SOME TIME) Jim inadvertently draws Nash (Jennifer Jason Leigh) into John's machinations and gets romantically involved with her along his arduous journey and meets her demise in the semi truck scene. Every intricate puzzle piece is laid by the Hitcher to darken Jim's character. To make Jim just like him theoretically so that he can leave a bit of himself behind and finally die. The motivations of John Rider may never been known but it was the depth of Rutger Hauer's pathos that drove the Hitcher character making him seem far more complex than it probably appeared on paper. Credit is due Robert Harmon for his direction in the 1986 version. Unfortunately this complexity is lacking in Sean Bean's version of the character who seems to be doing it for kicks more than anything else. Sure he has a death wish but he doesn't seem to be to broken up about it. In fact he seems to want to have his fun before he goes and hopes Grace will see it his way when she finally kills him. He only seems upset when she doesn't. There are no major turns to Grace's character as there were to Jim's in the original and you really just want to slap her most of the time for being such a selfish bitch. Oh well, who needs emotional character building or deconstructing anyway? The film itself just rushes from one remake version of an old scene to the next without really showing us anything new. It is just bigger and shinier. There are some editing glitches at the beginning and the old magically repairing window that plagues so many other movies. We could sure save a lot on window repairs or replacements if we had those movie versions. Scrapes, cracks, smashes and even bullet holes magically disappear, it is only when the entire window is smashed away that its done for. Please put these magic windows on the market if nothing else to save us paying our deductible and having our insurance payments go up. Magic window aside there are a few nice nods to the original with some of the old vehicles showing up in the new version, come on you got to love the old black T-Bird.

All in all this is an OK film, but with everything that made the first film work missing, the audience really doesn't have anything to latch on to or care about. I think a complete rethinking of the original concept would have been worth it rather than a close remake and Sean Bean's natural accent probably would have added to the mystique of John Rider. Never ever have an actor cover up his accent; it just gives him more to act through. With the small amount of dialog you wonder why they even bothered to have him cover it up. On the upside the trailer for Simon Pegg's new film Hot Fuzz ran with the film and looks just as funny as Shaun of the Dead. There's your silver lining, but silver really isn't all that expensive so take it for what it's worth.


Was the above review useful to you?

Page 1 of 28:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards Newsgroup reviews External reviews
Parents Guide Official site Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history