The Hitch-Hiker (1953) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
80 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
A Definite "Thumbs" Up.
jhclues28 May 2005
Thanks to modern technology, another film noir classic has escaped from Hollywood's vault of too-often-overlooked or forgotten films. Albeit a minor classic, "The Hitch-Hiker," directed by Ida Lupino, is a taut drama notable for it's realism, as well as a haunting performance by William Talman.

Reputedly based on a true incident ("Penned from the headlines"), the story traces the movements of a hitch-hiker, Emmett Myers (Talman), who repays his highway hosts by robbing and murdering them. Initially, we are shown mere glimpses of Myers and his victims, which successfully sets the stage for the introduction of Roy Collins (Edmond O'Brien) and Gilbert Bowen (Frank Lovejoy), two friends on their way to a fishing trip in Mexico, when, unawares, they pick up Myers.

What follows is a realistic depiction of what most likely would transpire when ordinary people are suddenly faced with such extraordinary circumstances. And the strength of the film lies in the fact that when Collins and Bowen are kidnapped, held at gunpoint and forced to do the bidding of their captor, they react and behave in a manner that is both consistent with their current state of affairs and believable. There are no feigned heroics or superhuman contrivances that allow the two captives to effect an escape; instead, the story plays out in much the way one would, in reality, expect in such a situation, which, when extrapolated, effectively drives home the true horror of Collin's and Bowen's circumstance.

The lion's share of the credit for the success of this film must go to director Ida Lupino, whose almost documentary-style approach to the story lends it the necessary grit and intensity. She scores double points, as well, for not only delivering a memorable film, but doing so at a time in which few women were afforded the opportunity to perform at such a level behind the camera. Lupino's success no doubt helped pave the way for the likes of Jane Campion, Jodie Foster, Gillian Armstrong, Allison Anders and a host of other women who have since proved that gender alone does not equate to excellence and ability in the director's chair.

In arguably his best performance, character actor William Talman turns in a memorable performance as the sociopath, Myers. Forget your Freddys and Jasons; Talman's portrayal creates the kind of character that nightmares are really made of. Myers is a guy you could pass on the street, or-- yes, even give a lift to if you saw him with his thumb out on the highway-- without giving him a second thought. And that's what makes him so scary; his disguise is that he doesn't have a disguise, and it's so much more effective than having a hockey mask or hands with steel fingers could ever be.

O'Brien and Lovejoy also turn in credible performances, creating characters who, like Talman's Myers, are real. Watching them, you believe that Collins is, indeed, an auto mechanic, and Bowen a draftsman; two friends off together to do some fishing.

The supporting cast includes Jose Torvay (Captain Alvarado); Jean Del Val (Inspector General); Clark Howat (Government Agent); and Natividad Vacio (Jose). The 71 minute running time is perfect for this film; rather than resort to superfluous filler, Lupino stays on task without ever straying, and in the end makes "The Hitch-Hiker" a ride that will leave you wondering what you would do in a like situation, and hoping that you'll never have to find out. It's the magic of the movies.
63 out of 70 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Fascinating thriller with a terrific performance from William Talman.
Infofreak25 August 2003
Supposedly the only Film Noir directed by a woman (Ida Lupino of 'High Sierra' and 'On Dangerous Ground'), 'The Hitch-Hiker' is a fascinating thriller that holds your attention from start to finish. Edmond O'Brien ('D.O.A.') and Frank Lovejoy ('in A Lonely Place') play two buddies on a road trip who pick up a hitch-hiker (William Talman, best remembered as Hamilton Berger on the old "Perry Mason" TV show). BIG MISTAKE! He is actually notorious psycho killer Emmett Myers. Talman gives a terrific performance as Myers, a real nasty piece of work with a bum eye so you never know if he's asleep or awake. He holds the men hostage, bullies and provokes them, even uses them as target practice. We've seen many similar plots over the years but I thought this was a fresh and unpredictable. Lupino's direction really suits the material, the tension builds throughout, and Talman is unforgettable. If you like thrillers track this one down. Highly recommended.
40 out of 45 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A Buried Little Treasure!
bsmith55521 March 2002
"The Hitch-Hiker" is an excellent little independently produced film-noire thriller directed by Ida Lupino. It is essentially a three character story about two pals on a fishing trip (or is it?) who stop to pick up a hitch-hiker whose car has apparently broken down, What they don't realize is that the hitchhiker is a crazed killer.

The two buddies are played by two of the best character actors of the period, Edmond O'Brien and Frank Lovejoy. The hitcher, in the role of his career, is played by William Tallman (of TV's Perry Mason fame).

The story covers their trek across the desert back roads of Mexico in an effort to evade the law. Most of the film takes place within the claustrophobic confines of O'Brien's car as he and Lovejoy remain at the mercy of loose cannon Tallman never knowing where or when he might decide to shoot them. Lupino gives us a compact, tense and suspenseful thriller. Shot in black and white, it runs a brief 71 minutes and delivers an excellent drama on a limited budget.

Rarely seen today, this movie is a buried little treasure.
40 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Gem of a B-film-- brutal & creepy
IndieVisibleMan16 September 2000
Warning: Spoilers
THE HITCH-HIKER is based on a true story, which makes it all the more creepy. Well-directed by Ida Lupino; it was powerful without a lotta trappings. Simple story, inexpensive exterior shooting, and tight acting. Starred William Talman (the bungling D.A. of Perry Mason), Frank Lovejoy, and... Edmund O'Brien.

Never was much a fan of the early O'Brien-- he doesn't pull off the toughness he tries for, so I was on-guard for some over-acting from him. No worries this time, for the most part. But TALMAN was the great surprise! Wow! What happened to his career after this film?? He was terrific in this role.

His villain wasn't one of those super-intelligent, epitome-of-evil psychos. He's not an exotic, like Hannibal Lecter. Nor did Talman act like one of those oh-so-polite sorts. (As if it makes them more menacing to have nice manners when they threaten you. Think "Goldfinger".)

No, Talman was effective as a more true-to-life sort.. the kind that seems more menacing to me as a viewer, because you really might run into this bastard. The only politeness he showed to his victims was to offer them a cigarette. And when he was feeling pleased with himself for nearing the end of his escape, he bought them a beer.

Talman's character was a pushy sadist, but never tried to spice it up by pretending to be nice. His ugly game of target practice was evil-- he held one guy at gunpoint and made him shoot a rifle at his friend, who was forced to hold up a tin can. (I don't think this is too much of a spoiler.)

He wasn't a Brainiac, just had a talent for staying in control, keeping a never-closing vigilante eye (his creepy-looking right eye wouldn't close when he slept, so his hostages never knew when to try anything). He invested all his energy into avoiding capture.

Lovejoy and O'Brien worked well together as the Normal Joes who happened to pick up the wrong guy. Again, because they're more true-to-life, you can identify with them better than a hard-boiled detective.

Realistic location shooting also makes this simple story more powerful. Lupino deserves credit as a film-maker, and I'm glad she's being recognized more and more.
21 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A motorist's worst nightmare
jhawk-224 July 1999
I saw this movie recently for the first time on Turner Classic Movies. This is a tough and suspenseful little movie. The killer is a truly evil character; no ambiguity about his character as you might expect in a more recent film. It must have been considered a brutal film when it was made, though its mild by today's standards. The location setting in the bleak desert adds to movie's atmosphere and tone. And, it was directed by a woman, rare today, and even more rare in the 50s.

Exciting, fast-paced, and never boring.
24 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
It actually COULD be you in that car!
Coventry20 October 2006
Usually when movies based on factual events start with a warning that it easily could have happened to you instead of to the characters, you don't pay too much attention to it, as it mostly handles about unlikely situations. Sure you'll wonder how you'd respond or randomly imagine what it would feel like, but in general the true events won't haunt your thoughts for long. In the case of Ida Lupino's "The Hitch-Hiker", this is totally different! Chances are high that once in your life, or maybe even recently, you picked up a hitcher and, after seeing this film, you won't do that again any time soon. That's how much of an impression this excellent film-noir will make on you. This flawlessly acted & directed thriller sustains a uniquely tense atmosphere from start to finish, and this without reverting to explicit violence or dreadful clichés. Inspired by the real-life murder case of Billy Cook, the plot centers on merciless serial killer Emmett Myers, who hitchhikes on the quiet roads of rural America but coldly executes the people that are kind enough to offer him a ride. As the list of casualties dramatically increases and police forces get to close on his tail, Myers hijacks one last car to escape into Mexico. The unfortunate passengers are Roy Collins and Gilbert Bowen, two buddies on their way for a fishing weekend. Myers continuously holds them at gunpoint, even sleeping with one eye open, and makes perfectly clear they aren't supposed to survive the journey. Amazingly realistic in "The Hitch-Hiker" is the depiction of Roy and Gilbert's behavior. Even though they have nothing to lose, they always obey their hijacker and live in fear for him. Perhaps it's because the director is a woman, but there's absolutely no macho nonsense or tough dialogs going on here. Myers is the guy with the gun and certainly not afraid to use it, so you obey his every command. William Talman's performance as the maniac is simply perplexing! With his odd eyes, monotonous voice and overall nihilistic world perspective, he definitely makes one of the scariest villains in the history of film-noir cinema. Top recommendation, don't miss it.
29 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Talman apparently impressed at least one viewer.
parryisle34 April 2001
William Talman once mentioned this film in a personal interview. He was driving in Los Angeles in an open convertible and stopped at a stop light. A fellow in another convertible looked over at him and asked, "You're the hitch hiker, aren't you?" Talman shook his head indicating that he was. The other driver then left his car and went over and slapped Talman in the face. Talman, when relating this story, said, "You know, I never won an academy award but I guess that was about as close as I ever will come to one."
41 out of 55 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Cruelty and Terror in it's purest form
howdymax31 December 2000
Two old army buddies (Edmund O'Brien, Frank Lovejoy) take off on a fishing trip from California to the Mexican coast. At the same time, a fugitive serial killer (William Tallman) is hitch-hiking and killing his way across the country. They intersect in the desert, just before the Mexican border. He hijacks and holds them hostage on an odyssey into hell. We follow them deeper and deeper into the beautiful, but hostile desert as Tallman seems to outwit the authorities time and again. They become more and more terrified as he becomes more and more psycho. He displays a kind of pure malice and cruelty that makes your skin crawl. Example: He forces one of the buddies to shoot the glass out of the other's hand. His evil character has a drooping right eye. While preparing to sleep around a campfire, he dares the captives to guess whether he is awake or asleep. They guess wrong - he kills them. The viewer takes this trip across the desert with them, all the way to their final destination, and the climax of this exciting film. It is easy to see why Ida Lupino, was considered one of the premier film noir directors. Her concept of the fishing buddies, courageous, proud, but terrified reaches right down into our guts. But it is her balanced vision of the evil, intelligent, unpredictable killer that defines the film. This is a keeper. If you like it - and how could you not - try Split Second. There is a curious coincidence between these two films. Both were directed by famous and respected actors. This by Ida Lupino and the other by Dick Powell.
23 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
An excellent suspense thriller that works!
gitrich2 November 1998
Directed by Ida Lupino, this tension filled suspense movie is absolutely outstanding. Edmond O'Brien, Frank Lovejoy and William Talman star in a story about two companions, O'Brien and Lovejoy, heading out for a hunting trip only to be side tracked by a sadistic killer. Bill Talman's performance is especially effective as the bad guy in this film. Good luck trying to find it in video or on television. I have not seen it since the early 1950's. It was tied up in legal problems for many years and may still be.
16 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Never to pick up a hitcher
jcholguin23 January 2002
I never knew that William Talman could be such a killer. His character Emmett Myers, hitch-hiker killer is so opposite his most famous character D.A. Hamilton Burger from the Perry Mason series that I was fascinated. Meyers's right eyelid was paralyzed and could not close. When he was holding Edmond O'Brien & Frank Lovejoy captive in the Mexican desert late at night, as a human being he needed to sleep. Now, how could he hold his prisoners captive while sleeping? That is what O'Brien & Lovejoy were wondering. But, that eye could not close, was Myers really asleep or just pretending, after all, Meyers just kept looking at them with this eye. The first time it happen late at night, it wasn't worth the chance that he was pretending. Director Lupino does an excellent job of suspense with this scene. It happens a second time. This time it was worth a try, maybe he really was asleep? Would it be worth the gamble of my life? When you see this movie, you be the judge, is he pretending sleep or really awake?
21 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Terrific creepy performance by William Talman
mgmax6 January 2000
At one time actually thought lost, now this minor classic is on video (who says these aren't the good old days?). William Talman, who is mainly remembered as Perry Mason's dullish adversary/stooge on the TV show for years and years, gives a powerful and creepy performance as an insolent psychopath who holds two men hostage through a long road trip around the desert southwest and Mexico. Loosely based on a true story, there's not much more to it than that-- but it's tense and well-crafted all the way through, and deserves its reputation as Lupino's best movie.
17 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A brisk and effective thriller
bob the moo9 November 2006
Roy and Gilbert are heading to Mexico on a fishing trip together when they stop to pick up a hitchhiker. Too late they realise that the man has not really run out of petrol but is actually criminal Emmett Myers, who has killed his way across several states and is now using them to continue his getaway from the authorities. With Emmett holding the two friends at gun point, he forces them to drive deeper into Mexico – all the time making it very clear that they are only alive while he needs them alive and not any longer.

The opening caption informs us that this is based on a true story and also tries to engage the audience by pointing out how the couple in the car could have been you (or the people across the aisle). Really though it needn't have bothered with either because the caption doesn't add a great deal. It may be based on a true story but it didn't seem like it was interested in this beyond using the facts as a frame for the story and personally I didn't think it needed to try and put me into the car because Ida Lupino did that well enough by herself. The story is simple and it is to the director's credit that she holds it together so well. Yes it is short by modern standards but she should not lessen how well she has brought out a constant sense of tension whether it be in the tight confines of the car or in the desperate bleak openness of the desert.

She is helped by a strong trio of performances from actors who appear to be punching above their weights. Although they haven't a huge amount of depth in their characters they do convince in the realms of tension and fear. The friendship between O'Brien and Lovejoy is solid and helps to support the slightly weak element of the script which is that they never seem to even considering leaving the other for even a second. Talman is memorable in the title role, easily building a screen of menace before allowing the cracks to show.

A pretty good film then. It trades on atmosphere and tension, both of which Ida Lupino works with really well. The actors maybe don't have depth to trade on but they respond well to the tone of delivery and give suitably good performances.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
The Tense True Story of a Man and a Gun and a Car
Claudio Carvalho13 April 2012
While traveling in a fishing trip to San Felipe, the draftsman Gilbert Bowen (Frank Lovejoy) and his friend, the garage owner Roy Collins (Edmond O'Brien) give a ride to a stranger. Sooner they learn that the man is the psychopath serial-killer Emmett Myers (William Talman), who has escaped from prison and wants to reach Santa Rosalia in Mexico. The sadistic criminal also tells them that he will kill them in the end of the line.

"The Hitch-Hiker" is a thriller that discloses the tense true story of a man and a gun and a car with two friends that intend to spend a couple of days together fishing. Ida Lupino is the sole female director in Hollywood in this genre and "The Hitch-Hiker" is the one of the seven classic film-noirs produced by a minor studio ("The Filmmakers") that have been chosen by the National Film Registry that is the United States National Film Preservation Board for preservation in the Library of the US Congress. William Talman is very impressive in the role of a criminal that never closes his right eye. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "O Mundo Odeia-me" ("The World Hate Me")
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
no melodrama
funkyfry28 August 2007
Ida Lupino's "The Hitch-Hiker" is like a B-movie bullet coming at the audience. No fat. No melodrama. Nobody trying to get home in time to save the crippled kid. Just a lean and mean treat – as the police-style narration promises us, 70 minutes of "true" crime suspense.

The plot is as straight and narrow as they come. Two war buddies (Frank Lovejoy and Edmund O'Brien) decide to detour south to the Mexican border to make their vacation more interesting (possibly a nudie show or two) and get far more action than they bargained for when they pick up a psychotic prison escapee (William Talman) who holds them hostage. The film's big gimmick is the fact that the hitch-hiker has one paralyzed eye, so that the two hostages can't tell when he's sleeping or awake to make a break for freedom. Considering how cheap this device sounds it actually works extremely well under the direction of Lupino and Talman's performance. As he tries to make his way to freedom across the Mexican deserts, the hitch-hiker drags these two All-American types with him and engages in sadistic games for his own amusement like having one of them hold a tin can while the other shoots it out of his hand with a rifle. After trying to escape together several times the hitch-hiker makes the film's most profound statement by taunting the 2 friends "you could have escaped if you didn't worry about each other" (or words to that effect).

Apparently there is some controversy over whether this film should be called a "film noir". It's been in the public domain for many years and has been included on a lot of "film noir" collections sold at bargain prices, and presumably some viewers have been disappointed by this film's lack of the usual things you see in a "film noir". Now first of all their complaints should be directed at the people who labeled the DVD instead of the people who made the movie 20 years before the term "film noir" even existed. Now is this just a semantic question? Yes and no. Ultimately it doesn't matter what we call the film. It's a suspense film, basically. In other words a film with a more or less set outcome where the audience spends the whole time worrying about "how" and not "what". There seems to be a disturbing trend with this film and some others, that I've gathered over the years reading comments, to hold these movies to some kind of extrinsic standard, a set of values totally alien to the film itself. The film does not have a "femme fatale". OK, it doesn't have any women period. It has no dark semi-Gothic melodrama. Perhaps most noticeably it does not take place in the dimly lit alleyways of urban America. Hence some "film noir fans" have chosen to deride the movie for its perceived deficiencies and to declare it lacking based on a strange confluence of out-of-control marketing (the chronic use of the word "noir" to sell videos) and narrow genre rules for a "genre" that never actually existed. Still others seem to stray in the opposite direction, considering any film "noir" that employs expressionistic photographic devices that were in common usage far back in the silent era. Instead of all this we should look at the film for what it is and only consider it in terms of "noir" as far as it helps us to understand the piece in relation to contemporary films of the 40s and 50s.

The most unusual aspect of the film in my opinion is its total lack of dramatic pretense aka melodrama. The meat of the film is in the 2 men's relationship and the way that the criminal interloper throws that friendship into relief. Superficially speaking they are "innocent" while he is "guilty". But what's interesting in the film is the way that the mere presence of this evil person brings out the weakness and corruption of the 2 friends. The hitch-hiker's comment about how the 2 men could have escaped separately but were held back by their friendship implies, as do many of his off-hand insulting comments, that the 2 men are soft and corrupted by civilization and that the hitch-hiker himself is a stronger man because he does anything he wants to do. However when one of them asks him "have you ever had a gun pointed at you" it's a subtle reminder that both of these men are war veterans and that they might have a much greater understanding of power and fear than the criminal could ever possess. In this way the film addresses broader issues of the post-war American man in terms of how he sees himself and how others in society may see him. It digs into the insecurity that the domestication and suburbanization of the post-war culture brought to many veterans. And as far as I'm concerned this is prime film noir territory.

So if you're strictly interested in traditional tough guys like Mike Hammer and Philip Marlowe, or if you insist on the standard "good girl vs. bad girl" melodrama (aka "femme fatale") then you probably won't get what you're looking for from this movie. But if you're interested in the broader themes of the corruptive influence of civilization that many "noir" films explore then this film is a novel way to see these themes expressed. It's a very well-made film – although not hugely ambitious, when taken on its own terms the film does have something to say about modern life.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Not Film Noir
drjgardner23 August 2015
This is one of the earliest film portrayals of a spree killer and the first film directed by Ida Lupino. Hence it has some historical interest. However, it is by no stretch of the imagination in the "film noir" genre, as many suggest. Classic film noir involves urban settings, a motley crew of criminals and their associates, a double and preferably a triple cross, a femme fatale, lots of rain and dark shadows, and a hero who enters into the underworld reluctantly and inadvisedly. Although no "film noir" classic has all of these conventions, most have a great many. This film has none. It does have great film noir cinematographer Nicholas Musuraca ( "Stranger on the 3rd Floor", "Cat People", "Out of the Past", "They Clash By Night", "The Blue Gardenia") and he does use some of his sharp black and white photography to make this a very watchable film.

Don't expect film noir, nor will you get much psychological analysis of the spree killer. The performances are good and the direction is taut, but there are far better films from this era, and certainly people like Edmond O'Brien and Frank Lovejoy did far better jobs in far better films.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Ex-Convict Myers Suspect In Hitch-Hike Atrocities
Spikeopath5 February 2011
Out of RKO Radio Pictures, The Hitch-Hiker is directed by Ida Lupino and jointly adapted to the screen by Lupino, Collier Young and Daniel Mainwaring. It stars Edmond O'Brien, Frank Lovejoy & William Talman. Nicholas Musuraca photographs the film and Leith Stevens scores the music.

"This is the true story of a man and a gun and a car. The gun belonged to the man. The car might have been yours, or that young couple across the aisle. What you will see in the next seventy minutes could have happened to you. For the facts are actual".

The above opening salvo from the film is not without merit, tho due to the Hays Office requirements Lupino had to tone down her initial plans for the film. The story is based on the true story of murderer Billy Cook, who in 1950 posed as a hitch-hiker and murdered a family of five and a travelling salesman. The film picks up with the aftermath of that, where Cook then kidnapped two friends out hunting and forced them at gunpoint to drive him across the border into Mexico. Lupino researched her subject well, even interviewing the principals in the kidnapping.

Something of a cult favourite these days, The Hitch-Hiker is a brisk, lean and tight film showing how to get the maximum amount of suspense out of the simplest of set-ups. Practically a three character piece, the film thrives on claustrophobia and an impending sense of dread. Even when the characters come out of the confines of the car, we still feel stifled during the sequences that feature the men out in the desert. There's a sense of desolation in the landscape that marries up with the emotional state of our two kidnapped men. It's fine work by Lupino, who never lets the mood slip. She in turn is aided considerably by her writers and Musuraca's photography. The former cleverly only lets the kidnapped men's personalities unfold once they are seized by Talman's psychopath, the latter brings film noir agoraphobia to the Alabama Hills, Lone Pine, location: A place that was often shown to be gorgeous in many a fine Western in the 50s.

All three lead actors do good work under Lupino's direction, with Talman particularly menacing, all lazy eye and snarly grins. While Stevens' music sits nicely with the tone of the story. Credit Lupino, too, for not letting her male driven movie contain any machismo posturing, or heaven forbid, testosterone fuelled bravado. Where the film does fall down is with its rather anti-climatic finale. For although the real life finale involving Billy Cook was genuinely mundane, the film's ending is also a bit of a damp squib. It's one of those cases where some poetic licence wouldn't have gone amiss. Still, it's far from a deal breaker, the film remains a taut and moodily enjoyable experience. 7.5/10
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Making the Most from the Basics of Fear and Helplessness
secondtake17 July 2009
The Hitch-Hiker (1953)

Making the Most from the Basics of Fear and Helplessness

Truly low budget and yet a fully-realized, well acted, well directed drama. It's tense, the location work in Mexico is fabulous (and dusty and forlorn), and the basic plot is chilling.

Director Ida Lupino proves that she, like Orson Welles, can make a top tier movie with the cards stacked against her. While not cinematically daring or original (like Welles), The Hitch- Hiker is tough, smart, stark, and compelling. It has no gaps, no gaffes, and except for one American cop seen a couple brief times, no sorry acting. And the end is a thrilling rush that makes the steady build-up of worry all the more necessary.

There are three main actors involved, and all three play their roles with gritty realism. You want to shout at them sometimes to do something different, but you know that you might not if you were in their shoes. That things eventually go wrong is inevitable, but it makes sense.

Cinematographer Nicholas Musuraca (Spiral Staircase and Clash by Night) deserves some of the kudos here for making an ordinary scenario work visually. And the tight script helps, too, so tight that many scenes have little or no dialog, and Lupino gets co-credit for the writing. It's interesting that such a male movie, dominated by men to the point that there are essentially no women in it at all, was directed by a woman. But clearly she knows what the threat of violence can bring to an innocent person, and how escape and survival is not easy at gunpoint.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Its OK
Alex da Silva12 July 2009
Roy (Edmond O'Brien) and Gilbert (Frank Lovejoy) are on their way to a fishing trip when they pick up a serial killer hitch-hiker Emmett Myers (William Talman). For the rest of the film, they are under his control as he dictates their journey and the routines that need to be undertaken. Emmett also likes to psychologically torture his two captives with Roy coming out the worst. Meanwhile, the police search is closing in.

Emmett's paralyzed eye is used to good effect as he cannot close it and sleeps with his eye open. There are some good scenes but there is not enough suspense or tension. He has a gun but we are forced to think why he doesn't use it. Surely, he would have just killed the two occupants of the car and stolen the car for himself as he had done on every other previous occasion. Perhaps he liked Roy and Gilbert...??...

At the end of the film, I thought it was OK but nothing more. The cast are good and I'll keep the film to watch again.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Sterling crime flick with lashings of suspense and terror
fertilecelluloid27 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Ida Lupino's "The Hitch-Hiker", her own personal favorite, is a sterling crime flick with lashings of suspense and terror. Edmond O'Brien and Frank Lovejoy are fishing buddies heading to Mexico who pick up a murderous hitch-hiker, William Talman. As they are tormented and humiliated on the road by the ugly miscreant, the police attach themselves to their tail, insuring an inevitable confrontation. Lupino's film is dark and gritty, and boasts a lot of moody location shooting. O'Brien and Lovejoy are totally convincing as Talman's victims, conveying the complexity of the unenviable situation they find themselves in. Talman, who could have played the father of Arch Hall Jr. in "The Sadist", fills his murderous, angry character with three dimensions, permitting us a view of his cold, uncaring backstory. Cinematography by Nicholas Musuraca is bold and atmospheric, brilliantly capturing the film's dark, dusty journey and the unpleasant aspects of endless desert. Not what I would call a horror film, it is a gritty film noir directed with amazing assurance.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Thumbs Down On This Hitch-Hiker
ccthemovieman-115 March 2006
Being a film noir fan, I was looking forward to seeing this film but wound up disappointed.

The story: a serial-killer hitch-hiker is picked up by two family men driving into Mexico. The killer, played well by William Talman, forces the two men to drive him to a city. There, the police catch him. That's the story....and it drags. The film just has too many parts in which nothing happens and the plot has too many holes in it to sustain credibility. For instance, the killer had this creepy droopy eye that was always open, so they couldn't tell if he was sleeping or not, but when he did go to sleep, he still held on tightly to his gun as he held it out pointed to his captors!

Anyway, to its credit, there were some tense moments and the acting was good. (The two good guys were veteran actors Edmund O'Brien and Frank Lovejoy) and the photography was decent. But, overall, this hitch hiker wasn't worth picking up.
15 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
"You stink, Myers! You smell! Just like your clothes!"
utgard1416 November 2014
Two friends on a fishing trip (Edmond O'Brien, Frank Lovejoy) pick up a hitchhiker (William Talman). That turns out to be a huge mistake as this guy is a psycho who's left a trail of bodies behind him. Now he holds the two men hostage at gunpoint and forces them to drive into Mexico.

Based on real-life hitchhiking killer Billy Cook, this is an excellent film noir thriller directed and co-written by Ida Lupino. It might be the best movie she directed, although I'm partial to On Dangerous Ground. Edmond O'Brien and Frank Lovejoy are both fine but Lovejoy gets a little more to work with. Which is funny since O'Brien was the bigger star of the two. William Talman, best known as the district attorney who always lost to Perry Mason, is great here. There's a creepiness to his performance that separates the character from just another thug with a gun that was commonplace in movies, even in 1953. It's a taut thriller with fine performances and excellent direction. Short runtime is a plus. Years of more graphic movies with similar plots may dilute the impact of this some but I think it's still a strong film.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
opened eye
RResende25 February 2012
Road trip films are a very powerful genre because they convey a deep sense of oppositions merged to create a vision of unity. This something that, apart from this sub-genre, maybe only western can create so aptly, but with western we are always attached to the meaning of the films: western film is viscerally linked to a certain American vision of values, moral and ethics, and its Italian connection, to cinema itself, meta-narrative.

But the road-trip is free from so many conventions. They come in all shapes and sizes. So you can produce a road-trip movie in anyway, without being forced to obey the laws of a genre, because in the end, it's not one.

So we have the Bonnie and Clyde, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, My blueberry nights. Each a very shiny light in its own cinematic galaxy. Each creates its own rules.

But what works all the time as a key element in these films, and what it shares with western, is how it invites the filmmaker to shoot wilderness, wide spaces, infinite roads, to portrait solitude, inner voyages, personal dramas. That's the one thing that makes the film live or die.

This one lives. I have a growing admiration for Ida Lupino. A woman in the job mostly done by men. Giving us new versions of masculine genres. Feminine intimate calculation placed against (and over) men's intuitions and symbols. This is a film with no relevant female characters. She delivers, I think, a kind of deeper version of this genre, specially compared with the generality of films done in these days, when the medium was not so developed as to allow emotion to be shown from such an inside point of view.

So here we have a film of tension, instead of violence. The promise of the next thing that will happen is always superior to the perspective of actually seeing that. And that's what builds the shape of the film: the next thing. Talman gives us a very fair version for his typical character, more remarkable if we think it was still given when Brando hadn't broken the rules for cinema acting. And naturally, a film like this necessarily depends in important parts on the performance of the actors.

So this is a film of sketched but unfulfilled actions, tension as opposed to realizations. The promise of the next landscape, the next town always mirrors the evaluation of the situation by each of the 3 characters. That's why our bad guy keeps one eye always apparently opened, even when asleep.

My opinion: 3/5
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Forget The Hitcher...
Leofwine_draca1 April 2015
...THE HITCH-HIKER is the original, '50s-made hitchhiking nightmare film. It's a straightforward three-hander in which a couple of buddies (Edmond O'Brien and Frank Lovejoy) are accosted by a manic serial killer (William Talman), who forces them to drive him to Mexico in order for him to escape the authorities.

This is a low budget, black and white suspense thriller that has more tension in it than a dozen recent movies. The low budget works in its favour, with tight camera angles making for a claustrophobic viewing experience. Actress Ida Lupino certainly knows what she's doing behind the camera as she rarely puts a foot wrong here: the pacing is exact and the performances are excellent.

While O'Brien and Lovejoy ground the movie playing the two protagonists, but in reality this is Talman's turn. He gives a pitch perfect turn as the creepy villain, one that would pave the way for later screen psychos like Robert Mitchum's character in NIGHT OF THE HUNTER. Talman's acting is the stuff of brilliance, and he alone makes the film worth watching. The rest of it is the icing on the cake.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Sleeping With One Eye Open
seymourblack-18 May 2014
Warning: Spoilers
This cautionary tale about the dangers of picking up hitch-hikers was famously the first film noir to be directed by a woman (Ida Lupino) and its story is remarkably tense and gripping throughout. The fact that it has a short running time, a lively pace and a no-nonsense style of delivering the action, adds to the urgency of what's happening on-screen and emphasises that the events taking place have a momentum all of their own and that they're propelling the hitch-hiker's helpless victims towards a dreadful fate that they have no hope of escaping.

Roy Collins (Edmond O'Brien) and Gilbert Bowen (Frank Lovejoy) are a couple of guys from Arizona who plan to enjoy a short fishing vacation in Mexico but en route they see a man at the side of the road and offer him a lift. Almost as soon as he's seated in the car, the stranger, who is Emmett Myers (William Talman), pulls a gun on the men and wants them to take him through the Mexican desert to Santa Rosalia where he intends to catch a ferry. It soon becomes apparent that Myers is a serial killer who's on the run from the police and a radio report that they hear during their journey confirms that the police don't know his current whereabouts.

When night falls and the men settle down to sleep, Myers informs his hostages that, due to a deformity of his eyelid, his right eye remains open when he's sleeping and so they should forget about trying to escape because he's likely to see and kill them if they attempt anything like that. Knowing what a ruthless killer Myers is, Roy and Gil don't make any attempt to escape that night

The journey across the desert becomes increasingly difficult and Myers gets very agitated when the car horn starts to blast continuously and is upset again later when one of the tyres is punctured. In his more composed moments he shouts orders at his terrified captives and tells them that they're soft and that he's superior to them because he simply takes whatever he wants. In the rare opportunities that they get, Roy and Gil try to discuss an escape plan but this causes disagreements between them. Because of this and Myers' promise that he's going to kill them as soon as they arrive at Santa Rosalia, their need for some way out of their predicament becomes increasingly desperate.

This movie is intended to create an atmosphere of fear and this is successfully achieved because:-

1. its story is inspired by real-life events.

2. the ruthlessness of the killer is powerfully portrayed at the very beginning of the film.

3. Myers' shooting skills are demonstrated to his victims at an early stage of their journey.

4. his practice of sleeping with one eye open is extremely creepy.

Furthermore, locating the victims' ordeal in the claustrophobic confines of a car and the isolation of long empty desert roads highlights the fact that there's no easy escape from Roy and Gil's hellish ordeal.

Edmond O'Brien and Frank Lovejoy are very convincing in their roles as a couple of ordinary middle-class friends and William Talman is absolutely sensational as Myers, who is the personification of pure evil. With its punchy dialogue, moody visual style and intensely threatening atmosphere, "The Hitch-Hiker" is an incredibly strong, riveting and memorable crime thriller.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Tense film, increased by the passage of time.
Brian Ellis5 November 2002
Since this movie was made, all sorts of thrillers have been made. A lot of these thrillers don't follow the conventional rules of the thriller. You know - give a good scare and then put the bad guys away. As a result, when I watched this movie, I had a hard time predicting what was going to happen. At times, the movie seemed to be following the conventional route but then things happen that threw me for a loop (e.g. psycho William Talman using Frank Lovejoy for target practice). This made for tense viewing. I could only relax at the ending. A word about the ending; very satisfying, a departure from the way most modern thrillers end. The movie is mainly just three characters and director Ida Lupino makes great use of shadows, lighting and the Mexican countryside. A good movie.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed