The Hitcher (2007) Reviews

• I just hope Rutger Hauer will not watch this!!

  Cinema_Love2007-02-05

  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.

• Horrible attempt

  aminjacoub2011-09-16

  Yup. I agree with most of the reviewers here, those that admire the original version of now definitive cult classic. Actually last night it was my second effort to watch this remake, and I failed. First time it was two years ago. I stopped after 15 minutes. Last night I could not hold on more than 45 minutes. It was that awful. I don't know, to some, this is great remake, or great movie, even very good movie but original is better. My opinion goes with those who share the same: absolutely terrible. The reason for me to watch it, was my curiosity to see maybe something new, like sequel or something, and I was hopping to DIFFERENT plot, not repeating one, and deviating it in some stupid version. The cinematography, camera and music as well as acting in original were superb, really, but here, what we have is not only attempt to repeat the plot and its rhythm, yet destroying the true sense that was delivered by original. Some of the scenes that remains classic, like police chasing and slow motion of rumbling law enforcement cars. That was amazing in original but here, I almost needed to puke. I also realize that director tried to copy the same cinematography style as it was in original, which ends in, of course total failure. And something about characters. Sean Bean is one my favorite actors, but here he was terrible. If there are no original movie, his acting might pass, but mimicking Rutgher Hauer was terrible. I can't forget the scene in the car with those family and kids (beggining), when he shows his face behind that big toy. It was obvious that this was absolute lack of the face expression of original character. Sean Bean completely lacks in Ryder character. (Hopefully it is only this or maybe two more movie where Bean lacks his in fact great acting gift) Those two victims, terrible. C. T. Howell and J. J. Lee can't be replaced, period. OK those two are probably not the bad actors but in this, terrible, terrible. All of the other casts is also too far from casts in original (policemen, Captain...). So, if you want the real stuff, go watch the original and you will see why most reviewers here have the same bad opinion about this remake. As somethimes after some bad remakes (AVP garbage), rises good sequel or prequel or new plot based on concept (like it was for me Predators for example), who knows, maybe someone will make intelligent sequel or prequel, I don't know, whatever, but this one is total failure.

• Wow Unnessacary

  jed-estes2007-01-30

  I love the original Hitcher and was very excited when I found out they were doing a sequel. I thought heck yeah C Thomas will kick butt again but no I got the lousy Hitcher II: I've been waiting. I thought that after that turd The Hitcher would finally be able to rest in peace but alas I was wrong The Hitcher remake was waiting. I'll be the first to agree that it is not a travesty to film like The Hitcher II but it still sucks none the less. I just felt it droll on and on as I sat there thinking if only C Thomas could come out and kill every one on the screen and every one in the audience who had never heard of the original and thought what they were watching was new and innovative, we would have a good movie on our hands. But old C. Thomas regretfully did not show up for the party. I was left alone. Rent or buy the classic and let this Hitcher keep on Hitching.

• Lackluster & unnecessary remake of a cult classic

  george.schmidt2007-01-29

  THE HITCHER (2007) ** Sean Bean, Sophia Bush, Zachary Knighton, Neal McDonough. Lackluster and unnecessary remake of the cult '80s Rutger Hauer slasher vehicle this time with a bland one-note Bean in the titular psychotic role whose cross-country odyssey of terror targets young lovers Bush (arguably the stupidest genre heroine in some time setting the bar considerably lower than her previous thespians) and Knighton, as the bad penny from Hell with a high body count and a low threshold for audience suffering in misery. The only thing worth mentioning are the bloody inventive ways Bean's sociopath manages to slip himself out of with unlikelihood at an all time high (or would that be low?) (Dir: Dave Meyers)

• Enough with bad remakes already!

  ColinChapman2007-01-21

  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".