Carretera al infierno

So it's no masterpiece. I wasn't expecting one. As a good ol' blood-and-guts horror/thriller, it delivers. I will say is that it's not for the faint of heart, though. This is definitely a gruesome flick, even for today's standards. I was pretty close to the edge of my seat throughout 80 % of the film--so I'd say the film did its job. And watching Sophia Bush (from "John Tucker Must Die") run around in short skirts and tops made the film even more fun to watch. I do have a few mild criticisms. There are some clichéd scenes, like the main characters getting arrested and being taken to one of those precincts that only exist in movies. Only about three people are on staff, making it convenient for the killer to stroll inside, murder the officers in cold blood, and track his prey. Sean Bean plays the villain/title character. Sean's a significantly talented character actor, who most people probably recognize by face, rather than by name. This could've been a much more juicy role for him, but he's not given much to do. His performance consists of sneering and delivering sadistic one-liners in a monotone. I blame this more on his character being underwritten, rather than the actor himself. He has proved in movies like "Goldeneye" that he's capable of playing villains with much more depth. On the other hand, character actor Neal McDonough is given a pretty juicy role as the somewhat sympathetic sheriff. "The Hitcher" is not a film that will go down in history, but if you want to kill an hour and 30 minutes with a kick-a** popcorn flick, it's definitely worth watching.

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.

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.

I looked forward to the Hitcher remake since the original didn't quite get it right. It had moments and great ideas that I liked, sure. But overall, transparent gimmicks won out over exploring a wonderful premise. Maybe the remake would fix things? Iron out the details? Do things right? Yeah, these hopes came crashing down when I realized it would only compound the problem with even more gimmicks starting with an additional character, Grace.

Now, Grace by herself? No problem. Grace with Jim against the titular Hitcher? Problem. Big problem. Two main characters means dialogue, which for the typical formula screenwriter means opening up Pandora's box. The thriller's plot slows to a crawl so they can chatter, and really, who the hell wants to listen to two characters hysterically informing each other of things we, the audience, can see ourselves? For example, the couple comes across a car on the side of the road. They know the Hitcher has struck. Jim approaches the car, telling Grace over and over (and over) again to, "Stay there! You don't want to see this!" To which she questions, "What is it? What's there?" "Stay there Grace! You don't want to see this! Oh it's horrible!" For all the time spent discovering the car, the bodies inside, and listening to these two, there's surprisingly little there except for the traditional jump scare.

And if you're going to include another character to run around with Jim, write the scenes to play out for two characters instead of mindlessly regurgitating the original (written quite specifically for one character.) The whole "Say: I want to die" sequence, one of the few things I liked about the original loses all of its potency because the knife is on the wrong damn character. Granted it could theoretically play out that way, but as it stands in the film it wants to mimic the original with half-assed sloppy changes so it can make the shallow claim, "Look! I did something on my own." If you're going to change something, have the balls to follow through.

One beef I have with remakes in general (like, The Fog for example) is the tendency for filmmakers to show more under the false pretense that this brings something worthwhile and original to the remake table. A key to any art form (whether it generates art or not) is the idea of restraint – knowing when to show something, knowing when to keep it in shadows, and knowing when to not even bother. The 2007 Hitcher wants to show you everything that happened off screen in the 1986 (the dead family, the equivalent to Nash's death, and how John Ryder escapes from custody) and it forgot to ask, "why did the original choose not to show these things?" and, more importantly, "would it be a better movie if it did?" Another gripe (also in the Fog remake) – the "bigger, badder" phenomena where the remake feels obligated to one-up the original. More explosions! Bigger explosions! More blood! More guns! More cars! Faster! Badder! Yay! Funny thing about the ridiculous, like for example Rutger Hauer taking down a helicopter with a revolver – outdoing it looks just plain stupid. I mean, someone got paid for this script? Why bother when any idiot could take a bottle of white out and some sticky notes to the original and get the same thing? And at the risk of turning this review into a list of complaints, lastly Grace, herself. Certainly the Hitcher had done enough killing, stalking, and taunting throughout the film to take a normal person to the brink of violence, certainly she had motivation for extracting revenge, strangely enough I did not buy that she'd actually arrived at that point to heartlessly pull the trigger despite everything else in play.

Like many remakes, the Hitcher feels like an imitation. The 2007 version may have its hands on the wheel, but the 1986 original is the one really driving.

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