Hitcher

This high-budget(produced by great producer-director Michael Bay) new version about the classic horror film deals about a young couple(a gorgeous Sophia Bush and Zachary Knighton) driving on a rural highway along barren landscapes. They pick up a hitchhiker(with decent acting by Sean Bean in the role of Rutger Hauer)with diabolic plans, and he results out to be a psycho.The sadistic serial killer terrorizes them while killing several people and framing them for his murders. The hitcher sets up machinations and the cops(Neal McDonough)won't believe them.

In this big budgeted version is showed on screen overwhelming car crashes, breathtaking pursuits, kinetic action scenes, unflinching terror and extreme violence .The film is told with nimble edition and fast pace .There are some noisy scenes with gunfire and blowing up and also the pleasantly visual look is quite nice. Moving and thrilling musical score by Steve Jablonsky. Colorful and atmospheric cinematography by cameraman James Hawkinson. The tale is professionally directed by Dave Meyers, though with no originality. Not without interest, however is obvious needless thriller is justly a spectacular remake inferior to predecessor.The film transpires frenetic action, and sadism that will leave you emotionally and psychically affected.

The previous films were the original, the superior ¨Hitcher¨(1986)directed by Roger Harmon with C. Thomas Howell,Jeffrey DeMoon and Rutger Hauer, ¨The hitcher II: I've been waiting¨(2003)with Thomas Howell, Jake Busey and Kari Wuher( in similar role to Sophie Bush).

Another horror remake? No real surprise there. However what did catch me off guard was this one was actually halfway decent. While it didn't offer anything new, as it basically was a hash between the original and the straight to video sequel, the movie as a whole was good especially when compared to the garbage remakes we've been bombarded with these past few years. But considering the original wasn't all that great of a film technically speaking, then it'd be impossible to really consider this in that caliber either. It is safe to say though that "The Hitcher" accomplished what it set out for.

The plot is utterly unbelievable but if you can let that go it's enjoyable. The acting is appropriate and Sean Bean was great. While I did wind up preferring Rutger Hauer, it was mainly due to the dark sense of humor he added to his character. Another difference between the two was Sean came across as detached and suicidal, while Rutger was the more cunning and evil nemesis…almost like an alter ego of the protagonist. Nevertheless, Sean was thoroughly able to creep the hell out of me with great success and achieved it with more subtlety. Sophia Bush was really good and to call her a sight for sore eyes in this would be an understatement. Neal McDonough as always played his typical supporting role with ease, despite being slighted with very little screen time. This was the first time I've watched Zachary Knighton on the big screen and he came through perfectly as an everyday real-looking college guy. For what this flick was, there surprisingly wasn't any really bad acting as usual. In fact even the 1986 version had many moments of straight cheese. So praise is in order for the cast without a doubt. That is if the characters themselves were written in better, as enough depth wasn't provided for them that made the audience actually want to care about anyone in particular.

One odd thing I noticed that while there were many scenes which were exactly the same as its predecessors, about three of the more important ones from the first installment weren't incorporated, and did add a strike against it. As for the gore factor, it was certainly bumped up a notch…even to a horror level at some points and did show an incredible amount of violence. Another factor that made the original work slightly better was its cooler back-story. The role reversal in this one actually worked against it in the end, as it didn't make as much sense and took away from the overall storyline.

As far as thrills go it was sufficient in this regard and had a lot of parts that made the viewer jump – however nothing too shocking. My personal favorite scene was the car chase since it utilized the perfect blend of cinematography, music, and action. Other factors that this movie had going for it was there wasn't much downtime. Even the slower parts didn't get boring. This was mainly due to the overall short length of the film in general but can also be attributed to excellent pacing. The blend of genres alternating between thriller, horror, and action was also carried out very effectively. That and the ending does provide the desired level of gratification. But that's about where the praise stops.

If you want to be swept away or completely engulfed into extravagant cinema then this isn't what you're looking for. If you're looking for an okay experience as far as remakes go then you probably won't go wrong with this. True fans of the original will doubtfully be enthralled by this rendition though and I'd advise them to steer clear as nothing worthwhile is added in any sense. Ultimately Sophia Bush learns to never slow down again for any hitchhikers, but this is one time that in the end, it was worthwhile for me to stop for…just this once.

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.

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

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.