The Hitcher

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.

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

College couple picks up a mysterious stranger while traveling and soon find themselves in a terrifying situation.

The Hitcher 2007 is a needless remake of the 1986 road horror film that adds nothing nor improves upon anything from the original film. This is one of those remakes that just turns the story of a unique original into a generic, uninspired horror flick. This remake simply ignores the eerie psychological elements of the original, not to mention the road action isn't nearly as exciting or impressive as that of the original. It just pales in comparison on every level. The fact that the hero of the film is changed to a girl is hardly a surprise either. It's just more clichés for a mainstream audience there.

The cast is OK, Zachary Knighton being the only real standout among them. Sean Bean tries for a menacing villain, but isn't nearly as threatening as he could have been. He's a far cry from the convincing madman that Rutgar Hauer with in the original film.

Folks, The Hitcher 2007 is nothing new. Anyone that's seen the original film will find no surprises here, well not any pleasant ones. Though there's some gruesome violence, a fast pace, and a so-so cast it still fails to rise to the greatness of its superior source material. Do yourself a favor and rent the 1986 film instead. You'll get a far better pay off.

* 1/2 out of ****

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.

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.