The hitcher II - Ti stavo aspettando

If you want to get anyone back for a super-belated sequel to "The Hitcher" it's Rutger Hauer, not C. Thomas Howell. Howell is a functional if unremarkable lead in the original film. The secret to that film is Hauer's performance which sells the suggestion that maybe there's something supernatural about him so well that makes the film's (deliberate) ridiculousness work.

Here we have Jake Busey, and he's an okay actor, but he's not selling anything. This film's plot is patently ridiculous and Jake sure isn't making it work. Howell is all twitchy overacting until he leaves the film prematurely leaving us with Kari Wuhrer to finish the flick. It's two pretty okay actors in a competently shot, but visually uninteresting thriller.

It would be a fairly inoffensive way to spend an hour and a half if weren't a thoroughly unnecessary sequel to a much better film.

Hitcher II, The: I've Been Waiting (2003) C. Thomas Howell, Kari Wuhrer, Jake Busey, Mackenzie Gray, Douglas MacLeod, D: Louis Morneau.

Cop Howell mysteriously seems to have an anniversary for the nightmare he had 17 years ago. This time, his tough cookie girlfriend (Wuhrer) experiences it next to him on a country road trip, where a new menacing hitchhiker (Busey) frames her with his machinations and those stupid cops won't believe her.

Obvious, needless thriller is just a refurbished remake, while suffering to not be on par with its predecessor from a key exclusion-Rutger Hauer.

Running Time: 93 minutes and rated R for strong violence.

RATING: ** (out of ****)

Here we have a sequel to a classic cult film, made almost two decades after the original. Guess what? It's rubbish. Oh yes, obviously someone had a bright idea to make a sequel to a well known film in the hope that it would emulate the original's cable TV success in the dreary direct to video market. Trouble is, while this was being thought through; these people obviously forgot to hire a decent scriptwriter - d'oh! What we are left with, therefore, is a rehash of the original film - except with less excitement, less ideas and less reason to see it. The film has a few flashbacks to the original film during its running time, and ironically - these are the best bits. The film's plot has written itself, and sees the hero from the original film making the mistake of driving back down the road where the events of the original happened. As if this mistake wasn't silly enough, he then makes the mistake of picking up another hitchhiker! Some people just don't learn, but in his defence - it was naturally all the fault of a woman, in this case his girlfriend. It doesn't take a genius to guess what the rest of the film is about.

The original film was very much a B-movie, and this one is too. We have, therefore, a B-movie cast. C. Thomas Howell is in it for the money, as he reprises his role from the first film. He is joined by Jake Busey; Gary Busey's son, who actually manages to turn in a decent performance amidst this train-wreck of a film -but nowhere near Rutger Hauer, of course. B-movie actress Kari Wuhrer tops off the central trio. I saw Kari Wuhrer in the pointless seventh part of the Hellraiser series ("Deader") recently, and along with her small role in Eight Legged Freaks - have come to the conclusion that she needs a better agent. She's not a brilliant actress, but she's good looking and definitely deserves better roles than what she's been getting. The action is generally very tame, and stinks of a film that couldn't get the budget. The original didn't have much of a budget either - but that made the best of it, this one doesn't. Several sequences in this film are merely rubbish rehashes of scenes in the original - including the most famous scene from 'The Hitcher' - which isn't nearly as effective here. On the whole, this film shouldn't be seen by anyone. If you're not a fan of the original, you won't like it anyway - and if you are; you won't want to see one of your favourites defiled like this. Avoid!

Like most others who have seen this movie, I also grew up with watching the first "The Hitcher" movie. Even though it was far from a masterpiece, it has still grown a bit into a classic over the years, mainly due to Rutger Hauer's impressive and scary performance. This movie doesn't have Rutger Hauer in it, so I wasn't expecting a better movie and expected the worst. But why compare this movie to the original in the first place? You should take the movie just for what it is, a straight-to-video thriller. And for what it is, a straight-to-video thriller, it's a pretty good movie. It's professionally made, with good camera-work and editing and some fairly good performances by the cast.

The movie might not be that scary but it does have a few surprises in it. It does have some returning element from "The Hitcher" in this movie but it does it in an original way. Fans of the first movie should be pleased by some of the subtle and not so subtle homage to the first movie and not be offended or angry about it. It also does have more than enough original moments in it and the movie is mostly unpredictable, in terms of who dies and who will survive in the end.

Even though the budget of the movie was probably low, it doesn't really show on screen. There are some spectacular moments, with gunfire and explosions and also the visual look of the movie is good. The cinematography is nice and the movie is told with a pleasantly fast pace and with some nimble editing.

The performance are fairly good. It's sort of fun to see C. Thomas Howell reprising his role but was it really necessary? Real main part of the movie is being played by Kari Wuhrer, who has appeared in quite a few B-movies over the years. She is good enough as the new main character of the movie. This time the hitcher is being played by Jake Busey. Leave it up to the Busey's to play a convincing and scary looking psychopathic villain. Of course he is no Hauer but he pulls it of pretty well and is more than good enough in his role.

Of course the story does have its flaws and improbabilities but when you watch a movie like this, you know you shouldn't expect to much from its story.

Especially when you've seen more straight-to-video and TV thrillers, you have to admit that this movie is a good one or at least an above average one, that has a professional look.

6/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

I first saw this more than a decade ago on a dvd which I own. Revisited it recently. The start sequence of this one is done very well with solid suspense n good twist.

The original is a classic thriller in my opinion. Inspite of the lack of violence and Nash's death offscreen, the tension, suspense n performance made the original one of the best thriller.

This one cud have at least added the killer's backstory or motive. This one too boasts of some lovely sun soaked settings. It has an offscreen scalp removal scene but the tension is missing.