IMDb RATING
4.3/10
3.9K
YOUR RATING
A sadistic serial killer terrorizes a couple driving on a rural highway in Texas while killing numerous people and framing them for his killings.A sadistic serial killer terrorizes a couple driving on a rural highway in Texas while killing numerous people and framing them for his killings.A sadistic serial killer terrorizes a couple driving on a rural highway in Texas while killing numerous people and framing them for his killings.
- Awards
- 1 nomination total
Doug MacLeod
- Sheriff Walters
- (as Douglas MacLeod)
Stephen Strachan
- Deputy Lyle
- (as Steve Strachan)
Featured reviews
The detective Jim Halsey (C.Thomas Howell) is fired from the police force after a daring rescue of an abducted child, when he shot and killed the kidnapper. He is advised to look for psychological assistance, but he decides to travel with his girlfriend Maggie (Kari Wuhrer) to visit Capt. Esteridge (Stephen Hair), his old friend who believed and supported him some years ago after a traumatic experience. While traveling, Maggie decides to give a lift to Jack (Jake Busey), a weird man on the road, under the strong protest of Jim. Jack is indeed an evil psychopath, who decides to chase the couple, killing everybody around them. This movie is horrible, being a ridiculous sequel (or remake?) of a classic, but full of clichés and totally predictable! The promosing first five minutes cheats the viewer and are excellent, having a great plot point in the very beginning of the story. However, the rest of the story has a totally absurd screenplay, and none of the situations are resolved. The participation of C. Thomas Howell, a C-class actor, is minimum, basically to give his name to the credits, and his character is one of the unluckiest I have ever seen. Further, the change of the lead actor to a lead actress is very problematic, since Maggie is the guilty for the whole situation and her character is hysterical, non-charismatic, has a horrible voice and does not convince as a heroin. I do not understand the reason for the sequel of an excellent thriller after nineteen years. The end of "The Hitcher II: I've Been Waiting" is one of the worst I have ever seen. My vote is three.
Title (Brazil): "A Morte Pede Carona 2" ("The Death Hichhikes 2")
Title (Brazil): "A Morte Pede Carona 2" ("The Death Hichhikes 2")
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.
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.
The original 'Hitcher' is one of the all-time horror greats...The Hitcher II is nothing more than a USA Network Pictures Original-esque follow-up. Luckily, I came into it with zero expectations, and while I got pretty much what I expected, I have to say that this film isn't necessarily awful...at least, not completely. It's actually a decent b-grade horror flick. It has good/okay cinematography, and in one scene it's able to build mood, and the action scenes are actually quite good, however, at its core, it simply has no soul. There's no humanity behind it, no real sympathy for the characters (except for Jim, which really has a helluva lot more to do with the original than anything else). The Hitcher himself is about as frightening as a...Well, I can't think of any good analogies off-hand, but suffice to say he isn't at all scary. Of course, Jake Busey is just so damn likable, it's hard to be scared of the guy. If he IS supposed to be John Ryder incarnate, he's too cocky and he talks WAY too much. Also, a warning for people whose lives depend on some kind of resolution, the end will TOTALLY leave you hanging...buyer beware.
So I guess what I'm trying to say is that...I reluctantly must recommend The Hitcher II, speaking as a fan of so-bad-they're-almost-funny horror films. If nothing else, rent it for a good laugh and have fun pointing out the inconsistencies and bad dialogue. It's pure MST3K all the way.
So I guess what I'm trying to say is that...I reluctantly must recommend The Hitcher II, speaking as a fan of so-bad-they're-almost-funny horror films. If nothing else, rent it for a good laugh and have fun pointing out the inconsistencies and bad dialogue. It's pure MST3K all the way.
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 ****)
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 ****)
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/
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/
Did you know
- TriviaIt took nearly fifteen years for this film to finally materialize. The rights to the material passed back and forth between several hands over the years until Charles R. Meeker finally produced this sequel.
- Goofs(at around 1h 7 mins) When being interrogated at the police station, the sheriff said that Maggie had no record when they ran her name, but they never say if they ran Jack's name and that he had a record. If they had run his name he probably would have gone to jail and Maggie would have been freed.
- Crazy creditsOpening credits last over 13 minutes
- ConnectionsFeatured in Oliver Harper's Retrospectives and Reviews: The Hitcher (1986) (2022)
- SoundtracksPlease Take Me
Written by Sy Gorieb
Provided by Associated Production Music
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Language
- Also known as
- The hitcher II - Retour en enfer...
- Filming locations
- Production company
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
- Runtime
- 1h 33m(93 min)
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.85 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content