The Hitcher Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
Never pick up strangers.
A road trip takes a deadly turn when a young couple are tormented by a pyschotic hitchhiker who forces them to face their fears head-on.
| Sean Bean | John Ryder |
| Sophia Bush | Grace Andrews |
| Zachary Knighton | Jim Halsey |
| Neal McDonough | Lieutenant Esteridge |
| Kyle Davis | BufordÂ’s Store Clerk |
| Skip O'Brien | Harlan Bremmer, Sr. |
| Travis Schuldt | Harlan Bremmer, Jr. |
| Danny Bolero | Officer Edwards |
| Jeffrey Hutchinson | Young Father |
| Yara Martinez | Beth |
| Lauren Cohn | Marlene |
| Michael J. Fisher | Transport Guard #2 |
| Joseph Michael Self | Transport Guard #1 |
| Kurt Grossi | Officer Franklin |
| Kurt Bryant | Paramedic |
| Dave Meyers |
5.20 out of 10 (3875 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Disappointing
posted on 22 Aug 2009Spoilers are in the review below.I had high hopes for this film. The original is one of my favorite guilty pleasures from the 80's. Not the world's greatest film, but still thoroughly entertaining. This film started off alright, but then went downhill from there.I'm OK with the fact that the film wasn't a shot by shot remake. I didn't have any issues with the changes in the setup and where the story was going. This is what I did have a problem with:- Acting. Sophia Bush is nice to look at, but beyond that there wasn't anything there. - Sean Bean. He's one of my favorite actors. Loved him in 'GoldenEye' and 'The Lord of the Rings'. In this film, though, he just wasn't menacing enough. Rutger Hauer could scare the hell out of you just by looking at you. Bean couldn't match Hauer's menace. - Profanity. I'm OK with profanity in movies. I realize it's going to be there. The issue here is that the original film was pretty limited in its use. This film had it peppered throughout. Adding profanity does not make a better film. Which leads me to... - Violence and gore. One of the beauties of the original film was that the most violent and gory sequences (and I'm thinking of Jennifer Jason Leigh's death) were implied, not shown. It gave the film more of an impact. Watching Jim Halsey get torn in half didn't add anything to this film. I think it cheapened it. - The ending. I thought it was overblown and silly. The ending of the original wasn't perfect, either, but at least it wasn't so overblown. Pyrotechnics don't add to the suspense.It's difficult to watch a remake without comparing it to the original, especially when you've recently watched the original. Taking it by itself and disregarding what has come before, this was OK. Comparing it to its predecessor, it can't stand on its own two legs.
Confuses Suffering with Terror!
posted on 16 Aug 2009In the realm of remakes, this one has to be rather confusing. You see, the original "The Hitcher" with Rutger Hauer and C. Thomas Howell was actually a pretty weak horror film from the mid 80's to begin with. Its premise was a young man being stalked by a would-be hitchhiker into a explosive conclusion.So here we find the remake- and on the spectrum of horror vs torture porn, this one finds itself right on the border. To summarize: a young couple going on a Spring Break bender come into contact with a malevolent hitchhiker who means them harm. And, as with most of the remakes when compared to the original, the "yuck" factor is greatly intensified.In this one, Sean Bean (who is normally a quality actor) plays "John Rider" (how original!), the hitcher who, in the course of his stalking, dispatches a family, a police station, an armored car meant to transfer him to a prison...and so on.This film really clarifies what I feel is wrong about these remakes, and the spirit with which they're being re-made. You see, horror films work best when suspense is their defining characteristic- however in these remakes, and even some of the recent films made, there is a penchant for cruelty and gore that makes watching them less about enduring the suspense, and more about being able to hold down what you've eaten.In one scene in this film, the young man is chained between two tractors, and is subsequently torn in half. What did this do for the film, besides add a mean spirited gore factor that was wholly unnecessary? Of course, when you remake a film that wasn't actually all that good to begin with, I suppose you have to resort to extraordinary means to try and sell it. Its too bad because if someone had tried to make a film worth watching, and managed to inject it with suspense over gore, I'm sure they'd make a film worth watching!
I was entertained to some degree, until a certain scene in the movie annoyed me.
posted on 14 Aug 2009The storyline was almost identical to the Rutger Hauer classic. It was this that kept me going to the end. Ah the end, how it annoyed me with it's politically correct nonsense. Why say that you might ask?. Well I say it because of the two trucks pulling the guy apart death scene towards the end of the movie. Now it was a woman in the original that got tied to the trucks, if my mind serves me correct.The reason why it wasn't the woman was because they were too scared to mistreat the female characters in the same way the men get treated (watch the movie to see what sex gets it worse). This is why we see a guy being pulled apart instead, as it would be oh so wrong for it to happen to a woman wouldn't it!.No wonder I am loosing faith in the horror scene of late. It is too PC for it's own good!. If a character is in a horror movie, regardless of what sex they are, they should all be subjected to the fate the others in the movie have if the story so requires it. Not re-write it to suit the feminist minded crowd. In the original Hitcher, the writers didn't care who got killed, as they set out to make a horror/thriller. And this is why it will always be the better choice of the two. How I long for those days again where we can watch a movie and take a wild stab (wild guess) at who's going to survive and who's not and actually be wrong, for once!.Another remake that disappoints. Maybe one day I will see a remake worthy of the title it is trying to cash in on!.
don't bother. see the original
posted on 19 Jul 2009the first and maybe the most noticeable thing with this movie is that the main character is no longer the boy but is now his girlfriend. secondly the only thing that they left in that has to do with the original is the scene with the truck pulling the girl apart. but surprise, they did not even get that right. they had the boy, the main character in the original get torn apart. that wasn't even the most notable part of the original. the best part was of course when Jim is eating with john and finds a finger in his french fries. in addition they of course wildly altered the plot. the original had a man driving a car cross country for someone else as a job, when he picks up the hitcher. the new one has Jim and his girlfriend driving to a lake for spring break. all of the obvious aside, they cut out the crucial point of the movie: the guy getting Stockholms Syndrome and being unable to kill the killer. in the new one they pretty much said "oh look he didn't kill the scorpion! he doesn't have a killer instinct even if he is in danger." there was sub par acting in the main characters because they, like the "The Fog" remake, decided to reel in potential teen ticket sales by using people from teen dramas on the "CW" such as one tree hill or Smallville. this move to make the movie more visually appealing by using hot teen actors killed the already terrible dialogue, although i am sure that some people thought that the movie was great due to their use. these people don't know what a good horror movie is, because anything a little more scary than supernatural is sheer horror genius. i also doubt they understand sarcasm. the only reason that i don't give this movie a 1 out of 10 is that Sean Bean was not a terrible actor. neither was Neal Mcdonough. all in all remakes have an inherent flaw. they cant seem too much like the original, but they cant stray too much from the plot. this swell of remakes is destroying the movie business. the fog was not even good the first time around. why remake it?
mint
posted on 17 Jul 2009Its mint one of the best movies ever. With a really good cast and crew. All got mint chemistry together works well. Plus got one of my favourite actresses in it Sophia bush. Really good work cant wait till it comes out on DVD. I recommend it 2 everyone you'll love it proper mint. So Sophia Bush fans you will love it she plays her character really well as usual. Also Sean Bean and Zachary Knighton fan will love it 2 as both are really good in it play their characters really well. Its a really good movie especially if you like a thriller. I think theirs a couple of things in the movie that will make you jump. The stunts in the movie were mint id love to do some of them they looked really good and would be fun to do.
Man, Hollister has gone to extremes to advertise.
posted on 15 Jul 2009I just don't care anymore. I don't even know why I'm writing this review.After you've seen every slasher ever made, seen them remade, seen modern slashers, seen slashers that claimed they weren't slashers, seen countless modern "bring back the old days of horror!" slashers . . . who really cares anymore? It's one thing to complain about the lack of originality in cinema, but it's a completely different thing to complain about the ridicules overabundance of movies that are EXACTLY the same in every way. And what's worse is that every one of these movies seem to think they're some sort of original idea. Listen to audio commentaries: directors have a mentality that because THEY made the movie, it's magically superior to the others exactly like it. They also know that if they can churn out another 80s homage or remake, they'll be rich, because it's an unwritten falsehood that every single horror fan must love, watch, and appreciate every piece-of-crap slasher ever made, or they're not "A True Horror Fan". But if a director is "A True Horror Fan", wouldn't he want to further the genre with original ideas instead of basking in the nostalgia of crappy slashers gone past? My point is, there is no need for The Hitcher. Or the thousands of other movies just like it. If you want a truly good slasher, check out the original Black Christmas.The Hitcher is directed like a Hollister commercial. Primary colors are everywhere, with hollow, flat, fresh-faced prep kids running around for most of the runtime. There is a generic killer with generic motives. The acting isn't good and it isn't bad—how hard is it to ask collage kids to play politically correct collage kids? The cinematography is fun and colorful and gives everything a plastic sheen, as with all Michael Bay-produced slasher remakes. The pacing is average. I don't think I would call this boring as much as I would call it just downright uninteresting. You know in the end the kids and the killer will either live or die, and we've seen both endings done so many times, who really cares to see it again? And in between the opening and the ending, the cookie-cutter plot is even less interesting. Not to mention filled with laughable plot holes. (Paper towels, anyone?) Calling this scary, gory, or anything else a horror movie is supposed to be is a laugh-out-loud joke.There is nothing good I can say about The Hitcher, and there is nothing else I can say that people haven't complained about before. The fact I'm even writing this page-long review is giving The Hitcher too much credit. You'll have forgotten you even watched it within a week, maybe less.0/10
Terrible
posted on 07 Jul 2009I expected to see a very complex plot line. Instead I was given gun shots, murder, death and no explanation. The movie contains gratuitous violence with no explanation or background to the story. They should just call it, "Some guy kills a lot of people and you have no idea why by the end of the movie!" The characters are underdeveloped to start out with. There is no clear ending or resolution. There is no closure. There is nothing that explains itself in this movie. It's upsetting, disappointing, a waste of $9 and a disgrace to filmmakers in the horror film industry. They either cut the film too much or they simply didn't develop the plot before they filmed it.
Blood, Guts and Sophia Bush, Oh My!
posted on 05 Jul 2009Man, did I have fun with The Hitcher. I expected it to be alright and I am a fan of the original. Have to say that I was really impressed with the "R-rated" feel of the film. They really stepped up the gore and the bloody violence. The Hitcher is still the unrelenting madman he was in the original, great job by Sean Bean.The two college kids do a good job, especially Sophia Bush, who does that great job in her skimpy clothes and underwear most of the movie. It was a pretty intense ride throughout, not many slow spots. And I definitely jumped twice, maybe three times.I recommend the film to any gorehounds out there and horror fans in general, it delivers!
Unlikely To Blow You Away But A Decent Horror Flick That Keeps You On The Edge!
posted on 05 Jul 2009I've not seen the original of this so i don't have the ability to compare this with that and to be honest didn't know what to expect from this.I felt the film was pretty good to be honest. It wasn't groundbreaking but definitely great fun , believable and better than a lot of horror films getting made at the moment.What can you expect from a horror film today?! The story is very straight forward it's basically about a psychotic hitcher who hitches rides in order to find new victims. He's a psycho who simply loves to kill!. That's the bets bit there's no silly plot lines it's fun to him so he does it often.Cool eh?.One of the best bits of the film is definitely Sean Bean. He's very believable as "The Hitcher" and makes the film what it is to be honest although performances elsewhere are good enough for this.The film keeps you on the edge as mentioned in the summary. It keeps you guessing and you do actually wonder were can they take this film?. Plus some surprising twists and very jumpy moments it's all good!.And surprisingly there's some really well done car sequences/chases so there's a fair bit of action thrown in plus some decent blood n' guts for the hardcore horror fans!.All in all a decent horror film worth checking out.7/10
A film filled with more holes than swiss cheese.
posted on 05 Jul 2009The premise of the suspense flick seemed interesting enough - how a hitcher terrorized two college kids who happened to give him a ride. Unfortunately, that appears to be one of only two good things about the film (the other good thing being Sophia Bush). The way the story unfolds is ridiculous. I was aghast at how the script writer tried to insult the intelligence of the audience in more than one scene in the movie. For instance, how is it possible that Sean Bean's character can kill so many grown men (including law enforcement officers) and yet not be able to overcome Sophia Bush's character when they were in the motel room? Why didn't Bush's character just shoot the damn chains off her boyfriend when he was tied to the trucks? I was only one of four persons in the cinema watching the show and I was shouting myself hoarse at all the loopholes in the story-telling. If you like suspense thrillers because of the fear they instill in you, this is not the show to get it. This show is strictly for fans of the lead actors only. A pity really...how did the guy who did so well in LOTR end up doing crap like this?
the hitcher --waste of money
posted on 03 Jul 2009when i saw this movie ..i thought director never watched it before releasing..otherwise this movie should be not out there to grab money from our pockets. so many things in this movie are stupid , why would anybody shoot the non-sense.. i always wonder the screen writer have to write a story..then approve it from some studio or producer..then director and actors read it..are all those persons are stupid and they did nothing to revise the script..to make it look like to present on screen..and the distributer too may be stupid enough to pass this kind of movies to the theaters..and who suffer from all those stupidness --you and me who buy tickets and waste our time..my advice ..dont go to this movie..ever..
Was It All Worth It?
posted on 03 Jul 2009The original film, with Rutger Hauer and C. Thomas Howell starring, was very good. It had everything you needed in such a thrilling story – suspense, plot line, terror, horror and even some love story. The very idea to make a remake of that good film seemed quite weird. Well, after all, the film makers invited excellent actor Sean Bean, known for his deep, psychological approach to his characters. Here, he is very decent as John Ryder, a mysterious and ruthless mass killer. And, let us be fair, Sean is the only real asset of this half-baked work. What went wrong? Well, the young stars of the film seem to lose the clue altogether. They may play in an American Pie – type of comedy, or a bloody road thriller with the same lack of gusto or sense. Yes, they do try hard. But, the mere presence of Mr. Bean makes their efforts more fruitless. And then, this version is so meaninglessly bloody and violent that all the possible limits of good taste are crossed very soon into the film. Seems like the film crew thought that to be not enough, and the DVD bonus featured a 20-minutes film dedicated only to the very scene where the ties body of the main hero is torn apart by 2 trucks. Well, I wonder why they did not show also somebody's brains blown away for some 30 minutes or so. All that in mind, plus a lot of foul language, plus too much blood, makes the film a very heavy lump to swallow at once. This brings us to the idea that not all of the remakes or sequels work well. Often, they flop miserably. Sometimes, like this film, The Hitcher, they produce a blank look and a lingering question: Was it really worth doing it? My idea, no. Leave this version and give the classic variant another try.
Hitcher is a ride worth taking
posted on 29 Jun 2009With the most demented movie monster since Hannibal Lecter, Dave Meyer's Meyer's The Hitcher is the most terrifying slasher pic of the last few years. Buckle up and pray.Collegiate couple Grace Andrews (Sophia Bush) and Jim Halsey (Zachary Knighton) hit the road in a 1970 Oldsmobile 442, en route to spring break, but their pleasure trip soon turns into a waking nightmare after encountering the mysterious hitchhiker John Ryder, a.k.a. The Hitcher (Sean Bean). The initial encounters with Ryder are increasingly off-putting for Grace and Jim, and they bravely fight back when he ambushes them. But they are truly blindsided when he implicates them in a horrific slaying and continues to shadow them. The open road becomes a battleground of blood and metal as, in trying to elude not only Ryder but also New Mexico State Police Lieutenant Esteridge's (Neal McDonough) officers, Grace and Jim must fight for their lives and face their fears head-on.Meyer's, in his feature film debut, draws heavily from his nearly 100 music videos, giving The Hitcher a fast paced, no holds barred energy that can only come from the MTV generation. From the opening scene (reminiscent of Oliver Stones Natural Born Killers), to the shockingly gruesome final moments; Meyer's grabs viewers by the throat and drags them, kicking and screaming, through the 83-minute combination of horror, thriller and action flicks. The short run time helps to insure that the audience is kept on the edge of their seats while still allowing a connection with the characters that is the key to a gripping ride.A remake of Eric Red's 1986 film of the same name, The Hitcher breaks free of the typical remake curse by infusing a memorable soundtrack with enough action and common sense to appeal to viewers of both genders, though the film is decidedly turned toward the male 18-24 demographic. The characters in general are utterly believable, avoiding the stereotypical plot foibles that curse the generic horror flick. The plot line has a few kinks, and there are enough directorial flubs to keep film buffs giggling, but overall the film serves its purpose as an in-your-face slash-fest infused with a healthy does of explosions and car crashes. In traditional horror formula, there is a last girl, and to coin a phrase from SAW…oh yes, there will be blood.
more of an action movie than the original movie
posted on 25 Jun 2009this remake of the 1986 classic has it's good moments and the rest is just so so.first the good.Sean Bean as the villain.he is very menacing and seems to really relish the role.Rutger Hauer played the role in the original.there are some moments of suspense and lots of action.more action that suspense really.the tone of the movie doesn't seem as dark as it should,at least to me.this movie focuses more on action than on psychology.the original was much more psychological suspense oriented.this version is still quite watchable for the most part,though there is one scene which really cheapens the movie and brings it down a notch.i won't say which scene.if you don't notice it,than it probably doesn't matter to you.the acting is mostly decent but is a bit suspect,from one actor,at least.i also thought this movie had less depth than the original.not that the original was really deep or anything,but it has something this one doesn't.something intangible that i can't quite pin down.by the way,this movie actually borrows as heavily from "The Hitcher 2"(2003) as it does from the original.as a matter of fact,i was reminded more of that movie than the original.anyway,i give "The Hitcher"(2006) a 7/10
What Planet Are These People on??
posted on 23 Jun 2009So much is wrong with this thing that it would be faster to say what was right with it. Unfortunately anything positive I had to say about this train wreck of a screenplay was quickly shoved out of my brain by the next scene, line, painfully bad bit of acting, or as is the case in 99% of this movie, a sickly combination of all three. I literally fought back the urge to shout out at the movie numerous times. Sophia Bush should never be allowed to call herself an actor ever again. She came across as no more than a pretty, illiterate girl (she obviously didn't read the script before signing on). The helpless female she tries to portray in the first 95% of the movie is such an extreme example of the stereotype that even the most rabid sexist couldn't suspend disbelief long enough to buy it. And when she "redeems" herself in the last 2 minutes by showing that girl power that we hadn't even gotten a whiff of previously, it is so forced and out of place (not to mention cheesy enough for a triple bypass) that I honest to god, threw up in my mouth. don't go see this movie. I should have walked out when I saw Michael Bay had something to do with it.
This movie was incredibly stupid and annoying!
posted on 21 Jun 2009Who wrote this sh*t script? No, seriously! I cannot believe an idiot directed it, and a bunch of investors plunked money down to get this made.The two kids in the movie are aggravatingly annoying! I wanted to ring their necks for being so lame and stupid! This movie SUCKED the BIG ONE! Did anyone actually pay to see this in the theater? Did you get a refund?? I saw it on cable, and felt like it was a HUGE waste of cable time.Oh my, God. Since when did IMDb require a 1000 word, ten line minimum to leaving comments? This is ridiculous! I'm supposed to tell you more about how much this film annoyed me? Just take my word for it, it absolutely sucked.
Mindless blood-soaked sensationalism
posted on 11 Jun 2009A remake of the cult thriller from 1986.A young couple going cross country for spring break run into a psychotic hitch-hiker who makes their vacation turn into a violent hell. Soon the police are after them as well as the clever killer of the title frames them for several murders.From the very first scene in which a cute little bunny gets pancaked by a speeding vehicle to the outrageously violent finale this is just pure mindless blood-soaked sensationalism. The original was about tension, atmosphere, and a cunning killer that was cleverly characterized as being neither fully real nor totally supernatural. The original was consistent in its story with the whole film taking place in the ominous desert. Here you have a run-of-the-mill gore-lusting psycho killing people in increasingly stomach churning ways. Evading the police in increasingly unbelievable ways. And, in the end, being just a cheap deliverer of shock rather than a disturbing and mysterious persona.Also the teen romance story line was just plain old tired. It was inevitably done to connect with a wider audience, but it detracts from the suspense. The title character here was also shown as being more human than Rutger Hauer's original portrayal - when is thrown out of a car in one scene he just lays there and recovers in this version. While the original had a great and ominous shot of him getting up and smiling. The helicopter/car chase also has a critical difference in this version and that completely eliminates the point and power of that scene as it was in the original. This sort of deviation from the first is pretty much pervasive in this movie. Everyhting is dumbed down with the accent being put on loud explosions, car crashes, and sickening gore. Instead of tension and eeriness in connecting scenes that climaxes with the action scenes.Then you could argue, if the movie was just like the first it would be pointless to remake. Well, that's right, this is a pointless remake of a cult classic that I now like even more. --- 3/10Rated R for strong violence/gore and profanity
The Hitcher
posted on 07 Jun 2009I found this movie to be an excellent movie. If your looking for an edgy thriller. This is your movie. Great actors, great storyline. Sophia Bush comes out with an amazing performance. As well to the other actors. This movie literally keeps you at the edge of your seat through-out the whole movie. You never know what is going to happen next. You think you do, but something completely different occurs. Sean Bean does an amazing performance as well. You wouldn't think he was the hitcher by just looking at him. But you never know who your going to pick up right? Go see this movie! So if your looking for a good scare of just a good movie. Go see this one! Great movie! I recommend!
just got out of the screening
posted on 20 May 2009OK lets start with the fact that i work at a movie theatre and i originally think that every scary movie is the same and i just wanna say that after seeing this movie, my fact/opinion comes out to be true. during the whole movie you see blood, gore, fight scenes, and crappy graphics of little animals (that really caught my attention). but the actual movie itself made no sense. the whole time John Rider is asked why is he doing this, at one point it even states "your a smart boy, you should be able to figure this out" well guess what you don't. the movie ends and nothing is revealed about him. the only thing you know is that he will hitchhike and kill......no point to it at all. all this movie is, is a chase from when you first see him.....thats it. then the end, nothing goes beyond him hitching a ride and killing end of story. if there is a back story that i am not seeing please tell me, cause i guess i was not paying attention.
A wild ride
posted on 22 Aug 2009So 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.