  |
 |
|
|
 |
|

Directed by: Dave Meyers
Starring:
Sean Bean/John Sophia Bush/Grace Zachary Knighton/Jim Neal McDonough/Lt. Esteridge
| Rating: |
  |
|
|
|
PLOT-CRUNCH:
A teen couple is driving across New Mexico so the whipped dude (Knighton) can
finally meet his ball breaking girlfriend's (Bush) gal-pals. Their joyride is harshly interrupted by a psychotic hitchhiker (Bean) who wants to do them in at all cost.
THE LOWDOWN:
WARNING: I'll try to separate the
original from the remake. I'll try... but it'll be near impossible for me. I know the
original by heart and freaking love it to death! Readers discretion and chicks
reading this should drop their tops right now.... is STRONGLY advised.
As you might know by now, I worship the original THE HITCHER
(read my review here) and hated the idea of a remake right off the stab. I didn’t even want to see it, not just because it’s THE HITCHER but I’m sick of seeing films I’ve already seen. But I run a horror website
so I put my personal feelings aside, walked in that theatre and
I did my best to give it a clean chance. Maybe it would be good! Maybe I’d catch myself
digging it?
The Hitcher remake wasn't really a remake. Structurally, think a copy/paste job with
random tweaks here and there much like The Omen remake. The beats were the same, many of the lines the same, the action/car carnage sequences pretty much the same in staging and the surprises (or lack of if you've seen the original) mostly the same.
My term for these types of films is "shoddy dub of a great original". It was pretty much the same damn film but “teened up” in typical
Platinum Dunes fashion, more akin to a music video than a feature film. The changes that were present were unfortunately not for the better. By making John Ryder’s target a young teen couple instead of one
young man, gone were the high stakes put forward by the idea of being alone against a seemingly unstoppable evil force. Moreover, the engrossing relationship that Halsey and Ryder shared in the original, the psychological layers that lied beneath the action and the
twisted mano et mano game that kept me hooked throughout... ALL GONE!
Yup, this remake simplified everything as much as it could for mass consumption, right down to the too aloof John Ryder (he's hardly in the film) and his now softy “game”. He came across as just another psychopath with a chip on his shoulder,
Friday the 13th on wheels if you will, standard and typical. But that’s
fine and dandy. It’s not the original, it’s a remake right? I should judge it on
its own terms! Fine I'll try! Alone, the flick failed me over and over
again. Its biggest mistake was that it didn’t get me to care about its cookie
cutter teens or their by the numbers relationship. Not good when you're doing a
"character driven" piece. And they actually mucked that up even more by doing
the characterization thing backwards! The duder was more fleshed out and interesting than the lead
gal! He at least showed tiny hints of evolution throughout by result of the f*cked up
events that were befalling him. The dame on the other hand was a ball breaker in the beginning,
she cried a bit and at the end she was that same ball breaker.
Where was her character arc? Out to lunch? Giving what little juice there was to a secondary
player was a bad move. Consequence of that? Tension and investment in the situation were
diluted. Why should I give a hoot for "heroes" who hardly grow or don't
grow at all?
And the same bon-bon jive went for the action scenes. They felt rushed and were often played up in the glossy department with one
bit going as far as being tagged to a Nine Inch Nail song. Sure it was
pretty gnarly and shite. I was smiling! But I shouldn't have been smiling. The
approach, made the scene “fun” as opposed to nail-biting. Am I watching a
horror/thriller or She's All That over here? I'm confused! The only scares I got out of this
lollipop were of the cheap kind, yup, boo scares (loud noise and somebody/thing leaping into frame). Yawn!
What about gore? Was there some of that sweet stuff? Yes the film was fairly
gory and I was digging it
on a primitive level (loved seeing Ryder shoot people in the head) but that’s all it was: kool violence
for kool violence's sakes with little to no stakes
tagged to it! I could get that playing a video game or whacking off!
And boy did they muck up really bad when it came to
the now infamous token "The Hitcher" kill! Those who’ve seen the original will know what I mean when I say: “Mack Truck”. The build-up was too fast,
the set-up altered for the worse and the gore laced conclusion looked like it would’ve been more comfortable in
Freddy VS. Jason than here. I actually laughed out loud when the scene went down! I didn’t
chuckle in the original.
So by the time the flick reached its uber stylized, CG
fire, “GAP skirt-girrrl power-ish” conclusion: I groaned like a drunk out of
booze and couldn’t wait to book out the theatre. Why should I have cared? Its
not like this hollow tube tried to have me invest in anything beyond overt gore, fashionable clothes and
flashy action! Its as if they did everything to detach me from the happenings!
They sheltered me from what this flick was really about and gave me a Jean
commercial with death and car chases instead! Bugh...
Dumb ass Plot Holes note: Why put a bullet proof vest on a convict
being transferred? Never seen that. - If I have a shotgun and a killer is in
front of me; I don't aim and shoot at the bullet proof vest repeatedly, I aim
for the legs or the head no? - Wouldn't a point blank shotgun blast blow one's
head off? - End of note.
Anything positive to say? Well by rule of middle finger, I love
Sean Bean, and although he had little to play with and was way too straightforward to even come close
to rivaling Rutger Hauer's astounding showcase in the original, he was still
entertaining to gawk at. Great tan! Better teeth! And props to Zachary Knighton
for pulling off a likeable and intense performance. If only they had made his
character the lead...
if only. Some of the action was also well staged and executed. Nothing like
tasty eye-candy of cars crashing and toppling over to ease the pain of an empty
film. Finally, seeing Sophia Bush (Grace) in tiny undies always makes me go “yeehaw”
in my seat; so I appreciated that.
All in all though THE HITCHER 2007 was a shamefully safe and simpleton ride. On its own, it
dulled down its characters and situation so much, that it turned what should've
been a gripping experience
into a vacuous one. And when pitted against the original...lol...it was embarrassing. Talk about
going full on Albino in comparison! I guess that’s what happens when you try to
better a film that you can’t better; you strip it down, do different for
different sakes and put out a limp wrist McProduct. Skip this bumper car ride and
instead, cruise
with class via the original on DVD. Thumb down!
GORE:
This Hitcher spat out a lot of Ketchup! Messy gun shot wounds (nice head shots), ripped throat, deeply cut wrist, broken fingers, a knife in the chest, gruesome after the fact corpses and a person ripped in half. Too bad depth is what this film needed not bad gore.
ACTING:
Sean Bean (John) looked the part, sported a flawless Yankee accent and was efficient throughout as the stone cold killer. Too bad he didn't have much to play with and that the film played him down. Sophia Bush (Grace) was hot, reacted credibly but her character was beyond thin with nowhere to go. Zachary Knighton (Jim) got the minute substance that should've went to Bush and he was up to task! Great job man! Neal McDonough (Lt. Esteridge) had fun with the role and I had fun watching him.
T & A:
We almost see Sophia Bush's jigglies in a naked shower scene and we do see her in small undies. NICE! The ladies get Zachary Knighton shirtless.
DIRECTING:
Sometimes it feels like the Platinum Dunes movies are all helmed by the same guy. They all look and feel the same! Here was no different. Although capable, less show-offy than the music video roots norm with a couple of nifty slow-mo bits and slick shots, the flick was was typical commercial stuff. High on style, rushed, low on suspense and momentum.
SOUNDTRACK:
We get some Top 40 pop/rock stuff, a NIN dittie and a too seldom score that often echoed the one found in the original.
BOTTOM LINE:
It’s The Hitcher for hip pre-teens!! Name recognition moulah and catering to the folks that didn't see the original aside, there is no valid reason for this remake of The Hitcher to exist. The original still holds up strong today and easily blows this light-weight out of the playpen! How about remaking lousy films and making them superior instead of entering a no-win situation? Just my two cents. Now if you haven’t seen the original, expect a gory thrill-less thriller with boo scares, flimsy psychological meat, poor character development, no resonance and nice clothes.
If you've taken a ride with the original before; don’t bother hitching with this one. It’s the same film but incredibly dumbed down and trendied up. Everything that made the original compelling, unique and heavy hitting has been overly simplified or/and nixed out of this one! If The Hitcher 1986 was a meaty T-Bone steak, this version would be a packet of "Hamburger Helper". Get my drift? Man I miss the days when people use to make films! Not soulless assembly line copycats, FILMS DAMMIT!
BULL'S EYE:
This is director Dave Meyers' first feature. He has directed countless music videos though.
Eric Red, the writer of the original film got top screenwriting credit on the remake by default. The WGA didn't deem that the other writers changed his original script enough.
UK born Sean Bean is a great f*cking man!
DUCK THE OFFICIAL HITCHER WEBSITE HERE

© 2004 John Fallon All Rights Reserved JoBlo.com
|


 |
Viewing
1-8 of 8 User Comments
1
|
 |
labellamovement
on Jan 25 2007, 4:50:56 AM Writes:
IT WASN'T THAT BAD Rating: 2.5/4
I have and Love the original, I can speak no evil about that film.
But this remake wasn't a terrible one by any standards(this could be becasue right after I saw this I walked in to black X-mas, Now theres a bad remake) This was basicly dumbed down, but still watchable, hell if you haven't seen the 1886 one you likely have a grand old time, Though Sophia Bush Should have spent more time in her under wear, and Sean bean Should have spent more time on the screen! |
| Profile | E-mail | Buddy |
|

Portia
on Jan 22 2007, 10:42:16 AM Writes:
ARROW, YOU HARSH MAN, YOU! Rating: 3/4
I think Arrows review is a little unfair to be honest, I value your opinion arrow (trust me on that) but I think this movie deserves more than a 1 1/2. The plot was pretty good and I though Sean Bean and Sophia Bush were both amazing! sure it's a remake, but what does that matter standing alone the movie is good, maybe not as good as the original but still a pretty decent movie.
People are being ignorant of this movie, just because it's a re-make does not make it bad, it's miles better than 'When A Stranger Calls' remake but people went to see that. lol. |
| Profile | Buddy |
|

poopontheshoes7
on Jan 22 2007, 7:57:22 AM Writes:
ARGH! Rating: 1.5/4
I saw the original on Arrows word alone and loved it. Pure 80's fun and Rutger is so cool in everything he does. I saw this with my brother because he likes the original too (he loves car chases.) We both hated it. I agree with Arrow 100%.
I usually defend most remakes because some of them are damn good. The Hills Have Eyes being the best out of the the recent crop. But this just felt wrong from the beginning. Add this to the list of shitty remakes. |
| Profile | E-mail | Buddy |
|

badmood18
on Jan 21 2007, 10:57:30 PM Writes:
GOOD TIMES Rating: 3/4
I remember not caring for the original Hitcher that much. I have it coming in the mail through netflix for me to refresh my memory and see if my opinion changes. I wasn't expecting much with this remake, especially with it's 83 minute runtime. But I have to say I had a good time watching this movie and I was very entertained. Obviously remakes are going to keep coming so might as well just enjoy them for what they are. Yes they might not be as good as the originals, but they are still entertaining. Also, every once in a while the remake can be just as good if not better than the original. |
| Profile | E-mail | Buddy |
|

smok3h
on Jan 21 2007, 6:07:27 PM Writes:
I LIKED IT.. Rating: 2.5/4
Well I thought the movie was pretty good, but I also haven't seen the original. I think your opinion was a little biased though Arrow. I plan to check out the original soon if I can find it anywhere. |
| Profile | E-mail | WWW | Buddy |
|

Phatmaster
on Jan 21 2007, 10:13:47 AM Writes:
Rating: 2/4
I agree with pretty much everything Arrow said up top, but for some reason I found myself still entertained. It must of been Sophia Bush in that skirt, damn was it short. If you've seen the original you don't really need to waste your time, but if you've never seen the original you might find this flick a good way to kill off time. |
| Profile | E-mail | Buddy |
|

zombiesfeed
on Jan 20 2007, 9:48:38 PM Writes:
SICK OF REMAKES Rating: 0/4
nuff said doesn't Hollywood know how to make anything original anymore instead of remaking great films The Omen really pissed me off, and Dawn of the Dead well I still prefer the original I do warm a little bit more to Dawn of the Dead though cause at least they didn't borrow huge amounts of characters and storyline from the original still however it pissed me off that they called it Dawn of the Dead when it isn't the only reason they called it that was to capitalize on the name greedy bastards |
| Profile | E-mail | Buddy |
|

GravitaZ
on Jan 20 2007, 1:04:26 AM Writes:
YOU'RE BEING A LITTLE HARSH, ARROW! Rating: 2.5/4
One and a half? I saw it tonight. It wasn't a great movie by any means, but i was entertained throughout. I knew you were going to tear this movie to threads because you like the original movie so much. I've seen you give much worse movies higher ratings. For anyone reading this, it was a decent movie IMO and you won't be upset for spending money seeing it in the theaters. |
| Profile | E-mail | Buddy |
|

 |
Viewing
1-8 of 8 User Comments
1
|
 |
 |
|
|
|