  |
 |
|
|
 |
|

Directed by: Robert Harmon
Starring:
Rutger Hauer/John Ryder C. Thomas Howell/Jim Jennifer Jason Leigh/Nash
|
|
|
PLOT-CRUNCH:
Jim (Howell) is driving a driveway car to San Diego. He picks up a mysterious hitchhiker (Hauer)
on the way, one who winds up being a soulless serial killer. He gets rid of him but the somber hitcher keeps
popping back up on his road, murdering folks and making it look like Jim's the
culprit. There’s no other way to cut it: Jim must face the hitcher.
THE LOWDOWN:
Because I cut off his legs... his arms...and his head...
and
I'm going to do the same to you. - John Ryder
I have a very personal
relationship with the original THE HITCHER as I owe a lot to it.
When I first saw the film as a younger, nose picking, Sears Catalog Lingerie section
abusing Arrow, it left a deep mark on me. Consequence; it made me want to explore the
screenwriting process and eventually prompted me to start writing scripts of my
own.
Moreover, it resulted in me
tracking down screenwriter Eric Red when I launched this site for a
lengthy interview. We kept in touch after that and became friends while working
together on various projects. It goes without saying that I learned
Mack-Truck-loads about screenwriting through knowing the lad (I still suck
though) and I consider him to be the best writer I've ever met, bar none. Funny
how things goes down sometimes. The old saying pops to my mind "Everything
happens for a reason". Okay, enough of my shite and on to the film!
The relentlessly paced THE
HITCHER was a moody, quasi-existential, action/horror flick that hit notes most
efforts of its ilk don't even dare reach or yet alone accomplish. At first
glance it might come across as standard serial killer opus, one filled to the
brim with mayhem and "burn the envelope" brutality, but for me, I've
always gotten more than that out of it! Blame Red's purposefully ambiguous
screenplay! The character of John Ryder and his sadistic actions were never
given a clear motive, hence could be perceived as so many things! Are they a
metaphor for the obstacles we all have to face in life? You know the ones that
make us stronger and help shape us into who we are? Or maybe a physical
embodiment of the rite of passage that all males go through when they transition
from boyhood to manhood? Or is it’s just about a nut-job who wants to die and is
training this young pup to kill him already? It was up for grabs! But one thing
was for damn sure; I’m always mentally stimulated when I watch this
mean-machine.
Now many have stated that
the film has homo-erotic tones lodged firmly in its Jock-Strap and that these
two dudes just want to bang sillier than monkeys on E. I can see how that can
be perceived but with that said, I know for a fact that this was not intentional
on the screenplay’s part. The gay vibes are in the house mostly due to Hauer's
eccentric choices in terms of his performance (He just had to play with that
spit didn’t he?) but hey, if you wanna see it as Brokeback in the desert with
phallic guns in tow… go right ahead. Which brings me to Hauer himself.
Personally I can't think of a more entrancing, onscreen villain than him as John
Ryder. He brought riveting nuances, dangerous charisma and a terrifying mean
streak to what could've been, in the hands of a lesser actor, a more “standard”
type of psycho character. Hauer played up the mystery of the character and owned the screen like nobody’s whipped
bitch! He came across as un-stoppable force, one that could be more than human
even though he wasn't. Apart from his stint in Blade Runner it was the best showcase of his
career if you ask me or the chopped off finger swimming in my tub of French
fries.
Now don't me wrong dudes and
dudettes, THE HITCHER was much more than heavy on psychological/symbolism clit
teasing, it was a badass, take no prisoners, grab you by the throat and bang
your mom, visceral cinematic experience too. The flick shot-gunned fantastic
car chase bits and down n dirty, machismo heavy gun-stuff my
way and I relished every second of it! CHAOS in motion baby! CHAOS! The same
went horror wise with the theme of being “alone” against an evil entity, moments
of inventive (yet suggested) brutality and all kinds of tension whip-lashing
hard. And the cherry on top was that all that genre loving was communicated with
action. I have to admire a film that pulls
off relying on physical get-downs to tell its story without sacrificing
character development/arc in the process. There was hardly any dialogue in this film
(what was there was damn clever though) and it rarely let up, but the characters
and their growth were still very prominent! It’s called getting your whore and
eating her too!
Finally, add to ALL THAT one
heck of a left field kill, a “true to its audience” male/female courtship that
ducked the clichés, sumptuous photography (flick made me want to live in the
desert) and an atmospheric score that backed up the imagery perfectly and you
get a Grade-A horror/action/ thriller. Well to me anyways, and at the end of the
road rage, that's all I need. Does it show this is one of my fav films of all
time? IT SHOULD! Let’s hitch a ride with THE HITCHER…straight to hell!
GORE:
The violence was mostly off-screen, smartly letting the audience do the work. Dead families, a dog snacking on a dead cop, the
French fry finger and of course the Mack-Truck incident (that's all I’ll say).
The movie was mucho mean spirited but not visually too gory.
ACTING:
Rutger Hauer’s (Ryder) Aryan looks served him well here… again. The Hitcher was a scary, funny, sad
and enigmatic character. Thankfully, Hauer was up to the task and then some! C
Thomas Howell (Jim) did good here, communicating Jim’s every emotion through his
actions and facial expression (He did pull one un-intentionally funny face
during the diner scene though. I was on the floor!). Jennifer Jason Leigh (Nash)
was younger, chubbier and cuter. She also gave a strong show by taking a fairly
simple part and giving it depth and color.
T & A:
We get NATHING and the ladies get C. Thomas Howell’s pasty white chest…sorry girls, no butt shots.
DIRECTING:
The movie looked incredible and atmosphere was in the forefront! Lavish desert landscapes,
ominous shadows, rainy nights....loved it! Slap in some slow motion, tightly
directed action sequences and lots of close ups of Hauer’s face and you get a film that bathed
in beauty, clashing with its ugly happenings. Good work Harmon!
SOUNDTRACK:
The eerie and eclectic score by Mark Isham played a strong part in the film's
impact. Far from typical, it powerfully accentuated the "off kilter" nature of
the story and the Ryder/Halsey relationship while backing up the action like a
champ.
BOTTOM LINE:
How kool is THE HITCHER? Well Roger Ebert gave it zero stars and called it
"diseased and corrupt", that's how kool it is! Its definitely one for the
books! A thriller with brains, an action flick with soul, a horror film with purpose,
sporting a captivating baddie to boot! Engagingly vague, razor directed, well
acted and heavy on the suspense, it was one of those rare films that worked me on
every freaking level. Yup, THE HITCHER is in a league of it’s own and will
always be one of my top draw when it comes to getting a healthy dose of
top-notch horror and action rolled up in one film!
BULL'S EYE:
C. Thomas Howell said that he was frightened of Hauer on the set but that he learned a lot by watching and listening to the man.
This film was written by Eric Red. He co-wrote Blue Steel and Near Dark with Kathryn Bigelow. He also wrote and directed Body Parts and Bad Moon.
The Hitcher Part 2 exists and it blows. There's also an inferior remake (2007) on the loose.

© 2004 John Fallon All Rights Reserved JoBlo.com
|


 |
Viewing
1-4 of 4 User Comments
1
|
 |
krazy drako
on Sep 4 2007, 11:50:58 PM Writes:
BOOSTING THE RATING. Rating: 4/4
This movie is pure genius. It is flawless. It makes me sad when I think that Rutger Hauer's career didn't make it out of the 80's. |
| Profile | WWW | Buddy |
|

LegendLivesOn
on Jun 3 2007, 4:40:06 PM Writes:
WHY? Rating: 4/4
I'm not Dr. Fanboy and try to post only when compelled to to the max. But,I nearly vomited when I saw the 1.5 rating on Spitting Bullets. I'm all about people having their own opinion, but I can't believe no one said anything about this guy liking the remake more. If that's not enough he has pubicly admitted it. Yes, it's your own opinion but this is mine... The original succeeded on every level, visually, mentally, etc. I enjoyed the remake for what it was. Which is to retell the story to a new generation that has no idea that the first film is the one they should have stopped and picked up on the side of the road. I will give the remake ts due, Sean Bean was a reat choice for the new John Ryder and did an admirable job at trying to fill Rutger Hauer's boots. The reamke was on a down slide at the beginning when thay had to make it a boy/girl love story to try to get the story over to the audience. The original only needed C. Thomas behind the wheel. Sad that they needed the hot Sophia Bush to sell what was a great 80's delight. Sorry Im done, but someone needed to stand up for what is right. |
| Profile | E-mail | Buddy |
|

badmood18
on Jan 24 2007, 9:12:44 PM Writes:
NOT SO GOOD Rating: 1.5/4
Well I just watched this movie again and not much changed. I still didn't think it was very good. I honestly liked the remake better and had a good time with it. I personally thought the acting in this movie was terrible, with the exception of Rutger Hauer. Their were moments when C. Thomas Howell did ok. |
| Profile | E-mail | Buddy |
|

Jason13thh
on Aug 5 2005, 4:23:24 AM Writes:
MASTERPIECE Rating: 4/4
This movie belongs to my favorite movies whatever the genres.
It's atmospheric,superb music by Isham, beautiful cinematography (Seale) the acting is totally believable and the writing is certainly above average.
Great great movie, highly recommended
|
| Profile | E-mail | Buddy |
|

 |
Viewing
1-4 of 4 User Comments
1
|
 |
 |
|
|
|