ARROW IN THE HEAD REVIEWS

001615
Search by title # A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
The Hitcher (2007)
Written by: The Arrow
Director: Dave Meyers

Starring:
Sean Bean/John
Sophia Bush/Grace
Zachary Knighton/Jim
Neal McDonough/Lt. Esteridge
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

Strikeback
Not registered? Sign-up!
Or

5:30AM on 05/14/2014

No clue about the original.

I haven't seen the original and quite frankly I don't care to. I think Sean Bean nailed it and Sophia Bush killed it! All in all I wouldn't mind if I owned a copy. Well, Sophia Bush it THE most beautiful, intelligent, caring, funny and good-doing actress I know so I guess my opinion's biased. Anyway, love her!
I haven't seen the original and quite frankly I don't care to. I think Sean Bean nailed it and Sophia Bush killed it! All in all I wouldn't mind if I owned a copy. Well, Sophia Bush it THE most beautiful, intelligent, caring, funny and good-doing actress I know so I guess my opinion's biased. Anyway, love her!
Your Reply:



4:50AM on 01/25/2007

It wasn't that bad

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!
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!
Your Reply:



+0
10:42AM on 01/22/2007

Arrow, you harsh man, you!

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
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.
Your Reply:



7:57AM on 01/22/2007

argh!

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.
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.
Your Reply:



10:57PM on 01/21/2007

Good Times

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
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.
Your Reply:



+0
6:07PM on 01/21/2007

I liked it..

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.
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.
Your Reply:



10:13AM on 01/21/2007
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.
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.
Your Reply:



9:48PM on 01/20/2007

sick of remakes

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
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
Your Reply:



1:04AM on 01/20/2007

You're being a little harsh, Arrow!

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.
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.
Your Reply:



Mistress Of The Week

More
Palvin, Barbara