The Hitcher

[Blzer]

Just got back from seeing this. Let me just begin by saying that it met my expectations. I'll just jot down a few notes about the movie... I'll be very vague and do my best for no spoilers.




- Sean Bean was the perfect person for the role of John Ryder. His on-screen presence is exactly who I would love to have in a movie like this.

- Michael Bay's involvement was easily seen in this movie. Not a bad thing, either.

- Anything in this movie that had CGI was just obvious. Nothing terrible, and it wasn't overdone... but just... obvious.

- The ending was unpredictable in the sense that one would predict the unpredictable, but didn't get what they predicted. For instance, I predicted the ending about a half-hour in. Ten minutes later, I changed my prediction. Things like that.

- This movie had strange things in the movie where, it seems that, it would be strange to go without most of them, but more that they went only some of the way with these things, and not all the way. They were incomplete fillers... not plot holes by any means, nor did they leave you with questions about them... but they were still left undone. You would probably understand what I mean if you saw the movie.

- I don't know if this movie was more of a horror or action movie.

- Good soundtrack, but it didn't exactly fit the movie [at least] that I saw.

- Jumpy moments. Not scary... jumpy.

- Characters went all over the place. It was tough to get into their minds, because there were too many times where you wanted to make a decision for them, but were just unable to.

- A few unrealistic elements, but portrayed in realistic ways (to be analogous with this statement... the laws of gravity can never be broken, but that doesn't mean you can't use a trampoline). I guess it's hard for people to understand this statement, even if they do see the movie.

- Ninety minutes... not one is wasted.

- No stranger can be trusted, even if you are a stranger to somebody else.

- Motive? Intentions?






Again, just some random notes that I typed down as I sit here. Everything I wrote was rather vague, and I recommend this movie to anybody that initially wanted to see it based on the trailer. The trailer never exactly spoils you, but it gives you moments that you know are coming when the scene arrives.

Anybody else see it yet?

[ExtremeGamer]

Re: The Hitcher

Rutger Hauer is the the only John Ryder. I refuse to see this trash of a remake.

[SportsTop]

Re: The Hitcher

Rutger Hauer is the the only John Ryder. I refuse to see this trash of a remake.

Yep. A classic with Rutger Hauer. I have no desire to see the remake either.

[CaptainZombie]

Re: The Hitcher

I'll check this out when it releases on DVD.

[Blzer]

Re: The Hitcher

Hmm, never knew this movie was a remake. I should add that to my notes.

Rutger Hauer is the the only John Ryder. I refuse to see this trash of a remake.

These attitudes are very interesting, and I would some day like to do a school project on people's takes of original work vs future copycat work. It seems as though no matter the quality, there's never succeeding the original (in some people's eyes, at least). But sometimes, the original just means the first one that you saw.

Let me put it this way: If you saw the remake first and the original second, I think you would probably enjoy the remake more than the original (but that's just a theory).

[ExtremeGamer]

Re: The Hitcher

Hmm, never knew this movie was a remake. I should add that to my notes.


These attitudes are very interesting, and I would some day like to do a school project on people's takes of original work vs future copycat work. It seems as though no matter the quality, there's never succeeding the original (in some people's eyes, at least). But sometimes, the original just means the first one that you saw.

Let me put it this way: If you saw the remake first and the original second, I think you would probably enjoy the remake more than the original (but that's just a theory).

I am a horror fan, these trash directors/producers like Michael Bay are remaking all the movies to cash in on a quick buck, and everyone of them I've seen sans the TCM remake, have sucked.

The Hitcher was made 20 years ago, why remake it? The movie was a classic for it's time, and I hope this remake flops like the "When a Stranger Calls" remake or "The Wicker Man" remake. I'm sick of it, and don't give my money towards any of them further pushing these people to remaking movies.

Give them time, I'm sure a Saw remake is coming in about 5 - 10 years. See how you feel then.

[nyyanksfan20]

Re: The Hitcher

I saw it last night. It really is a mix of a horror/action movie that's pretty much nonstop. It's not a great movie, but at least it's entertaining throughout. I would say it's better served as a rental.

[Blzer]

Re: The Hitcher

I am a horror fan, these trash directors/producers like Michael Bay are remaking all the movies to cash in on a quick buck, and everyone of them I've seen sans the TCM remake, have sucked.

The Hitcher was made 20 years ago, why remake it? The movie was a classic for it's time, and I hope this remake flops like the "When a Stranger Calls" remake or "The Wicker Man" remake. I'm sick of it, and don't give my money towards any of them further pushing these people to remaking movies.

Give them time, I'm sure a Saw remake is coming in about 5 - 10 years. See how you feel then.

The difference between a 1980s movie and a present-time movie is the ability to display realism on screen. This is just mostly due to technological advancements. Movies are normally remade (at least, to my knowledge) because of its ability to visually upgrade the original, as well as do a few things that the previous one never did.

Of course, while this was not apparent in Psycho and its remake, I'm sure that they had the ability to re-create scenes that people back when may have wanted a better focus on. Of course, it probably met then's standards. But if I decided to see that movie now, because of when I was born, I would probably not appreciate it the same way that you did.

That said, Saw (as an entire series) would be tough to replicate, in the sense that aside from a much larger budget, I can't see them technologically upgrading in this day and age in the sense that the difference will be more than minimal. Of course, I think that I understand in one way or another... how I would never want to see it remade, just because of how I don't want to see them ruin the ending of the first one, nor do I want to see another Jigsaw other than Tobin Bell... but of course, these are my thoughts in my generation. I believe that, if I saw something in this generation that did not meet today's standards in terms of visual enhancements, that I would not mind a remake down the road.

[ExtremeGamer]

Re: The Hitcher

The difference between a 1980s movie and a present-time movie is the ability to display realism on screen. This is just mostly due to technological advancements. Movies are normally remade (at least, to my knowledge) because of its ability to visually upgrade the original, as well as do a few things that the previous one never did.

Of course, while this was not apparent in Psycho and its remake, I'm sure that they had the ability to re-create scenes that people back when may have wanted a better focus on. Of course, it probably met then's standards. But if I decided to see that movie now, because of when I was born, I would probably not appreciate it the same way that you did.

That said, Saw (as an entire series) would be tough to replicate, in the sense that aside from a much larger budget, I can't see them technologically upgrading in this day and age in the sense that the difference will be more than minimal. Of course, I think that I understand in one way or another... how I would never want to see it remade, just because of how I don't want to see them ruin the ending of the first one, nor do I want to see another Jigsaw other than Tobin Bell... but of course, these are my thoughts in my generation. I believe that, if I saw something in this generation that did not meet today's standards in terms of visual enhancements, that I would not mind a remake down the road.

So, by that, you are saying since we can do better things now, Star Wars, The Godfather, Casablanca, Gone with The Wind, etc should be remade?

Special effects, CGI, etc does not make a good movie.

The original versions of almost every remake is better because of the effort put into the movie. That's why most of these remakes tank, as I'm not alone with this thinking. The Hitcher is not an old movie as I said, horror isn't about CGI to begin with, and people are sick of it.

Just saw the money amounts, and The Hitcher tanked as "Black Christmas" did just a few weeks ago. 8 million opening weekend, sorry Michael Bay, but you have another flop. And I'm glad, hopefully at some point, Hollywood will stop remaking horror films left and right. There have been at least 15 of them in the last 3-4 years.

[Beantown]

Re: The Hitcher

Just to add to Blzer's point, I saw the TCM remake first, and liked it a lot more than the original, which I saw a few months after.

[SportsTop]

Re: The Hitcher

I don't even know what would have to be remade, graphically speaking, in The Hitcher that couldn't have been done 20 years ago (unless you are referring to the end).

That is the problem with 99% of the horror/suspense films of today....there is nothing left to the imagination. Today's directors think that we need to see more blood and guts that it is to the point that it is over the top.

I thought what made The Hitcher great was its suspense and there is nothing movie makers can add or do differently today that they couldn't do 20 years ago.

[ExtremeGamer]

Re: The Hitcher

Just to add to Blzer's point, I saw the TCM remake first, and liked it a lot more than the original, which I saw a few months after.

That's the problem... Like Squint said, throwing blood and guts in a movie does not make it great.

The great thing about The Hitcher or the original TCM, was that there was almost no blood or gore in either. Both were more psychological than gory. And I'm all for gore, but when I've seen the movie already, adding gore and CGI does not make it better.

But that's fine if you prefer the remake, I'm sure many did because the original wasn't bloody enough or whatever. But if you saw the original like I did back in the 80's, it was terrifying. If I never would have saw the original and viewed the remake a few years ago, it was just another horror film, albeit a good one, but nothing special.

[Blzer]

Re: The Hitcher

So, by that, you are saying since we can do better things now, Star Wars, The Godfather, Casablanca, Gone with The Wind, etc should be remade?

Special effects, CGI, etc does not make a good movie.

Never said it did, but at times (depending on the movie's intent) it will aid in the movie's greatness. Some movies are designed to be appreciated for their effects.

Also, all I said was that sometimes some of the original creators of the movie created something in the past that could not be translated onto a movie the same way that they envisioned it, mainly because of the lack of technology that was available then. At this time, movie crews are able to normally replicate what they envision in movies because of technological advancements, and perhaps The Hitcher was a movie that they wanted to be able to visually create it in the 1980s the way that they did it in this time.

The original versions of almost every remake is better because of the effort put into the movie. That's why most of these remakes tank, as I'm not alone with this thinking. The Hitcher is not an old movie as I said, horror isn't about CGI to begin with, and people are sick of it.

I'm going to have to disagree when you discuss the effort put into the movies... by that I mean it was more than likely much more difficult to make the remakes than the originals. Of course, given computer-savvy techniques and such, it is all electronic work.

I will, however, agree with you but go off on my own tangent and say that the originals are better with what they wanted in the movie in everything that is not visual. The original writer knows how he wanted his characters to be portrayed on screen, etc. I know I didn't really explain that much, but I hope that you understand what I mean. Sometimes the creators of remakes got the wrong message, and though it's the same movie, they will more than likely botch up the movie's implications designed within dialogue, etc.

Just saw the money amounts, and The Hitcher tanked as "Black Christmas" did just a few weeks ago. 8 million opening weekend, sorry Michael Bay, but you have another flop. And I'm glad, hopefully at some point, Hollywood will stop remaking horror films left and right. There have been at least 15 of them in the last 3-4 years.

I agree that they are just spilling out left and right at the moment. I wish it were more spread out. As a matter of fact, I wish more movies were spread out in general. We're so out of material because we rush too many things out the door these days.



By the way, unless it's a spoiler, would you like to be able to tell me if J.R. had an actual motive for his actions in the original, or why he did what he did? His character was fuzzy to me in that sense, but I still think that Sean Bean was the perfect guy to have (though I thought this before I saw the movie, because I just know what kind of actor he is and what he's capable of). It's unfortunate that he's not going to get as much credit as he deserves, more than likely because there are going to be a lot of the classic-goers such as yourself. That's not a personal insult in any way whatsoever... I'm just saying that he won't get his chance to be able to be considered the John Ryder because of the original.

[CaptainZombie]

Re: The Hitcher

Just to add to Blzer's point, I saw the TCM remake first, and liked it a lot more than the original, which I saw a few months after.

Both the original TCM and the remake TCM were great pieces of art.

[Blzer]

Re: The Hitcher

I don't even know what would have to be remade, graphically speaking, in The Hitcher that couldn't have been done 20 years ago (unless you are referring to the end).

That is the problem with 99% of the horror/suspense films of today....there is nothing left to the imagination. Today's directors think that we need to see more blood and guts that it is to the point that it is over the top.

I thought what made The Hitcher great was its suspense and there is nothing movie makers can add or do differently today that they couldn't do 20 years ago.

Agreed, but again... I haven't seen the original, so I don't know if every scene was the same or not.

You'll realize within 40 minutes into the movie that there were scenes here that were just impossible to do in the past, which leads me to believe that they went on their own in some aspects of this movie. I wouldn't know, however.