2hotFeature one of my absolute favorites!

Platicsco Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Hayleigh Joseph This is ultimately a movie about the very bad things that can happen when we don't address our unease, when we just try to brush it off, whether that's to fit in or to preserve our self-image.

Chantel Contreras It is both painfully honest and laugh-out-loud funny at the same time.

willcundallreview Rating-3/10The Hitcher, a horror slasher movie that is a remake of the 1986 version, but this movie is one that doesn't do anything to make you feel this is done well. Starring Sean Bean in a role he actually takes on well, this movie still fails to ignite genuine thrills and the plot starts to become a little absurd and kind of as if no one actually thought of what was next. Nevertheless this movie is not terrible, but it is a bad one and that contains many reasons.Now if your going to go ahead and make a horror movie and then remake an old one of that, don't do it like this does. The Hitcher becomes a film that's plot is just insane, I mean it doesn't lack it's thrills but still that is what the people behind this seem to want, only big stunts and thrills, no actual real or raw emotion and no thought out story. The movie falls apart mid way through and although still manages to grip you slightly, you do end up watching it in a kind of "I know this is dumb but I'll finish watching" way.Now I said Sean Bean is good and I mean that, in fact the acting grade goes up a slight bit because of him, I mean he is genuinely evil and really gives it his all, he is the star of this and he knows what he is doing. The only real shame is the rest of the main cast who are thrown into a pit of fairly poor acting, Sophia Bush and Zachary Knighton are the two main characters here on a road trip, and they really don't add much to this film, both are poor and at times it can seem as if Bean is carrying them a long himself.Now with a movie that is produced by big action crazed Michael Bay, you must expect the most crazy stunts, you know the kind where most would die but not in this. Now the stunts are done well no doubt and some of the settings are really nice, the movie though does nothing to help this and when the stunts come in, it usually becomes a really stupid scene where very little realistic happens.So I guess one of the big questions here is, who would like a movie like this?, well fortunately I can see many will. This is the kind of film where I feel most will know this isn't good but may still enjoy it, I was engaged throughout and even though you can plainly see the holes in it, you can still enjoy what this is(in a sense). I wouldn't recommend this to all though, the movie is a horror but it doesn't have so many scream moments, real jumpy parts, it has some but not enough so this isn't the most traditional of slasher movies.In the end I felt this was worth a watch before I saw, but not after finishing it, the kind of movie that seems kind of an OK watch beforehand but afterwards makes you feel disappointed, but not hateful. Dave Meyers directs this is a way only he can, and only in a way Michael Bay can produce, it's big, loud and scary, but with just a little too much emphasise on the big part. A decent running time(84 minutes) for those who want a quick film maybe on a dark night, it won't keep you up at night and although Sean Bean could haunt your nightmares, he'll probably end up assisted with another terrible cast.

SeriousJest According to IMDb, Red was credited as a screenplay writer for this movie, but had no part in writing it (aside from writing the 1986 film). I haven't seen the 1986 version, but if it was any good, I don't blame him for wanting to distance himself from this version.This flick starts strong and features competent performances by good actors (except for Bush's second-half performance, which gets out of her range, in my opinion; she just hasn't mastered the thousand-yard stare). However, it's a lot of build-up for nothing. The effects and action are often hokey, it feels as if some major events were skipped (and not in a good, it's-better-to-leave-it-to-the-imagination way), and the payoff to the big question throughout the movie is never realized. If I had to describe this film in one word, it would be "senseless." Also according to IMDb, "Rutger Hauer, who played the character of John Ryder in the original was offered a cameo, but declined for artistic reasons. Hauer has since said in the press that he has yet to watch the remake, and according to some of his friends he shouldn't bother." Smart man.For more reviews and a kickass podcast, check out: www.livemancave.com

GoldenShadow5184 Considering that "The Hitcher" from 1986 was a very well-made film, remaking the movie would have been unnecessary. And although there are remakes which could potentially be good movies, this is definitely not one of them. Not by a long shot. Now getting into the movie itself, I thought that this movie was boring and didn't contain a single scene which was remotely as emotional or as suspenseful as the original. C. Thomas Howell gave in a brilliant performance as the lead in the original, while Rutger Hauer played an excellent villain. In this movie, none of the actors did a good job with their roles. While Sean Bean is good in other movies, he was definitely a forgettable villain as The Hitcher in this movie. And as for the other two main leads; absolutely forgettable characters as well, whom you didn't care for because they were so horribly miscast and badly-written that you didn't connect with them on an emotional level at all. Horrible, horrible casting. Another problem with this film, besides the casting, is the mere fact that it's almost a carbon-copy of the original (except for a couple of changes). Almost every scene from this movie seems to have been plucked out of the original, which defeats the whole purpose of suspense, not to mention that almost every scene which was copied is absolutely inferior to the original. All in all, I have no idea what the director Dave Meyers was thinking when he decided to make this film. As others have said, you might as well just show 1986's "The Hitcher" in cinemas again and it won't make a difference. Why Sean Bean and Neal McDonough decided to even bother starring in this film is beyond me. My advice is to stay away from this film and just watch the original instead. 1/10. Absolutely dreadful.

MattyGibbs I saw the original years back and again pretty recently and judging by the reviews on here I wasn't expecting much. However this is a far better film than I thought it would be. The cinematography is excellent and the two leads are convincing and likable. There were plenty of jump out the seat moments and Sean Bean an actor who doesn't always convince puts in one of his best performances. If I hadn't seen the original ( which is not much better in my opinion)then this would have been an even better watch. Re-makes are often scorned ( rightfully in many cases) but I think this is a very good example of one that gets it right, bringing an old perceived classic to the attention of a new generation. Well worth a watch if you don't expect too much especially if you haven't seen the original.