Plantiana Yawn. Poorly Filmed Snooze Fest.

Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Nayan Gough A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Ella-May O'Brien Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Lauren Safford I know most remakes usually pale in comparison to the original, but this one wasn't bad at all. I don't really know so many people disliked this film. I thought it was a fun little B-movie, well worth a watch if you like these type of "run from killer" films. The movie obviously wasn't fantastic, I think they could have found better actors. But to complain about things not making sense or plot holes is silly, a movie is not meant for that, it's not meant for people who watch them to compare it to how things work in the real world. Movies are always just meant for enjoyment, and I enjoyed this film, to me, that's all that matters. If I cant enjoy something or get into it, I will not like it regardless if everything makes perfect sense and there are no plot holes.

David Roggenkamp Two twenty-somethings decide to leave college for spring break; of all things it involves driving a muscle car. How exactly are these 'children' capable of getting a car which is nearly forty years prior and nearly a collector car? Regardless, they are well onto their way when they run across a man standing in the middle of the road; they nearly hit him and then decide to go about their business without offering assistance. They pull into a gas station and then the man from before appears – he managed to get a lift from a passing trucker. He asks for a ride from the kids and then all goes downhill from there – turns out he is a psychopath.The rest of the film is spent with the two protagonists narrowly avoiding runins with the psychopath. Eventually trying to help out more of the psycho's victims turns into a runin with the cops and they end up in jail; the psychopath promptly turns around and kills all of the cops. Now the state patrol is after them.The movie does not let up as a suspenseful thriller; nor does it stop with the near clashes between the protagonists, antagonist and police as they all get thrown together on a roller-coaster. The question is – who wins in the end?The movie is just plain sadistic, and at points like a horror movie. This really is a thriller at its finest and I do recommend it to others.Originally posted to Orion Age (http://www.orionphysics.com/? p=10228).

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.