Rating: 
Summary: Didn't Your Mother Ever Teach You......
Review: As far as straight to video sequels that barely raise one's awareness of it's very existence goes, this sequel to the 1986 film, is better than expected. It doesn't set any new trends or build upon what happened in the original, but it makes up for it for being a fun, albeit, generic little road thriller. Instead of trying something new and creating new surprises and thrills and chills, the movie basically follows the original's blue print to the max. Not only that, but pretty much every other road type thriller film. It doesn't really have a persona or presence of it's own, just parts of other movies all rolled into one. C. Thomas Howell returns as Jim Halsey, from the original movie. He is now a slightly bent cop who is still plagued by the trauma he experienced when picking up a psycho hitchiker years ago. After an event in the opening minutes, Jim decides to take to off to a friends house for a little getaway. He brings along his new girlfriend(played by the lovely Kari Wuhrer)for the ride. While driving in the middle of nowhere in a storm, Jim picks up, at his girlfriend's urging, a suspicious hitchiker also named Jim(Jake Busey). What results is the usual shenanigans when Jim and his girl find themselves trapped in the psycho hitcher's little game. You know the drill. Busey was a good casting choice for the role. There were some rumors going around in the film's early stages that Rutger Hauer was possibly returning. Sadly, he did not. Then again, there would be no way he could. Instead, we get Busey. He doesn't have the commanding presence that Hauer had, but he has a certain presence all his own. He is an agreeable bad guy that gets the point across, but just can't match Hauer. With his dad being who he is, I see Busey having a long career as the whack job. His character here is an enigma. There are lines here and there where it seems they are alluding to the fact that he might be somebody. Wuhrer's character even asks, but never gets an answer. We don't really know who he is, and it's kind of frustrating. Which makes me wonder if there will be a "Hitcher 3" that will give more of an explanation. C. Thomas Howell returns to the role as Jim, and his acting is pretty wooden. It was nice to see him, and he does have a better presence as he has gotten on in years, but his acting leaves a lot to be desired. This leaves us with Wuhrer. She has sort of made a name for herself as a made for cable/straight to video B movie type actress, and I don't see her breaking out of that entrapment. That being said, she does a pretty good job here in her role. She makes a pretty solid butt kicking heroine. If only she got better material that rised above just being another straight to video piece of fodder. The movie isn't all bad. It's shot well, and the cinematography is nice. It is supposed to be Texas, but was really shot in Canada. And they did a great job making it seem like Texas. There are a few pretty good scenes and moments, but with re-creating the torn between two trucks scenario, and Jim having flashbacks to the original, it appears that the movie is hanging onto it's respected predecessor instead of moving on into it's own thing. It also feels like it has way more kills than needed, which makes it feel like a typical shoot 'em up bloodbath. With a more solid foundation, clearer view of plot, and a little more surprises, the sequel could of been a lot more than it is. Still, like I said, it's a decent little road thriller for what it is. Nothing more than that.
Rating:
Summary: Suffers by Comparison
Review: Comparing this sequel to the original film is like comparing a sirloin steak to a New York strip. It's no contest, even though nine times out of ten you'd be perfectly content to enjoy the lesser cut of beef. (Of course after the finale in this movie you might swear off red meat entirely for awhile.)If you haven't seen the original recently, you'll probably find this movie an adequate use of ninety minutes. I have the first movie in my stack of to-be-watched films, but when I came across this title I thought I'd give it a chance on its own merits. It didn't disappoint. Jake Busey is a different breed of hitcher. Where Hauer kept it icy and menacing, Busey goes nutjob from the word go. It's not a bad performance, but it's different enough to throw you if you were expecting more of what you got in the first movie. There *are* several scenes borrowed from the first movie, but they are significantly different as well - for instance (and this isn't a spoiler, it's featured on the disc packaging) the truck-stretching scene is repeated, but with The Hitcher as victim this time around. The cinematography is gorgeous, but this ultimately works against the film: instead of creating a sense of isolation, the broad vistas could double as Tourist Board video, calling out "Come to Texas" (or Calgary, as the case may be). Also working against the film is an over-reliance on genre clichés: the slow camera moves while the spooky music builds, the framing tightly on the hero(ine) so you can pull back and reveal the killer, the killer playing possum so the ending can be stretched by a scene or two. If you're in the mood for a middling suspense/horror film, you could do much worse than this movie. Not exactly a ringing endorsement, I know, but this is the kind of movie that plays better if you don't have high expectations of it to begin with.
Rating: 
Summary: Should never have been made - HORRIBLE!!!
Review: Do not!! I repeat, DO NOT purchase this movie!!!! It's not even worthy of being rented. I just finished watching it on Pay-Per-View and was disappointed with it from the very beginning. This sequel is an absolute insult to the original. It was poorly written and poorly acted. C. Thomas Howell must have been broke if he made this movie because I can't see why else he would've agreed to do it (especially after reading the script). The charcters just aren't believable nor is the plot line. Worst of all, C. Thomas Howell's character was killed off at the beginning; thus, the whole movie revolved around Kari Whuhrer's charecter (the girlfriend). Hell, I didn't watch the sequel to see her. I watched it to see C. Thomas Howell reprise his character. Point being? Why make a sequel and kill of the one character that ties it all together and makes the story make sense and worthwile to watch. And lastly, what's the point in having a villain if he's not believable or even scary? Ugh!! Busey just didn't cut it!!! DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME ON THIS ONE!!! Trust me, you won't be missing anything. Stick with the original!!!
Rating:
Summary: Disappointing Sequel
Review: I cannot rate this movie without comparing it with The Hitcher, since the reason I bought it was because I am a fan of the original movie. The best thing about the first movie was the suspense and the excellent acting by both C. Thomas Howell and Hauser. This second movie is a bad rehash of the first with a lot of action and no suspense at all. There are even repeated scenes; this makes this movie a totally predictable one. The villain this time is not as mysterious as the first one and the easy way in which he escapes one time after the other is very hard to believe, as is the stupidity of everyone from the police to the new hero. C. Thomas Howell did an excellent job with the very limited part assigned to him, but this is simply a mediocre movie.
Rating: 
Summary: IT IS NOT THE HITCHER....IT IS THE HITCHER 2
Review: I guess my title of this review pretty much states the obvious,
but that's the point here. Taken on it's own merits, without the
expectations of living up to the original, this isn't really too
bad of a film. I mean, with most of the horror movies that have
come out recently {Freddy VS Jason, House Of The Dead},among
others, this one ranks quite favorably. Jake Busey may not live
up to Rutger Hauer{wouldn't it have been nice if he came back
for the sequel instead of Howell?} but he certainly out did
Robert Englund's latest effort. This does not live up to the
original Hitcher, but neither do any of the other shockers
coming out these days. I've seen the new Busey in a few bad guy
roles now. I kind of like his style. If you can't get past the
comparison with the first Hitcher,then there isn't much sense
in wasting your time with it. But if you can take it for what it
is{a horror movie of the new millenium}, it's not a bad way to
spend ninty-three minutes of your evening.
Thanks and enjoy your time,
Tom
Rating: 
Summary: Hey I haven't seen this Movie yet
Review: I must have seen the first Hitcher over 200 times since I have all the possible releases both American and European on DVD + all the Extras. I just saw that this new sequel has become available at the store where I usually rent movies and I must say I'm tempted to see Howell's face again after all these years, cause for me Howell still is an actor who revealed to be outstanding I think. Perhaps you've seen "The Outsiders"!? Besides I think he should have had more credit for his role in the first part [1984] where no other could so well express fear and heroism at the same time. And it's a thrilling sensation seeing that same face again after 20 years. Now I believe that this is a cheap and "not to be taken serious" sequel, but good movies have all been made in the 80s. Nowadays they don't make good movies anymore, it seems that it's not the story that counts but how hot the actors look and what special effects have been used. If you don't know what else to do rent this movie like I did!
Rating:
Summary: See Thomas Howell in a wack "cash in" of the original
Review: I saw this movie for free on the USA network this past week...thank god!
I was at my local video store the other day and was tempted to rent it but remembered that C. Thomas Howell is now a "Straight to video" 5th rate actor now...like Steven Segal.
I won't lie, it looked interesting as far as cover art is concerned, it DID make me want to rent it, but I thought again about the "straight to video" thing. C. Thomas Howell looked totally horrible like he's an offscreen drunkard or something (wasn't he a 80s teen hearthrob??...Dude what happened?!?!?) he looked every bit like the 'out of work' actor we really summed him up to be to take a role such as this, did he read the script to see that he was NOT going to be in the whole movie???!?!? I guess that's the best script to get, show your face for 1 scene get killed off and then get paid....he should have just been an extra...I've seen extras with more screen time than he got in this movie. First off, the first 5 minutes of the movie totally set us up for the OBVIOUS. I find it hard to believe that after almost 20 years since his encounter with the first "Hitcher" he would pick up another hitchhiker...even with the constant pleaing from his girlfriend..."We can't just let him stand out here in a Sandstorm" she of ALL people oughta know better! Darn it,he's been coping with the mental trauma since 1986...and came back to the area to face his Demons...highly unlikely and totally corny reason for a sequel. Jake Busey (who looks EXACTLY like his father "I'm with Gary" and now the show is "cancelled" Busey)
Is more suited (with a face like his) playing a cartoon character role as he is NOT convincing as a serial killer/hitchhiker nor is he menacing, the filmakers of this simply could not get anyone else for a stupid role like this....even Gary Coleman turned down the role. The movie starts to replicate the original Hitcher except now C.Thomas Howell's girlfriend is the one reprising his role....as he is now dead.. shot and killed by the Hitcher. Now I don't know about anyone else but I don't know HER, I didn't want to see HER...I wanted to see the character Jim Halsey over come his fears and kill the new Hitchhiker. The movie did absolutely NOTHING new just changed the main characters role and replaced it with the chick.
Stupid, Stupid, movie!
The original is still the underated thriller to see.
The reviewer who gave this 5 stars must've been watching kari whurer's t*ts instead of the movie.
Rating:
Summary: Better than usual DTV fodder
Review: I was expecting pure crap when I first saw this but I have to admit I was pleasantly surprised. Decent acting, good cinematography, good camera work, good stunts, and Jake Busey seems to be having the time of his life. Too bad his role isn't better written and is just given the usual psycho-guy-making-wisecracks part. All in all, a harmless way to kill a rainy Saturday afternoon.
Rating:
Summary: Only Rutger Hauer can be The Hitcher
Review: Im a big fan of the original. It's hard to follow in the steps of a classic like THE HITCHER, especially with Rutger Hauer in the lead role. And it is exactly because Hauer is not in this one that I cant give it more than 3 stars. It tries too hard to be as good as the original and Jake Bussey has been given an impossible job of trying to be as menacing a character as the memorable John Ryder played by Hauer. And as for C. Thomas Howell? [Darn], I thought his character would be in a mental ward for the rest of his life after what he went through. Still, its worth a look. Maybe rent before buying. Cheers.
Rating:
Summary: DONT HITCH ON TO THIS
Review: In the first movie, a young Jim Halsey is taking a trip across the southwest to see his brother. He picks up a hitchhiker and he turned out to be evil. In some twisted way he looked at Jim as a son while he murdered person after person and framed Jim for it. The first movie, after time, picked up an audience and somewhat of a cult following. In number two, the hitcher is played by a different actor. If you believe the title"Ive been waiting" its supposed to be the same guy but C. Thomas Howell doesnt reconize him when they meet.(go fiqure) After this point its basically a re-make of the first movie with no orginal ideas at all. For some reason, Jim is killed about halfway through the movie so his wife must battle the Hitcher which im afraid to say is real unbeliveable. Kari Whurer is beautiful but, I found it hard to belive her in this role. Get the first movie if you want to be entertained, get this movie for insomnia.
|
