The Hitcher II: I've Been Waiting

If you want to get anyone back for a super-belated sequel to "The Hitcher" it's Rutger Hauer, not C. Thomas Howell. Howell is a functional if unremarkable lead in the original film. The secret to that film is Hauer's performance which sells the suggestion that maybe there's something supernatural about him so well that makes the film's (deliberate) ridiculousness work.

Here we have Jake Busey, and he's an okay actor, but he's not selling anything. This film's plot is patently ridiculous and Jake sure isn't making it work. Howell is all twitchy overacting until he leaves the film prematurely leaving us with Kari Wuhrer to finish the flick. It's two pretty okay actors in a competently shot, but visually uninteresting thriller.

It would be a fairly inoffensive way to spend an hour and a half if weren't a thoroughly unnecessary sequel to a much better film.

If this movie was a stand alone straight-to-video flick with no connection to The Hitcher, I think it would have been more enjoyable. But that's just not the case. Instead, this turns out to be such an obvious rip-off of the first it's not even funny. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that the only reason it was made was to make a quick buck. This lame and laughable re-hash of the original doesn't even deserve "The Hitcher" title. A sequel didn't need to be made, but since one was, it's just plain sad that this had to be it. They could have done better than this, even for straight-to-video. If you haven't seen the original though, you will probably enjoy this more. But for the most part, it just annoyed me. It did manage to get a little better and more interesting after a half an hour or so, but until then, I was less than thrilled. It made me roll my eyes quite a few times, mainly during the first 30+ minutes. The last 40-50 minutes or so were undeservedly entertaining, of course, pretty much anything would be entertaining after the rocky start the movie had. And even though pretty much the whole thing stole from the original, it managed to get me interested during the last half. Sure, I knew what would happen. Hell, anyone who's ever seen a horror movie, action movie, or thriller before will be able to see the final events unfolding before they even happen. But even with the terrible dialogue, plot-holes, shameless ripping off, and just plain silliness, I was still entertained during the last half, even if I'm not proud of it.

Before seeing this movie I was happy C. Thomas Howell was at least reprising his role. But after seeing the movie, I could care less. In the original, even if his character did some of the dumbest things, he was still likable and you wanted him to get out alive. In the sequel, his character was annoying and I didn't care if he lived or died. The part where he flipped out in the care about picking up the hitchhiker was so lame. Obviously, he was right since the guy turned out to be a killer, but at the time, he had no proof, and made a fool out of himself by acting so stupid. I mean, what would the odds be that this hitchhiker would actually be a killer too? In the movie, it's pretty good (but a very lame attempt at connecting the two movies, and a little unbelievable), but in the real world, it's pretty unlikely that would happen. So both times you pick up a hitchhiker in your life they are going to turn out to be psycho killers? It just doesn't seem plausable. Yet the creators of this sequel just don't care, because all they wanted was a quick buck, and could care less how much disbelief the audience is supposed to suspend. The character I liked in the original becomes just

plain unbearable here. I think C. Thomas Howell's overracting is the main reason this happens. The scene in the car when he goes crazy is the best example of this. I prefer to just forget this annoying Jim Halsey (Howell) and remember the one in the original instead... Surprisingly fairing better is Kari Wuhrer. I didn't expect much from her, but she was actually the best thing about the movie. Her acting wasn't the best, but it wasn't bad and it was certainly better than everyone else in the movie. Plus, the fact that she's very easy on the eyes here made the movie easier to watch. She looked kind of like a poor-man's Ashley Judd... I've never liked Jake Busey, and this movie didn't change that. Even if he does somewhat resemble Rutger Hauer from the original, his performance doesn't even come close. With Hauer, we felt a sense of dread, a reason to be afraid. Here, Busey is just plain goofy and cracking lame one-liners. I never felt afraid of this bumbling moron.

Even though I knew this wouldn't be able to touch the original, I still couldn't help but look forward to this movie. I thought it might be able to at least entertain, and figured it was a good sign that Howell was back, but that just wasn't the case. It couldn't even meet my expectations, which weren't all that high. I also could have done without the blinding cinematography. It was kind of annoying. The colors were really bad and bled quite a bit. I'm not sure if the bleeding was just from the DVD version, but either way, the colors looked like crap... In the end, if you want to see a hacked up re-hash of the original, then this might please you. But I can't picture any fans of the original truly enjoying this one, even if it does manage to have a few entertaining scenes.

Grade: 6/10 (C+)

Hitcher II, The: I've Been Waiting (2003) C. Thomas Howell, Kari Wuhrer, Jake Busey, Mackenzie Gray, Douglas MacLeod, D: Louis Morneau.

Cop Howell mysteriously seems to have an anniversary for the nightmare he had 17 years ago. This time, his tough cookie girlfriend (Wuhrer) experiences it next to him on a country road trip, where a new menacing hitchhiker (Busey) frames her with his machinations and those stupid cops won't believe her.

Obvious, needless thriller is just a refurbished remake, while suffering to not be on par with its predecessor from a key exclusion-Rutger Hauer.

Running Time: 93 minutes and rated R for strong violence.

RATING: ** (out of ****)

Like most others who have seen this movie, I also grew up with watching the first "The Hitcher" movie. Even though it was far from a masterpiece, it has still grown a bit into a classic over the years, mainly due to Rutger Hauer's impressive and scary performance. This movie doesn't have Rutger Hauer in it, so I wasn't expecting a better movie and expected the worst. But why compare this movie to the original in the first place? You should take the movie just for what it is, a straight-to-video thriller. And for what it is, a straight-to-video thriller, it's a pretty good movie. It's professionally made, with good camera-work and editing and some fairly good performances by the cast.

The movie might not be that scary but it does have a few surprises in it. It does have some returning element from "The Hitcher" in this movie but it does it in an original way. Fans of the first movie should be pleased by some of the subtle and not so subtle homage to the first movie and not be offended or angry about it. It also does have more than enough original moments in it and the movie is mostly unpredictable, in terms of who dies and who will survive in the end.

Even though the budget of the movie was probably low, it doesn't really show on screen. There are some spectacular moments, with gunfire and explosions and also the visual look of the movie is good. The cinematography is nice and the movie is told with a pleasantly fast pace and with some nimble editing.

The performance are fairly good. It's sort of fun to see C. Thomas Howell reprising his role but was it really necessary? Real main part of the movie is being played by Kari Wuhrer, who has appeared in quite a few B-movies over the years. She is good enough as the new main character of the movie. This time the hitcher is being played by Jake Busey. Leave it up to the Busey's to play a convincing and scary looking psychopathic villain. Of course he is no Hauer but he pulls it of pretty well and is more than good enough in his role.

Of course the story does have its flaws and improbabilities but when you watch a movie like this, you know you shouldn't expect to much from its story.

Especially when you've seen more straight-to-video and TV thrillers, you have to admit that this movie is a good one or at least an above average one, that has a professional look.

6/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

The original 'Hitcher' is one of the all-time horror greats...The Hitcher II is nothing more than a USA Network Pictures Original-esque follow-up. Luckily, I came into it with zero expectations, and while I got pretty much what I expected, I have to say that this film isn't necessarily awful...at least, not completely. It's actually a decent b-grade horror flick. It has good/okay cinematography, and in one scene it's able to build mood, and the action scenes are actually quite good, however, at its core, it simply has no soul. There's no humanity behind it, no real sympathy for the characters (except for Jim, which really has a helluva lot more to do with the original than anything else). The Hitcher himself is about as frightening as a...Well, I can't think of any good analogies off-hand, but suffice to say he isn't at all scary. Of course, Jake Busey is just so damn likable, it's hard to be scared of the guy. If he IS supposed to be John Ryder incarnate, he's too cocky and he talks WAY too much. Also, a warning for people whose lives depend on some kind of resolution, the end will TOTALLY leave you hanging...buyer beware.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is that...I reluctantly must recommend The Hitcher II, speaking as a fan of so-bad-they're-almost-funny horror films. If nothing else, rent it for a good laugh and have fun pointing out the inconsistencies and bad dialogue. It's pure MST3K all the way.