I know the remake has been slammed (as they generally are) and to be truthful I'm not usually a fan of remakes.
But I personally found the remake of Hitcher to be far superior to the original. I thought there was more suspense, more atmosphere and to be honest better acting. I thought Sean Bean played the villain far more darkly than Hauer.
Well you have no replies...what does that tell you?
I don't "dislike" the remake, but it was watchable. A very average piece of film-making.
Let me put that another way, it was better than The Hithcer II.
Sean Bean played the villain far more darkly than Hauer.
[deleted]
The original is the absolute best, no doubt. Hauer was just awesome, and frankly he scared the s*** out of me with his portrayal.
shareIt has to just be me. I usually much, much prefer the originals, in fact I think this is the only film that I've ever preferred the remake.
I found Hauer boring and unconvincing, I actually didn't think his delivery worked at all. Personal preference I guess. But the more I think about it the more I realise how much I dislike the original!
This is a great observation. Hauer plays it so much more ambiguously so people can't tell he's a murder. You'r enot going to pick up a hitchhiking Sean Bean, but Hauer doesn't come off like a villain.
Amy: I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
You are wrong on all accounts because the remake SUCKED beyond belief.
Doug Roberts: What do they call it when you kill people?
The Towering Inferno
Umm... no. It sucked on all accounts (despite the cast being quite good). I think they should've either had Jim be the main character again or had the same setup as the original, only with a girl fighting an insane woman. There aren't many woman vs woman horror movies.
Doug Roberts: What do they call it when you kill people?
The Towering Inferno
Why are you replying to your OWN post saying the same thing almost 2 months later?
The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he is God.
I replied to the original post, and forgot I already had.
Doug Roberts: What do they call it when you kill people?
The Towering Inferno
I replied to the original post, and forgot I already had.
LOL
that was funny.
(Responding to the post)
The only thing I liked from the remake was the "Nine Inch Nails" scene and the body popping apart that we never got to see in the original.
Hauer is #1 and so was the whole Loner story.
You don't see those cool loner Horrors too often.
So, I guess the answer is no,
but I remember preferring it for the first month I watched it.
The maker of this topic is on crack don't influence them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TzcANOHiDo
wanted to like the remake but it blew. sean bean was pretty good but no rutger hauer. wasn't the actors fault by any means. no comparison between the original. the original is still played on cable routinely 25 years later. the remake, no one will even remember 25 years from now let alone be broadcasted.
shareI replied to the original post, and forgot I already had.
I liked the remake a lot less after seeing the original. They basically took EVERYTHING from the original and put it into the remake and changed a few plot points around. It was more of a re-imagining than a remake.
Sean Bean was great and i still like the remake but the original is better.
Makes me wonder if all the Bible stories were also twisted up and told differently. The next question would be, how much was the story changed.
You never know.
I'd like to see another HITCHER remake in about 5 years just to see what they change up. I really would.
I can't wait to see the next John Ryder.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Jews had a long oral tradition before they wrote everything down. & although oral traditions tend to have a long memory in a culture, its bound to change or be influenced by every other culture/traditions a society encounters. So I imagine, many of the stories there have changed quite a bit from what they originally were, especially those from the Old testament, ie. Noah's arc, that's supposed to be from what 10k years ago? That's pretty far back, what about Abraham, 4-5k years ago?
The Jews were a wondering tribe for a long time too, so you can imagine the many influences from others.
Global Warming, it's a personal decision innit? - Nigel Tufnel
I really enjoyed the remake and thought the original was okay. Neither are perfect but the remake is far better on a technical, writing, and acting level. The only thing I would keep from the original is the cinematographer and Rutger Hauer. The writing fills in gaps in logic and holes in the story that are present in the original. It also makes it more believable. Both are entertaining though.
shareForgot about the remake already. Dispensed with it five minutes after watching it. Rutger Hauer made the original work, even with all its preposterous moments, as a fan of such stuff I found it thoroughly entertaining.
"Pffft, my suspension of disbelief has higher standards than that"
I also could not sit thru the remake....none of the intensity!!! Just a generic remake..... ugh
You get what you put in...and people get what they deserve....KR
Move, and I'll sock ya one!
I actually rewatched the remake last night.
Thought I'd give it another shot, maybe there was something I missed originaly?
No, it's an empty, souless pice of film.
There are no layers like the original, there's no subtle acting that says nothing but tells everything. It's a straight up chase flick with nothing going on.
I think the remake and The Hitcher 2 are about on the same level.
The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he is God.
[deleted]
The remake is the worst and dumbest piece of *beep* movie I've ever seen!
shareI just saw the original today after having seen the remake in theaters almost 5 years ago, and I prefer the remake. It's impossible for me to say how much of that is influenced by the fact that I saw the remake first, but that's what I prefer. Both movies were completely ridiculous, with this hitcher just killing cops as if he were stepping on ants, but I felt like the original dragged on too long. I also prefer that the remake had the main guy's girl with him from the beginning, instead of it being some stranger who decides to join him midway through his adventure, which I found completely absurd.
shareMy problem with the remake is that it's nothing but a simple chase flick.
No depth, no emotion, no real characters to enjoy. Just running around and inane killings.
Where as, the original has a hell of a lot going on under the basic premise it offers.
Plus the character of Ryder in the original is one of the best (if not THE best) villians caught on screen.
instead of it being some stranger who decides to join him midway through his adventure, which I found completely absurd.
How can the original have dragged on too long when within the first few minutes he picks up the Hitcher & things start spiraling down after that?
Global Warming, it's a personal decision innit? - Nigel Tufnel
I love Sean Bean and think he is an underrated actor, however he is not as menacing or anywhere near as crazy as Rutger Hauer's John Ryder. I admit that my view is probably biased. I first watched the Hitcher as a kid, i was around 9 years old at the time. I was absolutely terrified of Hauer in this film, he is the reason this film works. I have rewatched the original several times since my childhood and Hauer's performance is still mesmerizing. It's a tour de force performance and in all honesty the biggest reason to watch this film. Personally Sean Bean came nowhere close to touching Hauer's performance. Sean Bean's Ryder was nowhere near as terrifying.
I wish there were screen tests of Sam Elliot available to view online. I read an article in which Eric Red said Sam Elliot's screen test was even scarier than Rutger Hauer's but sadly Elliot was unable to participate in the film.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Anyone who prefers the remake will likely have seen the remade version first. Perhaps the same can be said for those who prefer the original over the remake. It just creates a bias, and it becomes difficult to be nuetral.
To answer the question directly though, I did not prefer the remake. The original film has its flaws, but the remake not only retains these flaws, but also several of its own. The film felt more like a sequel than it did a remake because the characters of Jim Halsey and John Ryder were a night and day comparison to the original cohorts. This doesn't mean they were worse, only that their ample differences in character takes the substance out of these names, and might as well have been changed. Making the main antagonist female does this as well.
Most of all though, is the creep factor that Rutger brought that Bean did not. Much like the howl in American Werewolf in London, Rutger's portrayel of Ryder seriously terrified the crap out of me, and influences the decisions I make in the real world.
- The General has spoken.