MovieChat Forums > The Hitchhiker (2007) Discussion > my thoughts on this movie

my thoughts on this movie

posted 17 years ago by jobester20032003-1
2 replies | jump to latest

Soooo....

Not sure where to begin. Um, i watched this movie expecting it to be something else. As the movie went on i realized it wasn't the same movie, but i kept watching on regardless. Jeff Denton who plays Jack i thought did pretty good as well as Sarah Lieving who played Melinda. I thought she was the best acted of the group. As far as the other girls they were below average, but not to the point where you were embarrassed for them. Where this movie is flawed is in the writing and story. First of all, we should have had more background about WHY jack does what he does. They should have built it up a little bit more. I really think that a good serial killer in any movie needs a good background story. When he told us about his girlfriend leaving him i actually thought he was joking. Just to *beep* around with the girls. Secondly, what exactly was jack's plan; what was he going to do with the girls. I got the impression that there was no "plan" in the writers mind. They wrote the story with no idea what he would do, but that it would never get that far. If he really is a serial killer then he must have done this many times before..so he should have had some kind of plan. Not just rape them..kill a few..sleep in bed with one...wake up..and have a "big day ahead" and kill at random times or no good reasons.. Finally, i feel the biggest flaw in this movie was that i actually felt sympathy for Jack. The girls were THAT annoying and Melinda the heroine of the story..really didn't do enough for me to want her to kill him. They all looked (and i hate to use it) but they looked slutty. The rape scene was done very poorly. There was no passion there..no emotion..the girls just took it like an uninterested lover. The rape had no power and was wasted. Jack was pretty much the worst serial killer ever. If he had a gun all along why not use the gun to be more sure they don't run. And he sure did heal pretty good from those multiple gun shots and getting hit by a car. Overall..weak movie..but i've def. seen worse.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] programmer04 14 years ago

If you decided to watch that other movie that you originally intended to (I'm referring to "The Hitcher"), then you may still be disappointed, because the killer in that movie didn't have a background either. As a matter of fact, when the police capture him at one point and run a record check on one "John Ryder", they discover that there is no record of him. No record of fingerprints, name, picture, nothing. The movie (and I'm especially referring mostly to the 1986 version) was nicely done and went to show that not all serial killers in a story need a back story to explain why they do what they do in order to make the story complete or the character more believable.

I haven't seen "The Hitchhiker" (I don't care much for anything produced or distributed by "The Asylum"), so I won't comment about the movie, but it seems that your biggest arguement about how a background for the killer must be shown in the story in order to make the story better or more believable could be deemed invalid, unless this story was written in a way that actually required a back story. As I've said, I haven't seen this movie so I don't know if a back story would have helped, but if you are someone who needs a "reason" why someone would do certain things in every movie you see, then you won't like "The Hitcher."

I personally like watching movies where the killer has very little or no back story. The original "Halloween" movie never really explained why Michael Myers snapped when he was a child and started killing. In the original "Friday The 13th," Ms. Vorhees, Jason's mother, snapped when her son drowned when he was suppose to be watched out for by the counselors (small back story, not too much). In "Jeepers Creepers," I thought the movie was great, right up to the point where they 'explained' what the creature was and why it was there, then I lost a little respect for it. I'm really tired of the old cliche excuses for evil in movies, especially demons, the devil himself, and druids (which were used a lot in the 80's and early 90's). I like it when someone comes out of nowhere and just starts wreaking havoc on his/her victims without explanation. It's more believable. Quite often we see a story on the news about some commiting horrific acts of murder, yet we at first don't know why or anything about the person. Many times, the first person/people we hear from about who this person is are neighbors, friends, and family of the killer. They usually say he/she was a happy, content, family man/woman or a quiet loner who never bothered anyone or something along those lines. Usually we don't hear about a darker past until days later. Seemingly random victims of murder don't usually know much about their killer's past. Those elements make for a good, believable story.

Monsters need a back story. Serial killers (in movies), not so much.