Customer Reviews

The Hitcher 2 - I've Been Waiting [VHS]

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(10)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

Upon first look at the Hitcher 2, your first question will simply be, why? Why was this direct to video sequel to an 80's horror/suspense classic even green lighted? Who knows, but it shouldn't have been. Despite some relatively good stretches, for the most part the Hitcher 2, which retreads on the plot of the original, is a routine and predictable pot boiler. An older C. Thomas Howell returns as Jim, who is now a troubled cop trying to put his past behind him and go away for a little R&R with his girlfriend (Kari Wuhrer). Eventually, they come across a hitcher (Jake Busey) whom they pick up, and well, you know where this is going. Busey is good as a murdering psychopath who may or may not be Rutger Hauer's character from the original film, but Howell looks so bored in his brief return as Jim, and Wuhrer's acting abilities are wasted leaving her as eye candy (which isn't such a bad thing). The police force is presented here as ignorant hillbillies, a stereotype which the original Hitcher avoided, and the acting isn't anything to write home about either. Predictable until it's end, which actually does offer a few nice surprises, the Hitcher 2 is something which should have never been. Fans of the original will want to see this, but all others should avoid.

With what seems like the most unnecessary sequel in recent cinema history, THE HITCHER 2: I'VE BEEN WAITING is ''finally'' here. Coming from out of nowhere, this film not only doesn't need to be made, but actually succeeds in making you know that it doesn't need to be made.

The story picks up years after the first movie closed, as Jim Halsey (played by C.Thomas Howell, who has grown up to resemble a rejected member of Motley Crue) is still haunted by the nightmare that was Rutger Hauer. He is now a veteran cop, undergoing serious stress and anxiety. In an effort to get his life back on track, he seeks out his police mentor buddy (Jeffrey DeMunn's character from the original, here played by someone else). However, to get to him, he must travel down that same stretch of road from the original movie, where he first encountered Hauer's malevolent villain.

En route, he takes his girlfriend Maggie (Kari Wuhrer in serious direct-to-video fatigue), who is blissfully unaware of Jim's past. Together, they travel down that same dusty highway, with Howell sweating and moaning about 'how they cannot stop for anything, must keep driving' etc. However, within 5 minutes of the running time, up pops Jake Busey - decked out on long black overcoat, wild blonde hair and carrying a rather big gun. Obviously, Howell flips his lid after Busey whispers in his ear 'I've been waiting for you' and then all hell breaks loose.

Well, I say 'all hell'. If you call people running away from a guy who looks about as frightening as a grinning children's entertainer at a kid's 5th birthday party, then by all means be terrified. However, I doubt it. To be fair to Busey, he is thoroughly entertaining - with his wild looks and goofy antics just about making the film bearable. Its just coming after Hauer's icy and twisted portrayal in the original film, Busey has to work EXTRA hard to get any real licks in. Returning 'star' Howell valiantly strives to rise above the mediocre script, and at some points he succeeds in exhibiting the right amount of stress and paranoia, but even he is flogging a dead horse in this dreadfully routine TV movie.

Director Louis Morneau has made some decent movies in the past. With the high-octane action comedy MADE MEN to the fun time travel thriller RETRO-ACTIVE, he has delivered excellent movies on shoe-string budgets, allowing his style and sharp sense of pacing drag you through even the dumbest of scripts. However, on this occasion his directorial style works against him. With this kind of film, mood is the key. The first movie had it in spades - lush cinematography, expert editing and a dark screenplay that set it apart from the rest of the 80s slasher led dreck. On this sequel however, Morneau shoots it like it were an action film. With his camera zooming all over the place and cutting scenes within an inch of their TV movie life, he never allows the viewer to become engrossed in the proceedings and care about any of the characters. Which is a shame as the cast are making an effort, even if the 'dime store, seen it all before' script isn't.

Universal's disc has NO extras. Not even a trailer. Which hurts even more, after you've seen the movie. The picture and audio quality are however, fine. With cinematographer George Maroodian's stylish (if fast moving) camerawork exhibited in full.

So, to sum up - after seeing the original film, you already know that there isn't a need for a sequel to THE HITCHER. That movie had a beginning, a middle and an end. Why Universal decided to make an awful sequel to a classic 80s thriller is anybody's guess. And, why I had the curiosity to spend [money]to see this unnecessary exercise in tedium is also, anybody's guess. I just hope you can learn from my mistake, keep your money firmly in your pocket and stick with the original.

The original 1986 "THE HITCHER" was a taut, horrific road movie. This film is a follow up in name only, and a pedestrian straight-to-DVD attempt to cash in on the reputation of the first film. A dull and tedious retread of the original story has the older kid from the first film being chased across Texas yet again by an unexplained Hitchhiker. The poor writing really shows in that all horror bits are just rip-offs of the sequences in the first film. Only C. Thomas Howell, who presumably needed the paycheck, returns in this one. Doing a "HITCHER" movie without Rutger Hauer is like doing an "ALIEN" film without Ripley. Instead of wasting your money on this junk, rent the terrific special edition of original "THE HITCHER" that just came out in Europe.

Face it people, this is not T2 or The Godfather Part II, and why is there a sequel to the hitcher anyway? The first "The Hitcher" was a classic movie which was a perfect reimagining of Steven Speilberg's classic DUEL. There was no need for a sequel. The story was told, nothing more to tell. A sequel? Dragonheart fell victim for this. A sequel will just tell the story all over again. Not even C. Thomas Howell could save this movie from being a failure. All in all, not entertaining and unnecessary. Not recomended.

C. Thomas Howell reprises his role as Jim Halsey in this sequel to the original "Hitcher". Still haunted by earlier events, Jim and his girlfriend Maggie (Kari Wuhrer) decide to confront his demons once and for all. After being relieved of his duties as a police officer for using excessive force in breaking up a child abduction, Jim calls his friend Captain Ethridge, who helped him out earlier. The Captain convinces Jim and Maggie to come back to Texas so Jim can confront his feelings and erase his anxieties. Jim has never told his secret to Maggie, so she doesn't know why he keeps having flashbacks and is acting so strangely.

However, upon reaching their destination, the same sequence of events starts all over again, as Maggie forcefully convinces Jim to pick up a hitchhiker along the same strech of roadway that Jim had travelled 15 years earlier. The apparent survivor of an accident, Jack (Jake Busey) thumbs a ride from Jim and Maggie. Unknown to them at the time, Jake is the one who caused the accident. Soon, Jim and Maggie are fighting for their lives against another psychotic hitchhiker. Who will survive?

I thought the first movie was better than this one. I do think that C. Thomas Howell, Jake Busey, and Kari Wuhrer do good jobs in their roles, but the story is all too predictable (although there are some unexpected happenings). Even the scene with the victim tied between the truck and trailer is revised from the first movie. There's not much originality in this film, either. It relies too much on the first movie. I did like the flashbacks to the first film, though. The glaring omission from this movie is Rutger Hauer's amazing portrayal as the hitcher. Although Jake Busey does a pretty good job portraying the hitcher, Rutger Hauer's performance in the first movie is much better. If you've seen the original "Hitcher", then this movie is worth watching only to see how the story plays out. If you haven't seen the first movie, then you'll have a hard time following the storyline of this movie.

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.

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.

As a fan of The Hitcher, I was curious to see The Hitcher II. I was not disappointed. Although not quite as good as the first Hitcher, I found this movie thrilling and suspenseful for not being a horror movie. C. Thomas Howell returns in this sequel as Jim Halsey who survived the crazed Hitcher of the first movie. His girlfriend in the movie, Maggie ( played by the very pretty Kari Wuhrer ) is a tough cookie and delivers a great performance for she is a survivor!! Jim decides to take Maggie back to Texas where his original nightmare began years ago. They come across a hitchhiker who Maggie wants to pick up. After being a victim of the first hitchhiker, Jim does not want to pick up any more hitchhikers but gets talked into it by his girlfriend. The new crazed hitcher is named Jack ( played by Jake Busey ). Busey also delivers a good performance as a crazed man. Their journey turns into a nightmare when they realize they have picked up a psychopath. From then on, the film has many twists and surprises. I found it was entertaining from beginning to end. There is strong violence in this movie but it's not your basic gore movie. I really liked this movie and don't regret buying it. If you like thrillers, this is a movie for you. I don't quite understand the bad reviews about this movie. I'd suggest renting it and decide for yourself. I think most people will like it.

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

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.