User Reviews

Here we have a sequel to a classic cult film, made almost two decades after the original. Guess what? It's rubbish. Oh yes, obviously someone had a bright idea to make a sequel to a well known film in the hope that it would emulate the original's cable TV success in the dreary direct to video market. Trouble is, while this was being thought through; these people obviously forgot to hire a decent scriptwriter - d'oh! What we are left with, therefore, is a rehash of the original film - except with less excitement, less ideas and less reason to see it. The film has a few flashbacks to the original film during its running time, and ironically - these are the best bits. The film's plot has written itself, and sees the hero from the original film making the mistake of driving back down the road where the events of the original happened. As if this mistake wasn't silly enough, he then makes the mistake of picking up another hitchhiker! Some people just don't learn, but in his defence - it was naturally all the fault of a woman, in this case his girlfriend. It doesn't take a genius to guess what the rest of the film is about.

The original film was very much a B-movie, and this one is too. We have, therefore, a B-movie cast. C. Thomas Howell is in it for the money, as he reprises his role from the first film. He is joined by Jake Busey; Gary Busey's son, who actually manages to turn in a decent performance amidst this train-wreck of a film -but nowhere near Rutger Hauer, of course. B-movie actress Kari Wuhrer tops off the central trio. I saw Kari Wuhrer in the pointless seventh part of the Hellraiser series ("Deader") recently, and along with her small role in Eight Legged Freaks - have come to the conclusion that she needs a better agent. She's not a brilliant actress, but she's good looking and definitely deserves better roles than what she's been getting. The action is generally very tame, and stinks of a film that couldn't get the budget. The original didn't have much of a budget either - but that made the best of it, this one doesn't. Several sequences in this film are merely rubbish rehashes of scenes in the original - including the most famous scene from 'The Hitcher' - which isn't nearly as effective here. On the whole, this film shouldn't be seen by anyone. If you're not a fan of the original, you won't like it anyway - and if you are; you won't want to see one of your favourites defiled like this. Avoid!

Jake Busey is pretty OK in this,verging on worthwhile for the genre.

Starts out with a stalled plane on the highway...and the guy needs alittle help to get it going...yep that happens all the time.

The story is one of revenge but never fully explained.The situations are pretty far fetched and the gore and violence reasonable realistic(special effects).

I never really felt for any of the characters nor got involved in the movie,still the production values are good,and the editing fine,it just is not a very good movie.

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+)

The detective Jim Halsey (C.Thomas Howell) is fired from the police force after a daring rescue of an abducted child, when he shot and killed the kidnapper. He is advised to look for psychological assistance, but he decides to travel with his girlfriend Maggie (Kari Wuhrer) to visit Capt. Esteridge (Stephen Hair), his old friend who believed and supported him some years ago after a traumatic experience. While traveling, Maggie decides to give a lift to Jack (Jake Busey), a weird man on the road, under the strong protest of Jim. Jack is indeed an evil psychopath, who decides to chase the couple, killing everybody around them. This movie is horrible, being a ridiculous sequel (or remake?) of a classic, but full of clichés and totally predictable! The promosing first five minutes cheats the viewer and are excellent, having a great plot point in the very beginning of the story. However, the rest of the story has a totally absurd screenplay, and none of the situations are resolved. The participation of C. Thomas Howell, a C-class actor, is minimum, basically to give his name to the credits, and his character is one of the unluckiest I have ever seen. Further, the change of the lead actor to a lead actress is very problematic, since Maggie is the guilty for the whole situation and her character is hysterical, non-charismatic, has a horrible voice and does not convince as a heroin. I do not understand the reason for the sequel of an excellent thriller after nineteen years. The end of "The Hitcher II: I've Been Waiting" is one of the worst I have ever seen. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "A Morte Pede Carona 2" ("The Death Hichhikes 2")

I like to give films a chance when I first watch them, but this sequel to the brilliant 1986 film is rather weak. It may contain some stomach-churning scenes and other startling moments, but it still proves a failure.

I don't know why sequels are made if I'm honest, because they just seem to go on and on....Some superior movies are terrific without sequels, and The Hitcher was one of them. The Hitcher 2: I've Been Waiting simply ruins the whole aspect of the first movie, although the fact that Jim Halsey is now a policeman is an interesting premise. Kari Wuhrer is rather convincing in her role, even if Jake Busey is not.

Flashbacks from the first film is a strong point, as well as the new plot being based along the same stretch of road, but as a whole, The Hitcher 2: I've Been Waiting is extremely unconvincing. It isn't that bad a movie, but the budget was wasted (not surprising the film went straight-to-video really). I certainly had NOT been waiting for a sequel to The Hitcher, hence my rating of just 2/10.

Remember The Hitcher? A violent, suspenseful cult flick starring Rutger Hauer? Well, it didn't need a sequel, did it? That's what any average moviegoer would say.

Unfortunately, someone thought a second installment was necessary, hence this cheap rehash of the original, which sees Jim Halsey (C. Thomas Howell) and his girlfriend threatened by a young, crazy hitchhiker (Jake Busey) who turns out to be (hold on) the reincarnation of John Ryder, the psycho Jim killed in the first film. So what's going to happen? The usual, I'd say: Ryder Jr. kills a lot of people, blames the protagonists, blah blah blah...

This is the kind of sequel that has "cheap" written all over it, with its predictable screenplay, excessively familiar death scenes (some are copied shot by shot from the original) and embarrassingly dull acting: Howell has lost all the charm he had in 1986, his female co-star does nothing but scream, and Busey's attempt at channeling Rutger Hauer fails within 30 seconds from his first appearance. The whole reincarnation thing also robs the original film's climax of its strength: unlike Halloween killer Michael Myers, Ryder wasn't supposed to return.

The good news is, no one seems to have made plans for a Hitcher III so far, thus leaving only this straight-to-video disaster as a sad footnote in the horror genre.

I think this movie had a hard time to beat the first as the first was so entertaining. A lot of the scenes were from the first and rehashed. It was a lower budget movie and was filmed in Alberta Canada. I do not know why they even bothered with this movie. They obviously could not contend with the first. I did not see this in the theater, I think it was a direct to video here. There are some tense moments. The one bright spot was the crazy acting of Jake Busey. He sure takes after his father. It is too bad that he didn't have more of a story to work with. 4/10

I first saw this more than a decade ago on a dvd which I own. Revisited it recently. The start sequence of this one is done very well with solid suspense n good twist.

The original is a classic thriller in my opinion. Inspite of the lack of violence and Nash's death offscreen, the tension, suspense n performance made the original one of the best thriller.

This one cud have at least added the killer's backstory or motive. This one too boasts of some lovely sun soaked settings. It has an offscreen scalp removal scene but the tension is missing.

What can I say this is truly an awful film, badly acted badly directed with terrible cinematography. As sequels go it's one of the worst. C Thomas Howell has aged badly and got worse the Rugter knock off is terrible and at no time did I care about any of the characters. Avoid at all costs this waste of an hour and a half of your life. I love the original of this movie and this just makes this worse. I did not care about any character and there was no charioteer development. Do yourself a favour and watch the original a million times rather than this once. This is one of the worst films I have ever forced myself to watch all the way through.

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/

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 ****)

The older I get the more I realize that I really can not deal with blatant stupidity, regardless to who the perpetrator is. I like Jake Busey, Kari Wuhrer, and C. Thomas Howell - the main characters in this movie. This movie did have me on the edge of my seat because it was unbelievable that one character could have been so stupid as to continually be written to make the wrong choices throughout the entire movie. She was relentless in her ability to fall into the trap of her torturer time after time again. I agree this movie is not well done, and the only reason they kept the woman continually making bad decisions was due to the showdown finale, which was again incredibly stupid.

One of the worst movie ever. Period. That should be the title of the film. I haven't seen the original. But I saw the remake, which was still bad but not the worst thing ever. Anyway when you see a low-budget movie with bad actors, crappy shooting and boring action scenes you know that there is no real purpose of making such a film. Well though that's the case of the Hitcher 2, you start reading the ''directed by...'' at the end and then you ask yourself: what did I learn from this? Well nothing, nothing at all my friend. You just wasted your time seeing this crap.

This movie is bad. Don't watch it. To avoid at all cost.

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.

When I first saw "The Hitcher 2: I've been Waiting" on SciFi I found it to be extremely underrated. I thought it was pretty entertaining and I enjoyed very much.. It was thrilling, action packed, & dramatic all mixed together. The elements in it were extremely good to say the least. Although the story was relatively the same as the first one, yet it makes up for that with a few shocking moments which conclude with a big showdown at the end.

Now to all who may be wondering if you should check it out well don't listen to all the negativity. I recommend you all give it a try and make your on decision. Either way I give The Hitcher 2: I've been Waiting ***1/2 stars out of five.

I should have known. Sequels are rarely as good as the original. This one is no exception. As a Texan-in-exile, I would be interested in it purely as a travelogue, except that it was filmed in Canada. You can tell that as they add "eh" to the end of Yee Haw! Just kidding.

C. Thomas Howell is back all grown up as Jim Halsey. He is traveling back to Texas to see his old friend Capt. Esteridge. He is on the same road with Kari Wuhrer, who is just a totally hot 40-year-old that I want to see more of. She is in Stephen King's Thinner next Sunday, so I will be tuned in.

Gary Busey's son, Jake, is the bad guy. Howell is killed off rather quickly and it becomes a duel with Busey and Wuhrer. The usual cop-killing and lots of noise. No plot whatsoever.

I would not hesitate to say "skip it," were it not mean of me to deprive you of an opportunity to see Wuhrer.