| Bilgi :Some people will tell you that The Hitcher is a breed apart, that it takes the conventions of slasher films, mixes them with Hitchcockian suspense, and adds a level of psychological murkiness which transcends any genre classification. In fact, I might be one of those people. But then I’d be talking about the original 1986 Hitcher, directed by Robert Harmon—whose career pretty much blew up on the pad after Siskel and Ebert lambasted his film on their TV program, At the Movies, as well as on The Tonight Show. Siskel said something like, “You’d have to be subhuman to like this film,” and they found the movie to be despicably homophobic. I was baffled at the time; and I’d be truly curious to see just how subhuman Siskel would find the audiences who will be cheering this latest version.
 To be honest, Dave Meyers’ update of The Hitcher hews pretty close to many of the original’s characters, plot devices, and even dialogue. What Meyers mostly seems, though, is impatient with the original’s pacing and frustrated at Harmon’s reluctance to show all the gore. So right off the bat, Meyers’ version becomes rushed and bloody.
The Hitcher—this latest version—tells the story of Jim Halsey and his girlfriend Grace, off on a road trip through New Mexico on their way to Lake Havasu for a break from college. Along the way, just after entering “The Land of Enchantment,” they nearly run over a hitchhiker during a nighttime monsoon. Shortly after, a trucker drops the hitcher off at the isolated gas station where Jim and Grace are refueling. He asks for ride to a nearly Motel and, against Grace’s earlier wishes, Jim agrees.
Cut to the chase. The hitcher’s name is John Ryder, and he’s a serial killer. That’s no secret. And once Jim foils Ryder’s attempt on Grace’s life, the ante is repeatedly upped as Ryder tries to get Jim to understand what it is that he’s really after. So an innocent family dies; a four-wheeler enthusiast bites the dust; scads and scads o’ cops die.
What made the original Hitcher (such as it was) work was the fact the Ryder’s intent was highly debatable. That ambiguity, combined with Harmon’s refusal to show all the details of Ryder’s crimes and methods, lent Rutger Hauer’s Ryder an eerie mysticism. Sean Bean, however, as Meyers’ Ryder, is pure earthly inhumanity.
Is Meyers deliberately trying to turn The Hitcher into some kind of camp cult classic? If so, the response of the crowd at the promotional screening I attended indicates that he’s hit the mark. No one in the audience seemed to take the film very seriously, and many were openly hooting—even at scenes that were structured as nearly shot-for-shot recreations of Harmon’s film. It played like camp whether Meyers intended it or not. Personally, I find it impossible to shriek with laughter when I see someone take a bullet to the brain. So that doesn’t work for me.
Is Meyers trying to remake The Hitcher in a way that answers the objections of high-brow critics like Siskel and Ebert—trying to pay homage to what, in many circles, is considered one of the lost treasures of the Horror genre? If so, the attempt isn’t necessary. Siskel and Ebert totally missed the fact that Harmon’s film forced audiences to confront the horror resident in their own minds, and they should have been grateful that Harmon’s female lead was only an incidental victim, not the primary target of Ryder’s harassment. And Meyers can’t pay homage to such bold choices by failing to replicate them in the remake.
Sadly, it appears that Meyers understood the original film almost as poorly as Siskel and Ebert. The one thing he gets right—too right, in fact, removing all debate about the issue—is understanding Ryder’s motivation. From there, though, with all the ambiguity neutered, The Hitcher simply becomes a cautionary tale about the need to kill when you get the chance. Strike preemptively, says The Hitcher, and strike with impunity. And don’t worry about what that will do to you. But in 2007—after Saving Private Ryan and the Iraq War—even that lame message hardly strikes a chord.
If you’re a fan of Original Recipe, skip the Extra Crispy. If you can’t remember C. Thomas Howell as the 1986 Jim Halsey, you’ll still find some surprises here, even if you might have the vague (and justified) feeling that some key scenes are missing. If you like the new recipe, and are unfamiliar with the original, check it out; there’ll be some surprises there for you, and you might find yourself thinking about the story a little bit more deeply. But if you’re sick of explicit gore in movies, or if you’re looking for your money’s worth, take Grace’s advice and don’t bother pulling over for this Hitcher.
|
