The Hitcher (1986)

[Neville]

I remember enjoying this film a lot when I first watched it as a teenager, but when I re-watched it years later I found it sort of disappointing. Knowing the events in the movie beforehand, I couldn't help but notice how preposterous the whole thing was.

It's a good thing that I ended up watching the movie again this afternoon. Boy, it has left me blown away. And I finally understand why I did enjoy the movie on my teens and again today. I'm not keen of quoting film reviewers, but the always insightful Richard Scheib of Moria.co.nz nails it when he mentions: "The Hitcher has the dream logic of a nightmare". It's as simple as that.

After their initial meeting, there's no reason why the boy (C. Thomas Howell) and John Ryder (Rutger Hauer) should meet again, but he constantly appears out of the blue to torment him. When he tries to enter an isolated gas station to use the phone, Ryder's truck blasts through the opaque garage doors as he walks by. When he finds confort in a road café, he magically mixes a severed finger between his fries. When sitting in another café he finds him sitting across the table.

I said it's as simple as that, but it really isn't. "The Hitcher" is a rather unique case when it comes to storytelling. In its foundations there's no logic. Actually the whole thing works because of its lack of it. Of course, there are many movies were this happens too, but if we consider how many of them jettison logic on purpose or which succeed in doing so, the list is much shorter. The movie's elaborated sense of dread doesn't come from the brutality of Ryder's crimes, or from him appearing out of the blue to torment C. Thomas Howell's character, but from the fact that there is no apparent reason or explanation for the events or for his obssession with the kid.

Take the moment when the police search Howell and they take out a bloodied knife from his pocket. When did Ryder plant it? Or when he magically produces bullets for the revolver he took from a dead policemen. Is this man walking around with different caliber ammo?

But these details, which would have sunk any other film, are part of the magic here, together with Robert Harmon's methodical camerawork -long stretches without dialogue, multiple shots showing the characters lost in a massive desert landscape-, Mark Isham's eerie synth score and Hauer's haunting performance. By the end, when he has played the role of Howell's dark (and sometimes protecting) angel for several days and announces that "he's tired", you may believe he's a devil reincarnated in human form for a few days or a child that just had the time of his life.

I wonder (and not in a good way) why anybody would want to do a remake of this, and more importantly, if there's anybody out there who could pull it off.

[BeyondTheGrave]

When I first saw this I was like "I never want that to happen to me". It stuck me on a whole different level than most movies. It honestly does feel like a nightmare. Ryder does feel like pure evil that can't and won't be stop. The only way he can stopped is by the person he picks at random. That could have been anyone and thats why it hits close to home.

From what I heard about the remake..They couldn't pull it off.

[The Burgomaster]

I saw this movie during its original theatrical release and I really hated it.  Years later, I can at least tolerate watching it, but I still think it's a bad movie.

[zombiedudeman]

It didn't have me on the edge of my seat the 2nd time I watched it (cause I knew what was going to happen) but I still loved it. Really solid suspense movie.   

[Torgo]

The original  version of The Hitcher has quite a few flaws in addition to some gaping plot holes, but I still enjoy it a lot.

I think that if they hadn't of gotten Rutger Hauer to play the title role, then the movie would have not worked at all.

[Neville]

Yeah, Hauer's acting is essential. The IMDB mentions Terence Stamp was considered for the role too. Who knows, may have worked, but I don't think he can look as dereanged as Hauer.

BTW, I just watched the trailer for the remake, and although Sean Bean looks OK as the "new" hitcher, I don't like the idea of substituting John Halsey by a young couple. A great part of the angst in the original comes from how alone and vulnerable Halsey is.

[Torgo]

Yeah, Hauer's acting is essential. The IMDB mentions Terence Stamp was considered for the role too. Who knows, may have worked, but I don't think he can look as dereanged as Hauer.

Yeah, I've heard that over the years as well. I think that if they had went with Terence Stamp that they would have to have maybe taken the film in a more cerebral direction. 

[Viktorcrayon]

Watch it again, and think of it as a freudian take, on the main characters surpressed homosexuality.

I'm not trying to make a lame joke, this really makes sense throughout the movie!

I also really enjoyed this movie. Rutger Hauer simply rocks in it.

[Neville]

Watch it again, and think of it as a freudian take, on the main characters surpressed homosexuality.

I'm not trying to make a lame joke, this really makes sense throughout the movie!

I also really enjoyed this movie. Rutger Hauer simply rocks in it.

True, there's something disturbingly intimate in the way Hauer harasses Howell. And let's not forget the infamous spit scene, or the role that plays Jennifer Jason Leigh in the whole thing.

[Viktorcrayon]

Watch it again, and think of it as a freudian take, on the main characters surpressed homosexuality.

I'm not trying to make a lame joke, this really makes sense throughout the movie!

I also really enjoyed this movie. Rutger Hauer simply rocks in it.

True, there's something disturbingly intimate in the way Hauer harasses Howell. And let's not forget the infamous spit scene, or the role that plays Jennifer Jason Leigh in the whole thing.

EXACTLY the things i would have pointed out, if i wasn't so lazy. No more lazyness, heres some points:

*Rutger has his hands between his legs at one point, when he's threatening him with a knife.

*(freudian) The main character actually succesfully get's rid of "the hitcher" (his homosexuality) within the first 15 minutes of the movie. But as this is a freudian take on this, it's a part of his sub concious, and it keeps haunting him throughout the movie (in a dreamlike way, again, the subconcious).

* the pennies on his eyes, is are a refference to greek mythology (represent the 2 coins you gave to the ferryman to bring the dead across the river styx) , and we all know about those greeks.... It was probably the most homosexual society ever to have existed.

* The hitcher gently strokes the main characters cheeks with his "gun" at one point

* The glares the hitcher gives the main character throughout the movie

(Note, i borrowed some of this info from a very good IMDB discussion of the movie)

(Note 2, I'm neither Homo, nor homophobe, i just think this is an interesting aspect of the movie to consider.... might be a bit far fetched, but it's not complely random either)

[Neville]

Well, I think some of the stuff you mention -like the pennies stuff- is very far fetched... but still there is some kind of subtext there, if mostly on Rutger Hauer's part.

And there are other interpretations available, such as John Ryder being a supernatural being.

[Viktorcrayon]

Indeed. I think they probably considered the homosexual theme a little bit, but you could also take it as Rutgers character being the uncontrolable force of "death" (wich also brings the pennies/greek mythology back to play)

I guess the writers were clever enough to consider all those subjects. I don't think this is a strictly gay themed movie at all, i'm just saying that it's a theme that the writer/director probably toyed with.

This is what i love about movies. Picking them to little pieces!!!

(i'm under the influence of red wine and snuff right now, so i hope i'm able to make my english understandable)