Why Everyone Hated The Hitcher Remake

[00:00:00]Most horror villains needed masks, supernatural powers, or elaborate backstories. But one movie proved that sometimes the most terrifying thing imaginable is simply helping the wrong person. In 1986, The Hitcher introduced audiences to John Ryder, a mysterious drifter who seemingly appeared out of nowhere, terrorized an innocent young driver across the deserted highways of West Texas, and became one of the most unsettling villains in horror history.

[00:00:29]The film was dark, violent, and deeply unsettling, and eventually developed a passionate cult following and became one of the most memorable road horror films ever made. Then, more than 20 years later, Hollywood decided to pick up the same stranger and take another drive down that highway. In 2007, The Hitcher returned with a larger budget, more graphic violence, and a new pair of victims fighting to survive. But was this modern version actually able to recapture what made the original so disturbing? What's up, guys? Welcome back to Mike's Movie Room, and in today's episode of Failed Fridays, we are looking to see if this movie even deserves to exist, or is it just another failed remake? So join me as we dive deep into The Hitcher, 2007.

[00:01:24]Real quick, before we get started, guys, I just want to give a shout out to everybody who's been supporting the channel and watching my videos. So when I started this channel, I did not think I was going to get 1,000 subscribers, and it turns out some people actually like my videos. So once I hit 1,000, I was amazed, and I was just happy people actually liked my videos and the content I was putting out. And now I'm almost at 10,000 subscribers, which still is like mind-boggling and does not feel real. I definitely did not think I was going to get to this point when I first started.

[00:01:48]I was just kind of doing it for fun, for my love of movies, and I'm super grateful that all of you guys actually like my videos. And the fact that I'm about to hit 10K is absolutely wild, so I want to give something back to you guys. I was trying to think of something cool to give you guys, not just like a digital code or something, and this is what I thought of. I don't know if this is going to have a glare when I pull it up, but The Phantom of the Opera on Blu-ray. This is the one with Robert Englund as the Phantom. Now, some of you are probably thinking, "Wow, cool, an open Blu-ray. It's not even sealed. What the hell?" But, what's special about this is So, I hope you guys can see this. I actually got it signed by Robert Englund himself. So, yeah, guys, pretty cool, or at least I think so. Once I hit 10K, I'm going to be doing a giveaway for this, so keep a lookout for that.

[00:02:22]And this is absolutely his signature. I did not buy this third party. I went to Spooky Empire. I had this signed myself, and I waited in line like 8 hours for this. So, yeah, keep a lookout for that.

[00:02:31]And like I said, I'm super grateful for all your support. But, anyways, let's get into The Hitcher. The Hitcher wasn't simply a movie about a serial killer chasing someone down a highway. It was a nightmare with no explanation, no escape, and almost no rules. The movie was written by Eric Red and directed by Robert Harmon. Surprisingly, The Hitcher was the first feature film written by Red and the feature directing debut of Harmon. The film starred C. Thomas Howell as Jim Halsey, a young driver transporting a car from Chicago to San Diego. Rutger Hauer as John Ryder, the mysterious hitchhiker who begins terrorizing him. Jennifer Jason Leigh as Nash, the truck stop waitress who becomes caught in their nightmare. And Jeffrey DeMunn as Captain Estridge, the police captain who eventually begins to understand what is really happening. The idea for The Hitcher began while Eric Red was driving across the country.

[00:03:24]During a rainy stretch of highway, he began listening to The Doors song, "Riders on the Storm." The experience combined with the song gave Red the foundation for the story. But, getting anyone in Hollywood to read it was nearly as difficult as surviving John Ryder himself. Red reportedly obtained a list of producers and mailed letters to approximately 300 of them, promising a screenplay that would grab readers and refuse to let go. One of those letters eventually landed on the desk of development executive David Bombyk, who requested the script and recognized that there was something powerful underneath all the violence. Red's original screenplay was 190 pages long, nearly enough material for a 3-hour long movie, and was far more graphic than the film that was eventually released. It included an eyeball hidden inside a hamburger, the slaughter of an entire family, additional shootings and crashes, and far more explicit descriptions of the murders. Bombyk and Kip Ohman spent months working with Red to remove some of the repetitive violence and reshape the screenplay into more of a psychological thriller. The eyeball in the hamburger was eventually replaced by the severed finger Jim discovers among his french fries.

[00:04:34]There's also a small detail involving John Ryder that some fans believe make that scene even darker. Despite carrying no identification and revealing practically nothing about his past, Ryder can be seen wearing two wedding rings on one finger. One theory is that the rings were trophies taken from a murdered couple, and that the finger placed in Jim's food may have belonged to one of Ryder's previous victims. The movie never confirms any of this, and that's exactly why it works. John Ryder is frightening because the film refuses to explain him. We don't learn about his childhood, we don't receive some traumatic motivation, we don't even know whether John Ryder is his real name. He simply appears on a dark highway. Rutger Hauer understood that ambiguity better than anyone. Hauer didn't see Ryder as a one-dimensional monster, making it feel as though Ryder isn't merely trying to murder him. He's trying to transform him. Hauer also brought several unscripted ideas to the role. The moment where Ryder uses his knife to catch a tear from Jim's face, the small rock included with the bullets, and the pennies placed over Jim's eyes were reportedly ideas Hauer introduced while filming. Those These choices gave Ryder a strange personality without ever revealing exactly who he was or what he wanted. However, Hauer wasn't the first person considered for the role. Terence Stamp was initially pursued but turned it down. While Sam Elliott reportedly received an offer but couldn't come to an agreement over payment. Hauer had actually been trying to move away from playing villains, but he found the role of John Ryder too interesting to refuse.

[00:06:10]Casting Jim Halsey was equally important. Matthew Modine, Tom Cruise, and Emilio Estevez were among the actors considered before C. Thomas Howell received the role. Harmon wanted Jim to look young and completely unprepared for what was about to happen to him. At the beginning, Jim is an exhausted, somewhat naive kid who believes picking up a stranger is a harmless decision. By the end, he barely looks like the same person. That transformation is really the heart of the movie. It's almost as if Ryder chose Jim as his replacement.

[00:06:42]Principal photography began on February 11th, 1985, and continued for approximately 9 weeks. Although the story takes place along the highways of West Texas, most of the film was shot throughout Southern California's deserts. Those locations became almost like another character. The empty roads, endless desert, and complete lack of safety make Jim feel isolated even when police officers surround him. The atmosphere was strengthened by cinematographer John Seale, who would later win an Academy Award for The English Patient and shoot films including Rain Man and Mad Max: Fury Road. His widescreen photography makes the landscape look beautiful while also making Jim appear completely insignificant inside it. The score was composed by Mark Isham, whose quiet, haunting music gives the movie the feeling of a modern Western gradually turning into a nightmare.

[00:07:39]The production also involved some dangerous stunt work. Rutger Hauer, reportedly, performed a surprising amount of his own stunt driving, impressing both the crew and the professional drivers working on the movie. During the final windshield sequence, Hauer, reportedly, struck himself with a shotgun he was holding and knocked out one of his teeth. And the most infamous sequence in the entire film is Nash's death. After kidnapping her, Ryder ties Nash between the cab and trailer of a truck, places his foot over the clutch, and forces Jim to decide whether he can shoot him. Jim can't do it.

[00:08:14]Ryder releases the clutch, and the movie cuts away. The audience never actually sees Nash being torn apart. There's no graphic effect, no extended gore. The horror exists almost completely inside our imagination. C.

[00:08:30]Thomas Howell later said people regularly told him they remembered seeing Nash's body ripped apart, but that footage never existed. The positioning of the trucks, the spinning tires, and the sound of the engine were enough for viewers to create something much worse than the filmmakers could have shown. Ironically, some people involved with the movie later believed hiding the death may have hurt it commercially. And I'm usually in the camp of less is more, especially with horror movies, but I really do believe it could have shown a little bit more with Nash's death. Like maybe if they showed like just a little bit of blood, like maybe her spitting up blood, and just like the beginning of flesh tearing, and then cut away. I feel like that could have been more effective. I don't know, that's just my opinion, and it's strange coming from me because I'm usually in the camp, like I just said, of less is usually more. And I'm not saying show everything, like the actual dismemberment and all of that [ __ ] but just show a tiny bit more than what we actually got, and then cut to black. And I know I'm in the minority on this one, but I love to hear you guys' opinions, so drop a comment down below. Despite how iconic the movie feels today, The Hitcher wasn't a commercial success when it first reached theaters. The film was released on February 21st, 1986.

[00:09:36]Reports on its budget vary with estimates ranging from approximately 5.8 to 7.9 million dollars. It earned only around 5.8 million dollars at the domestic box office, meaning that even by the lowest reported budget, it failed to recover its production costs.

[00:09:55]The Hitcher was officially a box office disappointment. Critics were deeply divided by the film's violence, lack of conventional logic, and refusal to explain John Ryder. Roger Ebert gave the movie zero stars, arguing that its violence and relationship between Jim and Ryder were morally disturbing. Gene Siskel also gave it zero stars and condemned it as an excessively violent variation of Steven Spielberg's Duel.

[00:10:21]Audience reactions were also mixed at the time. And the harsh reviews certainly didn't help the movie attract people to theaters. But as years passed, the reaction began to change. People discovered it through cable television, VHS, and home video, where its relentless pacing, stunning cinematography, and Rutger Hauer's performance gradually earned it a devoted following. Today, The Hitcher holds a 63% critic score on Rotten Tomatoes, while its audience score is considerably stronger at 75%. That difference perfectly represents the movie's journey. Critics initially rejected it, but horror audiences kept returning to that highway. The movie is now regularly described as a cult classic, and John Ryder has become one of Rutger Hauer's most iconic performances. Even Christopher Nolan has named The Hitcher among his favorite films, praising Hauer's deeply underrated and influential performance.

[00:11:17]And I think it's lasting power comes from everything the movie refuses to explain. Who is John Ryder? How does he keep appearing wherever Jim goes? Nearly 40 years later, people are still debating those questions. The movie eventually received a direct-to-video sequel in 2003 with C. Thomas Howell returning as Jim Halsey, which was met with mixed and mainly negative reviews.

[00:11:42]But, 4 years after that, Hollywood decided to start the entire nightmare again. This time, the story would become more graphic, and the filmmakers would attempt to modernize the chase for a new generation. But, could a remake recreate the mystery, atmosphere, and psychological connection that made the original a cult classic, or did Hollywood simply pick up the wrong stranger? Michael Bay's production company, Platinum Dunes, decided to pick John Ryder up from the side of the highway one more time. Platinum Dunes had already found enormous success by remaking The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and The Amityville Horror. Both movies were criticized for replacing the atmosphere of the originals with a slicker, more violent style. But, both films made more than $107 million worldwide. So, on paper, The Hitcher seemed like the perfect movie for them to remake next. The film was directed by Dave Meyers, a filmmaker primarily known at the time for directing music videos and commercials.

[00:12:42]The Hitcher would become his first feature-length horror film. The remake starred Sean Bean as John Ryder. Sophia Bush plays Grace Andrews, who becomes the movie's primary survivor and eventual final girl. Zachary Knighton plays her boyfriend Jim Halsey, while Neal McDonough plays Lieutenant Esteridge. Principal photography began on June 12th, 2006, and continued through August 10th, with much of the movie being filmed throughout New Mexico. Just like the original, the filmmakers used long stretches of highway and empty desert to create the feeling that Grace and Jim were trapped in the middle of nowhere. But, despite telling essentially the same story, this wasn't a shot-for-shot remake. The biggest change was giving Jim a girlfriend from the very beginning. In the original, Jim travels alone and later meets Nash at a diner. She decides to believe his story and joins him despite barely knowing who he is. And honestly, that was always one part of the original that felt slightly unbelievable to me. Jim is a complete stranger being accused of multiple murders, yet Nash almost immediately trusts him enough to risk her life helping him. The remake fixes that by establishing Grace and Jim as a couple before John Ryder ever enters the story.

[00:13:57]Grace already knows Jim.

[00:13:59]She already trusts him. And she has a believable reason to stay with him once everything begins falling apart. At the same time, however, it creates an entirely different problem. The original works because Jim is completely alone.

[00:14:13]He has no one to support him, no one who immediately believes him, and no one who can confirm his version of events. The police believe he's a murderer. Everyone he approaches either dies or turns against him. And even when Nash eventually helps him, the audience has already spent most of the movie trapped inside Jim's isolation. By giving him a girlfriend from the opening scene, the remake immediately removes some of that isolation, loneliness, and suspense. Jim always has someone beside him who knows he's innocent. So, while the change makes the relationship more believable, it also weakens one of the most important things that made the original so suspenseful. That's basically my overall problem with the remake. There are some genuinely interesting ideas here, but most of them aren't executed as well as they could have been. Another major change is that Grace eventually becomes the central character. Jim is eventually placed between the truck and trailer, recreating Nash's infamous death from the original, and this time the movie actually shows far more of what happens.

[00:15:16]Grace is then left to confront Ryder herself. I I appreciate that the filmmakers didn't simply repeat the exact same character journey. They switched the victim, gave Grace a more active role, and created a different ending instead of copying every beat from 1986. I also didn't mind the remake increase some of the violence. The original understood how powerful implied violence could be, especially during Nash's death. But, this is a remake made during the height of the brutal 2000s horror era, and I don't think adding more blood was automatically a bad decision. The police chase is bigger, the car crashes are more destructive, and the action has a much faster and more aggressive energy than the original. The problem is that increased violence isn't the same thing as increased suspense. The original slowly trapped Jim inside a nightmare where John Ryder appears to control everything. The remake often replaces that psychological tension with loud noises, car crashes, generic jump scares, and characters making decisions that exist mainly to move them toward the next action sequence. It's louder, bloodier, and technically bigger, but it rarely feels scarier. One of the most important decisions was obviously casting John Ryder. And I want to be clear, I like Sean Bean as an actor.

[00:16:34]He's been fantastic in plenty of movies and shows. And physically, he seems like he should be perfect for this type of character. During production, Bean reportedly kept his distance from Sophia Bush and Zachary Quinto, so it would make the tension feel more authentic once camera started rolling. That's a smart approach. Unfortunately, I still don't find him nearly as believable or frightening playing John Ryder. Rutger Hauer's performance in the original felt completely unpredictable. At times, he appeared genuinely evil. At other moments, he seemed strangely sympathetic towards Jim. He could appear almost human in one scene, and then completely supernatural in the next. You never knew where he came from, how he kept finding Jim, or what he actually wanted. The original never completely answers those questions, and that mystery is what makes Hauer so frightening. Sean Bean's Ryder feels much more like a conventional movie serial killer. The remake attempts to give him more motive and emotion, but in doing so, it makes him feel less mysterious. Instead of appearing like an almost supernatural force that Jim accidentally summoned from the darkness, this Ryder feels like a man who wants someone to finally kill him. And for me, that isn't nearly as interesting. It gives the character a more understandable objective, but John Ryder was scarier when understanding him felt impossible. Rutger Hauer was even reportedly offered an opportunity to appear in the remake, but declined the cameo for artistic reasons. He later said that he had not watched the new version, and joked that based off what some of his friends have told him, he probably shouldn't bother. The remake also has a very different style from the original. Dave Meyers came from the world of music videos, and there are moments where that background becomes extremely obvious. The movie literally opens with a song Move Along by the All-American Rejects.

[00:18:33]And this was pretty much a first-time watch for me with my girlfriend. I mean, I saw like glimpses of this movie back in the day, but never really watched it because the original was what I knew.

[00:18:41]And at first, I was like, "Interesting choice of music, good way to make it modern, I guess." And both of us watching this movie started to go, "They're playing this whole song, and parts of it on repeat, I think." Like it was almost like a music video. I'm not even kidding. There were parts where it slowed down, and I'm like, "Okay, the music's finally ending." And then it picks back up. And me and my girlfriend just started laughing at this point.

[00:19:01]>> Sure.

[00:19:03]Positive.

[00:19:06]>> [music] >> And that's not a good way to start a horror movie. In the original, he's by himself, it's dark, it's thunderstorming, it's creepy. This one, the hell is this? And then during the police chase, they play Closer by Nine Inch Nails.

[00:19:38]And just once again, it seems like this out of place music video and you can tell that the director's background is in music videos. Like the police chase became absolutely goofy with that music as the background. I mean, some people may like the music choices in this movie. Drop a comment down below and let me know if you disagree with me, but honestly, I thought they were all trash.

[00:19:57]The police chase should feel dangerous and terrifying. Instead, playing Closer over exploding police cars makes the sequence feel more like an extended music video. And that's especially disappointing when you compare it with the original's haunting score, which made the empty highway feel genuinely otherworldly. There are also several stupid character decisions that make the remake increasingly frustrating. Like there are two specific scenes stuck in my head that these characters did that are just absolutely stupid. The first one being towards the end of the film when they're hiding in the motel and Jim decides to go outside and like look for a phone or try and find some help or something. And then he gets kidnapped by John Ryder. Why would you go out alone?

[00:20:40]Why would you go out at all when you're like perfectly hidden and the dude hopefully can't find you? And why would you not take your gun? Then the second thing is towards the beginning of the film where they find that dead family in the car. The dad's still alive, struggling to survive. He's got like a knife in his gut or in his chest. They pull up at this diner. Grace gets out and runs inside while Jim's trying to like help the guy and keep pressure on his wound. And instead of running inside saying, "Call the police. We have people that are hurt." Mind you, she's covered in blood. She asks like where towels or like paper towels are. Frantic, covered in blood, not saying call the police, we're trying to help this family, this guy's chasing us, killing people. She just leaves her boyfriend in the car with a bunch of dead bodies and runs to the bathroom with blood all over and the waitress picks up the phone, calls the police. I can't remember exactly what she says. I don't even remember if it shows what she says, but pretty much she calls the police and is like, "Yo, there's crazy people here with blood all over them. I think they killed somebody." Like they could have resolved 90% of the issues they were having right there by just telling the lady, "Call the police, we're trying to help someone." I mean, I get it. That'd be the end of the movie, but you could come up with a better, more believable scenario than that. And that's the biggest difference between the two films. The original feels like writer controls the story. The remake feels like the screenplay controls the characters. When The Hitcher finally hit theaters on January 19th, 2007, it had an estimated budget of $10 million.

[00:22:02]The film opened with around $8.2 million, eventually bringing its worldwide total to just under 25.4 million. Technically, that means it earned more than twice its production budget, so I wouldn't call it one of the biggest financial disasters in horror history, but theaters take part of the box office revenue and that $10 million figure does not include all the extra money they had to spend on advertising and distribution. More importantly, those numbers were extremely disappointing compared to Platinum Dunes' previous remakes. I mean, when you look at The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake that made over $107 million off of a $9.5 million budget and then Amityville Horror also made over $107 million off of a $19 million budget, then The Hitcher arrives and makes only $25 million worldwide. That's a huge drop in profit. So, although it may not have been a complete financial bomb on paper, it was the first Platinum Dunes remake to clearly underperform commercially.

[00:23:00]Critically, the news was even worse. The movie currently holds a 19% critic score on Rotten Tomatoes, with the audience score being considerably higher at 52%.

[00:23:12]Critics repeatedly complained that the remake replaced the original's ambiguity and suspense with cheap shocks, graphic violence, and torture. Some even argued that while Sean Bean attempted to bring motive and emotion to Ryder, the director appeared far more interested in gore and sudden scares. Audience reaction has always been slightly more divided. Plenty of fans agree that it can't compete with the original, but the remake has also developed a small group of defenders who enjoy its fast pacing, brutal violence, practical car destruction, and the fact that it at least tries to alter the character dynamics instead of recreating the original scene for scene. And I understand that perspective. I don't think the remake is completely unwatchable. The film is only around 84 minutes long, so it never really becomes boring. But almost every good idea is surrounded by something that weakens it.

[00:24:06]The remake's legacy is also interesting because it arrived at what feels like a turning point for the entire 2000s horror remake era. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre in 2003 had helped revive the Hollywood remake craze. The Amityville Horror followed in 2005 and became another major financial success. And with other films like The Hills Have Eyes arriving around the same time. But by the time The Hitcher arrived, the formula was beginning to feel familiar.

[00:24:33]Take an older horror movie, cast younger and more recognizable actors, increase the violence, give it a glossy music video appearance, and sell it to a new generation. After The Hitcher, Platinum Dunes would continue remaking major horror properties including Friday the 13th and then their final horror remake, A Nightmare on Elm Street. Some of those movies still made money, but the remake started to develop a reputation for being visually polished and starting to lose a lot of what made the originals so gritty in the first place. So, I wouldn't say The Hitcher single-handedly destroyed horror remakes, but looking back, I do think it represents the moment when the steady downfall began.

[00:25:13]Like I said, I appreciate them trying something different and not doing an exact carbon copy of the original film, but also a lot of those changes ruined the suspense and what made the original so unnerving. So, yeah, guys, unfortunately, this movie was a swing and a miss. I mean, I guess the one smart change in this movie is swapping who gets ripped in half. Like I'm sure that twist shocked a few people and it's a way to kind of change the remake while still keeping the essence of the original, but that also could have been done better. As soon as Jim said he was going outside at night by himself, I was like, "Okay, they're definitely swapping who's going to get killed here." So, yeah, it sucks that this was the version that we got, but honestly, this is probably one of those movies that just shouldn't be remade. I mean, you can say that about most remakes, but there are some good ones out there and there's some that I actually prefer over the originals. I know I keep going back to this, but The Hills Have Eyes remake, I enjoy that way more than the original and I definitely think they improved on a lot that the original couldn't do. So, there's remakes like that that understand the source material and actually improve and build on it and then there's remakes like The Hitcher and Poltergeist. All righty, guys, now it's time to rate these movies starting off with the original from 1986 and I'm giving this guy four out of five stars.

[00:26:14]It's a great horror film. I don't go back and watch it that often, but every time I do, I'm like, "Why don't I watch this more and why don't I show this to more people?" Oh boy, now I'm moving on to the remake from 2007 and I ain't wasting no time. One out of five stars.

[00:26:26]I don't know if I'd say this remake is pointless, but it really brings no value when you watch it. I mean, at least in my opinion, they just did a shittier version of the original story. I mean, yeah, the budget's bigger and they have more special effects, but it just strips away all the suspense, like I said. I mean, maybe some people get enjoyment out of this, but I haven't met anybody that has said the remake is better or on par with the original. And that's why The Hitcher from 2007 is 100% a failed remake. Alrighty guys, those are my thoughts and opinions on The Hitcher from 2007. Drop a comment down below and let me know if you agree or disagree and we can have a debate down in the comments. I try and reply to every single one of you, which is getting a little hard with how many people are starting to comment, but I'm trying to keep up. And if you like content like this and want to see more and haven't already, don't forget to hit that like and subscribe button. Don't forget to follow me on my social medias where I post [ __ ] that I don't post on YouTube. I also have a subscription for 99 cents a month. Absolutely nobody has to join. This is literally just for people who want to help support the channel a little bit more. Comes with a few different perks like custom badges, priority reply to comments, and you guys get to see videos like this a little earlier. And I've also been slacking, but I'm going to get on it. There's going to be member-only polls, shorts, and videos. Keep a look out for that.

[00:27:28]Alrighty guys, I'm going on for way too long. Until next time, I'm out of here.

[00:27:32]I'm out here. Peace.

[00:27:44]>> [music] [music]