Concluding our little three night Horror Fest, this evening I watched "The Hitcher" (1986), which I reserved from the Libe to pay tribute to the late actor Rutger Hauer, who was so great in "Blade Runner" and other films of the 80s and 90s. I had never seen "The Hitcher", in which he played the title role. It is the other film for which he was most well known.
Back in 1986, they showed a lot of TV commercials promoting "The Hitcher". At the time, my friends and I laughed. As I have remarked, we were more of the Hardcore Horror school. For me, though I loved all kinds of horror (so long as it was well made), my measuring stick was always gonna be "The Exorcist" or "Texas Chainsaw" or "The Hills Have Eyes" original version. Now, "The Hitcher" didn't seem to be passing itself off as a horror movie anyway - more of an intense thriller with horrific elements - but the reason for our scorn at the time would've had more to do with the film's stars, and the idea that Hauer's character was being promoted in the film's trailer as Indestructible.
He's "The Hitcher". I think the name got to us as well. Please remember we were in our 20s, when everything has gotta be just so, in order to be considered "cool".
But yeah, I mean.....he was "The Hitcher". I don't know why, but right there, that title was a problem for me. Also, and perhaps more problematic, "The Hitcher" was Rutger Hauer. Like everyone else, I love the guy, but in 1986, he had a "larger than life" persona as a screen villain, and here he was being mythologized as the ultimate unstoppable psycho, but he also had a very emotional quality to his acting. He had an expressive face, where even a slight muscle twitch communicated another nuance to the audience, so as menacing as he was, he was not your garden variety maniac. He was a Maniac With Feelings, even if he wanted you to think he didn't have any. He was just so Rutger Hauer, with his funny Americanised accent.
To top it all off, he was going one-on-one with C. Thomas Howell, who in retrospect - having now seen the film - did a good job as his victim. At the time, however, my friends and I would've had a field day with this combination. Howell had been in the same Hollywood freshman class as Tom Cruise and Rob Lowe, all of whom we considered "pretty boys" at the time, so the idea of him taking on Rutger Hauer made "The Hitcher" seem all the more laughable.
In 1986, we deliberately avoided the movie for all the above reasons.
But after Hauer passed away a couple of weeks ago, I thought I finally needed to see his other most famous film. I checked IMDB and saw that it had a 7.3 rating, which again is huge for an older movie. "Maybe it's better than I thought it was", I thought, and so I ordered it from The Libe.
In hindsight, I probably should've stuck with my initial intuition, gleaned 33 years ago upon seeing the TV commercials.
"The Hitcher" is pretty bad, folks.
I find myself, now - as I write - trying to be kind to "The Hitcher", because it is trying very hard to be monumental, to be The Real Deal. To the filmmakers' credit, there is no irony involved, no attempt at levity. "The Hitcher" takes itself seriously, while also taking implausibility to new heights. C. Thomas Howell is driving through the Texas desert, at night during a rainstorm, and he stops to pick up a hitchhiker. Is he insane, or what?! You will find yourself asking this question of Howell many more times during the picture, should you ever decide to sit through it. Once inside the car, Rutger Hauer wastes little time in making his intentions known. He is pretty much The Devil, in person, and this is really the point of the movie, because we never get much out of him other than a fake name. We never find out who he is, where he came from, or what his motivations are.
If I have ever decried a movie for having a thin script, then "The Hitcher" tops them all in that category. There is no script for this film, except to direct the action from one scene to the next. The actors do a good job, including Howell (who is very good) and later on Jennifer Jason Leigh. Hauer is great in the lead role, and without him there would've been no movie, because the story is non-existent.
The outdoor desert photography is top notch, and there are some spectacular car crashes, but once again there is almost zero tension, because the director is so intent on mythologizing Hauer's villain, that he telegraphs every single "boo" moment before it happens. There is nothing to make you jump out of your seat, and maybe they weren't trying for that, because Hauer keeps asking C. Thomas, at different stages of the film, to kill him.
If the filmmakers had explored this psychological theme, behind the Hauer character's mental state, they might've had a really good movie instead of just a "chase 'em down" psycho thriller. Watching Rutger Hauer's performance, which again is very expressive in the context allowed, it almost feels as if he was trying to improvise in order to express more than what was in the script, perhaps to help out a novice director. For that reason - for his performance and Howell's reaction to him - I can understand why "The Hitcher" has become a cult classic for folks who may not be as discerning as I am, as to what constitutes classic horror (or suspense in this case).
"The Hitcher" is still very watchable, because it looks good and moves along. It doesn't lag.
But boy, there is absolutely no story whatsoever. It is all about a nameless murderer who will never be known. And that's it, that's all you get.
I would love to give at least a single thumbs up to "The Hitcher", if only in memory of Rutger Hauer. As mentioned, the other actors are good too, and as the years went on we all came to enjoy, for the most part, the work of the Hollywood freshman class of 1983, which included Howell and Tom Cruise when they both acted in Coppola's "The Outsiders". Rob Lowe was in that movie too, and Patrick Swayze, Matt Dillon and Emilio Estevez.
C. Thomas Howell could've been in Cruise's shoes, could've been chosen to be the Big Hollywood Star, except that he lacked perhaps the Tom Cruise emotional explosiveness.
I was wrong about the onscreen pairing of Howell against Rutger Hauer. C. Thomas holds his own against the big Dutch madman. The film works on all technical levels, too. Unfortunately, there is not even a thin wisp of a plot, none whatsoever, and so I must really stretch my generosity here to award "The Hitcher" with a single thumb up, a slight recommendation to "see it if you must" if you are an 80s horror fan like me , but for everyone else to avoid at all costs. /////
Thank goodness the air quality was a little better today. Not a lot better, mind you, but enough so that I could breathe without "hitching".........haha, nudge nudge.......did you get me? "Hitching" my breath?
Well anyway, I don't think even Rutger Hauer would make it in this smog. But again, it wasn't as bad today, so I went for a hike up at O'Melveny Park. Then I finished my James Forrestal book by David Martin, which I can't recommend highly enough. Read it to learn what really goes on in this country.
That's all for tonight, see you in the morning. Tons of love, as always. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
No comments:
Post a Comment