Anyone watching the NFL playoffs this weekend has been subjected to a heavy dose of advertising for the remake of "The Hitcher" which opens next weekend.
I seemed to recall that Roger Ebert detested the original, and fortunately I keep a copy of the 1987 edition of his Movie Home Companion around for just such occasions. Sure enough, he gave it No Stars, something he doesn't do very often. Some of Ebert's best writing comes when he gets really angry, which he obviously was after viewing the film, which starred C. Thomas Howell - whatever happened to him? - and Rutger Hauer:
I could see the the film was meant as an allegory, not a documentary. But on its own terms, the movie is diseased and corrupt. I would have admired it more if it had found the courage to acknowledge the real relationship it was portraying between Howell and Rutger, but no: It prefers to disguise itself as a violent thriller, and on that level it is reprehensible.
"Diseased and corrupt" - well, one can certainly see why Hollywood was clamoring to remake this one!
1 comment:
Whoops...I didn't send this note to the right place...anyway, I remember the original "Hitcher" very well...it was pretty horrifying. But, I didn't realize it was allegorical; and WHAT relationship is Ebert talking about? I'll have to go back and see what I missed!
Post a Comment