Such a frustrating disappointment

Excellent, Without a doubt!!

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

OK. I must preface by saying that I've had the pleasure of seeing THE HITCHER with the quietly menacing Rutger Hauer and the very thought of that film still sends chills down my spine. What ...drive alone on a fairly remote stretch of road where the only thing you're liable to run into are hungry buzzards? Sure! Why not? And while we're at it let's stop and pick up a psychopathic serial killer who just happens to be Rutger Hauer! What the hell! It's not as though you've just lowered your odds of surviving such an encounter ...right? OK..now let's make some lame substitutions for the killer and call him Jake Busey and while we're at let's throw in the pretty (but vacuous) )Kari .Wuhrerand there you have it: voilà! The not so spectacular THE HITCHER 2: I've Been Waiting! See how that works out? I myself have been waiting for a decent sequel and like so many others, I was lured in simply by seeing the name C. Thomas Howell attached to this movie so ...I'd thought I'd give it a shot. Silly me! Nothing in the way of chills here with Jake Busy flashing what I can only describe as a horsey grin and resembling his father more and more by the minute (OK...now I'm scared!).As for C.Thomas Howell his character was only there as a poorly written lead in( another much needed pay check for the financially beleaguered Howell, who at last check was being sued..blah blah blah). This movie is yet another reason why Hollywood should try coming up with something new instead of resting lazily on its laurels and yelling "sequel!sequel!". To try and retell or reinvent something as good as THE HITCHER is a downright travesty and an insult to the movie going public. I would strongly suggest that if you haven't seen the original with Rutger Hauer you should do so.

I say unfortunately because Jake Busey was the only decent actor in this movie.To be honest I have to watch a movie at least 4 times in order to review it properly, and each time I watched this it seemed to grow on me more and more.Sure 99% of the characters were lame delinquents, but I take my hat off to that Jake each and every movie he performs in.He's known for his acts of evil characters, that's because he does them so well, he's believable, he can make anybody hate and despise him so easily, and on the same page he can make the audience feel proud and emotionally connect with his characters.I think one thing people forget when they rate these kind of movies, is that it's obvious the director knows it wont be a big hit like lord of the rings, or the shining or the godfather, it's just a movie that succeeds on it's own level.In this film you see plenty of action, the main guy who WILL get on your nerves will die, the villain does die as they do, but the way he does is creative, well you may not think getting blown up is very original, but it was just plain cool to see a woman do it, to see a woman survive and do the deed.The effects were brilliant, you see a man chop off his own finger and throw it into a fryer, and you actuall cringe and feel that tingly feeling because you believe that it's real, even though you know it isn't, you just forget about it.This movie was really great in it's own way!

Since I didn't like the original, I popped in the sequel with my typical optimism. See, whenever I happen to dislike a movie with a cult following, I go to the sequel and remake thinking "It'd be funny if I wound up liking the hated and evil sequel/remake more than the original." Why? Just because many people dislike sequels and remakes on principle alone. Well, as it turns out … I didn't like the sequel (or the remake) either.The Hitcher 2 is the cinematic equivalent to the equation (X * 0 = 0). Some ideas just don't lend themselves to sequels. The idea of a God-like Hitchhiker with the mystical power of popping up whenever and wherever the plot needs (sorry, *demands*) him to make the protagonist's life hell? Yeah, no matter how you cut that it's an obedient repeat of the first one. At best the sequel can bring superficial changes that, in the end, count for nothing. No matter what number X represents (X=5, X=50, X=500, X=50Bajillion), the equation always yields 0.In the first film the Hitcher needs to materialize in the backseat of a car belonging to a nice family; in the sequel, the Hitcher needs to appear at a farm belonging to a nice old couple. And so on, and so forth.Jim Halsey (C. Thomas Howell) returns to the scene of the original crime to face his demons, and joining him this time is Maggie (Kari Wuhrer.) Jim's demons materialize in the form of the new Hitcher (Jake Busey who tries too hard to play a psychopath.) The Hitcher this time around is apparently a former master of ceremonies at a carnival freak show, or maybe even a Nickelodeon game show host on crack. I dunno. All I know is that Busey made me better understand the notion than an actor has to "become" the character because here he clearly just "plays" crazy in the most artificial sense.Like its predecessor, The Hitcher spends most of the film killing everyone around the protagonist, framing the protagonist, chasing the protagonist, and pushing her to the brink of sanity. The sequel continues the trend of good cinematography (even if it is overly stylized for the sake of over stylization). More than anything I wanted the nicely done effects and neat scenarios to thrill me … but I couldn't believe in them enough for that to happen.No fan of the thrillers watches them to disbelieve. I don't watch Indiana Jones, Die Hard, and the Alien films (among many others) for absolute logic. Hell, I liked Torque, Half Past Dead, and most of Michael Bay's films. And I was keenly aware of this when Maggie flies a plane around the Hitcher's massive 18-wheeler, and the soundtrack kicks into overdrive with intense chase music while the plane just circles and circles and circles. I thought, "Okay, what's the point?" Whooshing by the truck isn't going to do anything even if the music tries with all its might to convince me otherwise. This isn't an honest presentation – it's a cowardly act of trying to punch up tension that doesn't exist. It's the score that cried wolf.And since the movie indulged on a punched up and pointless (thus thrill-less) fly-by sequence, it gave my mind the opportunity to note the plane realistically couldn't threaten the truck without crashing (probability favoring Maggie dying before the Hitcher). Plus since the film wanted to cry wolf, I stopped listening entirely. So much for the film's climax.Thrillers can ride amazingly thin plots with amazingly thin characters and get away with it. A film has to literally split hairs to cut them too thin, and amazingly many do.

When I first saw "The Hitcher 2: I've been Waiting" on SciFi I found it to be extremely underrated. I thought it was pretty entertaining and I enjoyed very much.. It was thrilling, action packed, & dramatic all mixed together. The elements in it were extremely good to say the least. Although the story was relatively the same as the first one, yet it makes up for that with a few shocking moments which conclude with a big showdown at the end.Now to all who may be wondering if you should check it out well don't listen to all the negativity. I recommend you all give it a try and make your on decision. Either way I give The Hitcher 2: I've been Waiting ***1/2 stars out of five.