Add a Review

  • Warning: Spoilers
    *SPOILER ALERT* *SPOILER ALERT*

    Theoretically, "Hitcher II" is a sequel to the violent Rutger Hauer classic "The Hitcher". In actuality, it's a Kari Wuhrer thriller masquerading as a "Hitcher" sequel. Oh sure, there's C. Thomas Howell driving along the same highway as the first movie. And look! There's a blonde hitchhiker acting all crazy. So what's the problem? No problem really. I just wonder why they bothered with Howell at all if they just wanted to make another Wuhrer thriller. Say it with me: EXPLOITATION.

    So the "Hitcher" title gets slapped onto this little B-movie. They had a blonde psycho ready to go and wondered how they were going to squeeze him into a Wuhrer flick. So Wuhrer runs afoul of loony bird and the psychotic events start unfolding. Like the first movie, he tries to frame her at every ludicrous turn. Like the first movie, there are ropes and two trucks involved in a key scene. Like the first movie, there is special finger food added to the deep fryer. So why am I saying "Hitcher II" is not really a sequel?

    Because "The Hitcher" was about Howell having a violent S/M relationship thrust on him by psycho Hauer. "Hitcher II" is just another generic psycho movie with Wuhrer weeping her eyes out at every turn. Busey was just doing it all for B-movie kicks. Now if a female hitchhiker had gotten picked up by Wuhrer and the two of them went through the motions that Hauer and Howell had gone through...Oh yeah. I've been waiting...Still waiting.

    Now don't get me wrong. I don't have anything against B-movie thrills. In fact I love them. "Hitcher II" takes the best bloody bits from the first "Hitcher" and shoves them into the Kari Wuhrer blender. I enjoyed myself. It just didn't feel like a sequel to me. It ripped off the first one but forgot to rip-off the best part.
  • Hitcher II, The: I've Been Waiting (2003) C. Thomas Howell, Kari Wuhrer, Jake Busey, Mackenzie Gray, Douglas MacLeod, D: Louis Morneau.

    Cop Howell mysteriously seems to have an anniversary for the nightmare he had 17 years ago. This time, his tough cookie girlfriend (Wuhrer) experiences it next to him on a country road trip, where a new menacing hitchhiker (Busey) frames her with his machinations and those stupid cops won't believe her.

    Obvious, needless thriller is just a refurbished remake, while suffering to not be on par with its predecessor from a key exclusion-Rutger Hauer.

    Running Time: 93 minutes and rated R for strong violence.

    RATING: ** (out of ****)
  • If this movie was a stand alone straight-to-video flick with no connection to The Hitcher, I think it would have been more enjoyable. But that's just not the case. Instead, this turns out to be such an obvious rip-off of the first it's not even funny. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that the only reason it was made was to make a quick buck. This lame and laughable re-hash of the original doesn't even deserve "The Hitcher" title. A sequel didn't need to be made, but since one was, it's just plain sad that this had to be it. They could have done better than this, even for straight-to-video. If you haven't seen the original though, you will probably enjoy this more. But for the most part, it just annoyed me. It did manage to get a little better and more interesting after a half an hour or so, but until then, I was less than thrilled. It made me roll my eyes quite a few times, mainly during the first 30+ minutes. The last 40-50 minutes or so were undeservedly entertaining, of course, pretty much anything would be entertaining after the rocky start the movie had. And even though pretty much the whole thing stole from the original, it managed to get me interested during the last half. Sure, I knew what would happen. Hell, anyone who's ever seen a horror movie, action movie, or thriller before will be able to see the final events unfolding before they even happen. But even with the terrible dialogue, plot-holes, shameless ripping off, and just plain silliness, I was still entertained during the last half, even if I'm not proud of it.

    Before seeing this movie I was happy C. Thomas Howell was at least reprising his role. But after seeing the movie, I could care less. In the original, even if his character did some of the dumbest things, he was still likable and you wanted him to get out alive. In the sequel, his character was annoying and I didn't care if he lived or died. The part where he flipped out in the care about picking up the hitchhiker was so lame. Obviously, he was right since the guy turned out to be a killer, but at the time, he had no proof, and made a fool out of himself by acting so stupid. I mean, what would the odds be that this hitchhiker would actually be a killer too? In the movie, it's pretty good (but a very lame attempt at connecting the two movies, and a little unbelievable), but in the real world, it's pretty unlikely that would happen. So both times you pick up a hitchhiker in your life they are going to turn out to be psycho killers? It just doesn't seem plausable. Yet the creators of this sequel just don't care, because all they wanted was a quick buck, and could care less how much disbelief the audience is supposed to suspend. The character I liked in the original becomes just

    plain unbearable here. I think C. Thomas Howell's overracting is the main reason this happens. The scene in the car when he goes crazy is the best example of this. I prefer to just forget this annoying Jim Halsey (Howell) and remember the one in the original instead... Surprisingly fairing better is Kari Wuhrer. I didn't expect much from her, but she was actually the best thing about the movie. Her acting wasn't the best, but it wasn't bad and it was certainly better than everyone else in the movie. Plus, the fact that she's very easy on the eyes here made the movie easier to watch. She looked kind of like a poor-man's Ashley Judd... I've never liked Jake Busey, and this movie didn't change that. Even if he does somewhat resemble Rutger Hauer from the original, his performance doesn't even come close. With Hauer, we felt a sense of dread, a reason to be afraid. Here, Busey is just plain goofy and cracking lame one-liners. I never felt afraid of this bumbling moron.

    Even though I knew this wouldn't be able to touch the original, I still couldn't help but look forward to this movie. I thought it might be able to at least entertain, and figured it was a good sign that Howell was back, but that just wasn't the case. It couldn't even meet my expectations, which weren't all that high. I also could have done without the blinding cinematography. It was kind of annoying. The colors were really bad and bled quite a bit. I'm not sure if the bleeding was just from the DVD version, but either way, the colors looked like crap... In the end, if you want to see a hacked up re-hash of the original, then this might please you. But I can't picture any fans of the original truly enjoying this one, even if it does manage to have a few entertaining scenes.

    Grade: 6/10 (C+)
  • The original 'Hitcher' is one of the all-time horror greats...The Hitcher II is nothing more than a USA Network Pictures Original-esque follow-up. Luckily, I came into it with zero expectations, and while I got pretty much what I expected, I have to say that this film isn't necessarily awful...at least, not completely. It's actually a decent b-grade horror flick. It has good/okay cinematography, and in one scene it's able to build mood, and the action scenes are actually quite good, however, at its core, it simply has no soul. There's no humanity behind it, no real sympathy for the characters (except for Jim, which really has a helluva lot more to do with the original than anything else). The Hitcher himself is about as frightening as a...Well, I can't think of any good analogies off-hand, but suffice to say he isn't at all scary. Of course, Jake Busey is just so damn likable, it's hard to be scared of the guy. If he IS supposed to be John Ryder incarnate, he's too cocky and he talks WAY too much. Also, a warning for people whose lives depend on some kind of resolution, the end will TOTALLY leave you hanging...buyer beware.

    So I guess what I'm trying to say is that...I reluctantly must recommend The Hitcher II, speaking as a fan of so-bad-they're-almost-funny horror films. If nothing else, rent it for a good laugh and have fun pointing out the inconsistencies and bad dialogue. It's pure MST3K all the way.
  • Patron-8926 July 2006
    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.
  • Like most others who have seen this movie, I also grew up with watching the first "The Hitcher" movie. Even though it was far from a masterpiece, it has still grown a bit into a classic over the years, mainly due to Rutger Hauer's impressive and scary performance. This movie doesn't have Rutger Hauer in it, so I wasn't expecting a better movie and expected the worst. But why compare this movie to the original in the first place? You should take the movie just for what it is, a straight-to-video thriller. And for what it is, a straight-to-video thriller, it's a pretty good movie. It's professionally made, with good camera-work and editing and some fairly good performances by the cast.

    The movie might not be that scary but it does have a few surprises in it. It does have some returning element from "The Hitcher" in this movie but it does it in an original way. Fans of the first movie should be pleased by some of the subtle and not so subtle homage to the first movie and not be offended or angry about it. It also does have more than enough original moments in it and the movie is mostly unpredictable, in terms of who dies and who will survive in the end.

    Even though the budget of the movie was probably low, it doesn't really show on screen. There are some spectacular moments, with gunfire and explosions and also the visual look of the movie is good. The cinematography is nice and the movie is told with a pleasantly fast pace and with some nimble editing.

    The performance are fairly good. It's sort of fun to see C. Thomas Howell reprising his role but was it really necessary? Real main part of the movie is being played by Kari Wuhrer, who has appeared in quite a few B-movies over the years. She is good enough as the new main character of the movie. This time the hitcher is being played by Jake Busey. Leave it up to the Busey's to play a convincing and scary looking psychopathic villain. Of course he is no Hauer but he pulls it of pretty well and is more than good enough in his role.

    Of course the story does have its flaws and improbabilities but when you watch a movie like this, you know you shouldn't expect to much from its story.

    Especially when you've seen more straight-to-video and TV thrillers, you have to admit that this movie is a good one or at least an above average one, that has a professional look.

    6/10

    http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I'll admit... this is not a good movie. But it has some things that always work.

    1. A buxom woman and the star of SOUL MAN running for their lives in the middle of the dessert. Joyride. Duel. Breakdown. It's everybody's biggest fear... except for being stuck in a cornfield.

    2. Jake Busey's teeth.

    SPOILER SPOILER

    3. KILLING OFF THE LEAD half way through the film. Totally unexpected... except by C Thomas Howell's agent I suppose.

    4. An airport runway that magically appears out of nowhere. Love that!!!

    5. Completely random reference to the grisly murder from the end of the original.

    6. About ten different endings.

    7. Flaming body parts.

    As straight to DVD fare goes, this is surprisingly palpable. Totally worth waiting half my life to see this sequel.

    e
  • The detective Jim Halsey (C.Thomas Howell) is fired from the police force after a daring rescue of an abducted child, when he shot and killed the kidnapper. He is advised to look for psychological assistance, but he decides to travel with his girlfriend Maggie (Kari Wuhrer) to visit Capt. Esteridge (Stephen Hair), his old friend who believed and supported him some years ago after a traumatic experience. While traveling, Maggie decides to give a lift to Jack (Jake Busey), a weird man on the road, under the strong protest of Jim. Jack is indeed an evil psychopath, who decides to chase the couple, killing everybody around them. This movie is horrible, being a ridiculous sequel (or remake?) of a classic, but full of clichés and totally predictable! The promosing first five minutes cheats the viewer and are excellent, having a great plot point in the very beginning of the story. However, the rest of the story has a totally absurd screenplay, and none of the situations are resolved. The participation of C. Thomas Howell, a C-class actor, is minimum, basically to give his name to the credits, and his character is one of the unluckiest I have ever seen. Further, the change of the lead actor to a lead actress is very problematic, since Maggie is the guilty for the whole situation and her character is hysterical, non-charismatic, has a horrible voice and does not convince as a heroin. I do not understand the reason for the sequel of an excellent thriller after nineteen years. The end of "The Hitcher II: I've Been Waiting" is one of the worst I have ever seen. My vote is three.

    Title (Brazil): "A Morte Pede Carona 2" ("The Death Hichhikes 2")
  • Jake Busey is pretty OK in this,verging on worthwhile for the genre.

    Starts out with a stalled plane on the highway...and the guy needs alittle help to get it going...yep that happens all the time.

    The story is one of revenge but never fully explained.The situations are pretty far fetched and the gore and violence reasonable realistic(special effects).

    I never really felt for any of the characters nor got involved in the movie,still the production values are good,and the editing fine,it just is not a very good movie.
  • For all the people saying how bad this film was, all I can say is what the hell were you expecting?!!

    A $50 million blowout tour de force that keeps you on the edge with its endless visual fx shots?!!

    No, this movie I think is a pretty good sequel to a film made long ago and people give too much credit to only because they were probably teenagers when they saw it and far too forgiving for all of its flaws.

    This is a low budget film which was done extremely well - I would rather watch this any day of the week than Matrix 3 or Kill Bill v.2 where after awhile you get really bored.
  • I like to give films a chance when I first watch them, but this sequel to the brilliant 1986 film is rather weak. It may contain some stomach-churning scenes and other startling moments, but it still proves a failure.

    I don't know why sequels are made if I'm honest, because they just seem to go on and on....Some superior movies are terrific without sequels, and The Hitcher was one of them. The Hitcher 2: I've Been Waiting simply ruins the whole aspect of the first movie, although the fact that Jim Halsey is now a policeman is an interesting premise. Kari Wuhrer is rather convincing in her role, even if Jake Busey is not.

    Flashbacks from the first film is a strong point, as well as the new plot being based along the same stretch of road, but as a whole, The Hitcher 2: I've Been Waiting is extremely unconvincing. It isn't that bad a movie, but the budget was wasted (not surprising the film went straight-to-video really). I certainly had NOT been waiting for a sequel to The Hitcher, hence my rating of just 2/10.
  • tedg5 December 2003
    Warning: Spoilers
    Spoilers herein.

    The original of this was very clever. It introduced a particularly economical version of the stalker, and it did so with introspection. What the hitcher did to the kid is what the filmmaker does to the viewer. And it used Hauer in precisely the way that emphasized that folding by citing his `Bladerunner' character.

    The transference of paranoia was about as complete and perfect as one could imagine.

    Now comes this. It is like a high school tramp: it resembles all the `grown up` stuff, and may even be recklessly committed. But it lacks any meaning or soul. Even `House of 1,000 Corpses' tried what this doesn't.

    Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.
  • I think this movie had a hard time to beat the first as the first was so entertaining. A lot of the scenes were from the first and rehashed. It was a lower budget movie and was filmed in Alberta Canada. I do not know why they even bothered with this movie. They obviously could not contend with the first. I did not see this in the theater, I think it was a direct to video here. There are some tense moments. The one bright spot was the crazy acting of Jake Busey. He sure takes after his father. It is too bad that he didn't have more of a story to work with. 4/10
  • Warning: Spoilers
    ~Spoiler~

    The Hitcher II: I've Been Waiting is a movie that just didn't need to be made. The Hitcher is a true suspense classic; this demeaning sequel some 15 years later only brings it down. There are a ton of problems with the script, some plot points are too convenient, and they kill C. Thomas Howell. How could they do that? He's the main character. The opening was cool and unexpected and the director gave the film a good look. I will say that for them. The actors were also very good. Kari Wuhrer is gorgeous but by the time she becomes the star, I'm still upset at Howell's death. Jake Busey's hitcher was more comical than Hauer's but he still gives a good performance. Let's face it though, he's no Rutger Hauer. It's an ok popcorn movie as long as you're not an idiot and magically expect it to be on par with the original. Don't expect anything more than that. Also, don't expect them to explain who the hell the hitcher is either. Actually, just go back and watch the original.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Suspenseful and violent. C. Thomas Howell plays Jim Halsey, a cop recently dismissed for his roughness and advised to take a break and get away. Jim and his girlfriend Maggie(Kari Wuher)fly to west Texas to see one of Jim's mentors. The couple are rolling down the same rural highway that Jim suffered trauma as a child. He has flashbacks of his being kidnapped and rescued on this same lonely highway; and it can get lonely in west Texas. A hitchhiker named Jack(Jake Busey)causes grave suspicions in Jim's mind, but Maggie convinces him to lighten up and give the hitcher a ride. Mistake; this guy is a sadistic psycho hell bent on continuing his serial killing. Most of the time nothing makes a lot of sense. The violence kicks into higher gear during the final ten minutes; but this movie just doesn't seem to have a whole lot to brag about. Filmed entirely in Canada; and this will have my friends in Midland out searching for more rugged and elevated terrain.
  • I should have known. Sequels are rarely as good as the original. This one is no exception. As a Texan-in-exile, I would be interested in it purely as a travelogue, except that it was filmed in Canada. You can tell that as they add "eh" to the end of Yee Haw! Just kidding.

    C. Thomas Howell is back all grown up as Jim Halsey. He is traveling back to Texas to see his old friend Capt. Esteridge. He is on the same road with Kari Wuhrer, who is just a totally hot 40-year-old that I want to see more of. She is in Stephen King's Thinner next Sunday, so I will be tuned in.

    Gary Busey's son, Jake, is the bad guy. Howell is killed off rather quickly and it becomes a duel with Busey and Wuhrer. The usual cop-killing and lots of noise. No plot whatsoever.

    I would not hesitate to say "skip it," were it not mean of me to deprive you of an opportunity to see Wuhrer.
  • Unconvincing and thoroughly predictable sequel basically picks up 15 years after the events of the original. C. Thomas Howell returns to portray his original role. He and his girlfriend decide to take a road trip to visit his cop buddy. Along the way they are menaced by a psychopath (Jake Busey). Howell is offed about 35 minutes in, and the rest of the picture takes it's cues from the the original, only now the girlfriend is the main-victim-to-be. Jake Busey is good in the role as the psycho, and seems to enjoy himself. The rest of the cast is pretty bland. Kari Wuhrer plays the girlfriend, and is rather stiff in her role as the heroine. The story and pace moves along fine, so it's never really boring. However, there are really no clever plot twists or original ideas in this film like there were in the first film. The cat-and-mouse chase here is pretty lifeless, and not as character driven as it was in the original. A by-the-numbers treatment of the original. Not bad, just nothing to write home about. Features a high body-count. Two Stars.
  • Here we have a sequel to a classic cult film, made almost two decades after the original. Guess what? It's rubbish. Oh yes, obviously someone had a bright idea to make a sequel to a well known film in the hope that it would emulate the original's cable TV success in the dreary direct to video market. Trouble is, while this was being thought through; these people obviously forgot to hire a decent scriptwriter - d'oh! What we are left with, therefore, is a rehash of the original film - except with less excitement, less ideas and less reason to see it. The film has a few flashbacks to the original film during its running time, and ironically - these are the best bits. The film's plot has written itself, and sees the hero from the original film making the mistake of driving back down the road where the events of the original happened. As if this mistake wasn't silly enough, he then makes the mistake of picking up another hitchhiker! Some people just don't learn, but in his defence - it was naturally all the fault of a woman, in this case his girlfriend. It doesn't take a genius to guess what the rest of the film is about.

    The original film was very much a B-movie, and this one is too. We have, therefore, a B-movie cast. C. Thomas Howell is in it for the money, as he reprises his role from the first film. He is joined by Jake Busey; Gary Busey's son, who actually manages to turn in a decent performance amidst this train-wreck of a film -but nowhere near Rutger Hauer, of course. B-movie actress Kari Wuhrer tops off the central trio. I saw Kari Wuhrer in the pointless seventh part of the Hellraiser series ("Deader") recently, and along with her small role in Eight Legged Freaks - have come to the conclusion that she needs a better agent. She's not a brilliant actress, but she's good looking and definitely deserves better roles than what she's been getting. The action is generally very tame, and stinks of a film that couldn't get the budget. The original didn't have much of a budget either - but that made the best of it, this one doesn't. Several sequences in this film are merely rubbish rehashes of scenes in the original - including the most famous scene from 'The Hitcher' - which isn't nearly as effective here. On the whole, this film shouldn't be seen by anyone. If you're not a fan of the original, you won't like it anyway - and if you are; you won't want to see one of your favourites defiled like this. Avoid!
  • I guess I'm in a minority on this one, but I really enjoyed it. After suffering the dissappointment of the abysmal STARSHIP TROOPERS 2, I approached this one with some trepidation...imagine my surprise in finding a well - crafted thriller with a nice little twist some 40 minutes into the film. Won't give it away, but it took this film in an intriguing direction. Jake Busey does a fine job of filling in Rutger Hauer's demonic shoes from the first outing, and hey, if for no other reason then the fact that my favorite B actress, Kari Wuhrer, is in it makes it all worth the while!!! Director Louis Morneau did another one of my favorite B flics - BATS (1999).
  • Remember The Hitcher? A violent, suspenseful cult flick starring Rutger Hauer? Well, it didn't need a sequel, did it? That's what any average moviegoer would say.

    Unfortunately, someone thought a second installment was necessary, hence this cheap rehash of the original, which sees Jim Halsey (C. Thomas Howell) and his girlfriend threatened by a young, crazy hitchhiker (Jake Busey) who turns out to be (hold on) the reincarnation of John Ryder, the psycho Jim killed in the first film. So what's going to happen? The usual, I'd say: Ryder Jr. kills a lot of people, blames the protagonists, blah blah blah...

    This is the kind of sequel that has "cheap" written all over it, with its predictable screenplay, excessively familiar death scenes (some are copied shot by shot from the original) and embarrassingly dull acting: Howell has lost all the charm he had in 1986, his female co-star does nothing but scream, and Busey's attempt at channeling Rutger Hauer fails within 30 seconds from his first appearance. The whole reincarnation thing also robs the original film's climax of its strength: unlike Halloween killer Michael Myers, Ryder wasn't supposed to return.

    The good news is, no one seems to have made plans for a Hitcher III so far, thus leaving only this straight-to-video disaster as a sad footnote in the horror genre.
  • ehrldawg11 June 2012
    Warning: Spoilers
    The continuing story of Jim Halsey. Only this time,his girlfriend gets involved.

    Its always a hit or miss with sophomore outings. It seems lately they have been less miss and more hit,or non miss. This movie is definitely a non miss. The writing,directing, and acting in this one definitely makes it worth your while to see this movie. And lets face it fellas,There is nothing more sexy than a hot,dirty,highly aggitated brunette with a gun!!

    Jake Busey drives both the Kenwoth big rig livestock truck and the Freightliner big rig tanker truck.

    Jake Busey is a very permanent A list actor.

    Kari Wuhrer and Marty Antonini both drive the Kenworth big rig livestock truck.

    Kari Wuhrer and Marty Antonini are permanent A list actors.

    Kari Wuhrer is smokin!!

    ---One Truck Drivers Opinion---

    erldwgstruckermovies.com
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Still severely traumatized by his near fatal run-in with deranged roving serial killer John Ryder, Jim Halsey (ably reprised by C. Thomas Howell) decides to surmount his demons by returning back to the lonely stretch of West Texas backroads where the initial agonizing ordeal occurred. Jim's gutsy and loving girlfriend Maggie (an engagingly feisty Kari Wuhrer) tags along for moral support. The pair encounter another shrewd psychotic hitchhiker named Jack (essayed with marvelously maniacal relish by Jake Busey), who naturally proceeds to put Jim and Maggie through absolute nerve-shredding bloody hell. This belated straight-to-video follow-up turns out to be a surprisingly solid, suspenseful and satisfying sequel: It's directed with style and gusto to burn by Louis Morneau (who previously scored with the superlative "Retroactive"), acted with comparable aplomb by the entire cast, with sumptuously adept, gliding, sinuous cinematography by George Mooradian, a bracingly swift rat-a-tat-tat pace that never drags for a second, a shivery, pile-driving score by Joe Kraemer, a considerable amount of gut-ripping tension, a sharply sardonic sense of humor, and a hair-raising lump-in-your-throat shoot-the-fireworks bravura action finale. A surefire winner that almost matches the sterling quality of the simply astonishing original, this honey's a whole lot better than expected and definitely worth checking out.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    the main problem i found with this movie is it is not original,whereas the first one was.there is lots of action and some excitement and a pretty high body count,but there is very little in the way of gore.in my mind ,most of the kills were lame.i like the fact that the heroine is a woman,and she a pretty strong character.the movie felt much liter in tone the the first one.it was sort of missing that scenes of foreboding.also,there are not any real scenes of peril or suspense.i do think the movie was entertaining,and the villain was not a bad character,although it would be hard to beat Rutger Hauer"s portrayal of the psycho in the fist movie.when all is said and done,i'd have to give "The Hitcher 2" 7/10
  • I know that people hate this movie because it is a sequel to the Hitcher... I like this movie as a sequel and I'll tell you why. It leaves a lot of space open for a sequel if you have imagination. Think about it, in the next sequel, perhaps we can find out who Jack really was. Maybe he is the original Hitchers son, maybe John Ryders family has been stalking Jim for the past 17 years... just waiting patiently for him to return to that desolate stretch of highway... You'll notice that the killer in the original had a full name, John Ryder, but the killer in Hitcher 2 was called only Jack... a sequel to this movie could be highly excellent if executed properly.

    Back on track though... honestly, this is one of my favorite horror movies... the atmosphere and cinematography in this movie are, in my opinion perfect. The acting, especially C. Thomas Howell's and Jake Busey's are superb... Kari Wuhrer, though one of the hottest women in the industry, and a damn fine actress, just didn't get the best role, sure she ended up being the hero, but... she was an idiot. Her hair should have been bleached blonde for this role... that would have given her justice for being so shallow minded... how many times did she have the opportunity to kill Jack? How many times must she ask Jack "Why are you doing this"? Maggie, SHUT UP already, he want's to kill you, who cares why, just run!!! Another flaw in this movie was killing Jim... ummm... huh? Writers, if C. Thomas Howell is willing to return to a straight to video sequel to one of the most suspenseful thrillers ever, keep him around! Not a good move, no, a daring one, yes, a good one no... But aside from all the wrongs of this movie, the killer is great, most of the kills, and there are A lot of them are quite entertaining... though not near as suspenseful or thrilling as the original, Hitcher 2 is more entertaining in my opinion. If you can look past what this movie is looked on as(a bad sequel), you can see it as what it is meant to be(an entertaining B-horror movie flick). Cause that is what it is subtracting the title. I like to refer to this movie as it's surname, "I've Been Waiting", because as I said, it is a great movie if you can see it as not a sequel, if you can do that, it's a great way to spend $7 at Wal-Mart and 90 minutes of your time.

    9/10 for solid entertainment.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The Hitcher II: I've Been Waiting is pretty awful I must admit, mostly due to a horrible script.

    The memory plays tricks sometimes I guess, as I had this rated quite highly before a re-watch. The writing is extremely amateurish and the acting isn't much better. C Thomas Howell as Tim, completely destroys the first half of the film. There is some amusement and the beautiful Kari Wuhrer makes it watchable, but other than that this film needs to be buried, never to be viewed again.
An error has occured. Please try again.