User Score
5.7

Mixed or average reviews- based on 82 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 47 out of 82
  2. Negative: 30 out of 82

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Aug 28, 2011
    3
    This movie could have been a lot better if there weren't so many what in the hell moments. I understand that it's a movie and I need to suspend my disbelief but some of it was just to much. The soundtrack also didn't fit in a couple spots either. One thing that deserves credit is the acting was actually pretty good. Usually horror movies are not packed with actors that make you go wow, but this one was actually very respectable. Overall the movie isn't anything great but it a lot better then some.
    http://moviegrabbag.blogspot.com/
    Expand
Metascore
28

Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 16 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 0 out of 16
  2. Negative: 11 out of 16
  1. Reviewed by: Ty Burr
    25
    If you boil off dialogue, performance, narrative logic and grind a movie down to the nub of genre, will there be any suspense left? The answer is yes, but only in a Pavlovian sense. You react to this dull shockathon like a wired lab rat who's seen it all before. And guess what? You have.
  2. 38
    Bean carves out his own modest variations on the theme of John Ryder-on-the-storm, but Bush and Knighton are so blandly forgettable that it's hard to believe that they're the protagonists and not Victims 1 and 2.
  3. Reviewed by: Stephen Saito
    50
    The Hitcher's main problem is that many of the title character's dirty deeds are done off-camera. Instead of seeing Ryder trap his victims before he kills them, the audience is treated to plenty of butchered corpses that seem to magically appear after Ryder leaves a room.