evanston_dad Two buddies played by Edmond O'Brien and Frank Lovejoy pick up a hitch hiker who happens to be a psychopath on the run in this tense, no-nonsense thriller from director Ida Lupino.This is the kind of film noir without an ounce of fat on it. It's about the two men trying to get away, and that's it. At one point, the killer tells them that he's going to do away with them, it's just a matter of when, so there's a ticking clock quality that adds suspense on top of that already created by the scenario of two average guys who find themselves in a bad situation.Lupino proves herself to be a fantastic director, and the film's best asset is its fluid movement from one nail biting scene to another. She keeps things humming along, and the film, already pretty short to begin with, feels far shorter than it actually is.Grade: A-

James Hitchcock They say that no good deed goes unpunished, and friends Roy Collins and Gilbert Bowen find out the truth of this saying when, during a fishing trip to Mexico, they pick up a hitchhiker whose car has apparently run out of gas. The man, Emmett Myers, turns out to be a murderer on the run from the American authorities who has managed to slip into Mexico. Myers draws a gun on the men and forces them to drive him to where he wants to go, threatening to kill them after they have taken him to his destination, the town of Santa Rosalía in Baja California. (Myers is based upon a real-life serial killer, Billy Cook, although the number of killings committed by Cook had to be reduced in the film at the insistence of the Hays Office)."The Hitch-Hiker" is a suspense thriller made in 1953, but in many ways it is very different from the work of Alfred Hitchcock, America's most famous director of suspense thrillers during the fifties. At only seventy minutes long it is considerably shorter than most of Hitchcock's films. There is no trademark blonde heroine. (Indeed, although the film was directed by a female director, Ida Lupino, there are no prominent female characters at all). There is no comic relief. Lupino does not attempt to analyse the psychology behind Myers' crimes as Hitchcock does with Norman Bates in "Psycho" and some of his other villains; Myers is simply a psychopath, and that is that. There are no cliff-hangers on a prominent building and no directorial set-pieces comparable to the "Psycho" shower scene.William Talman, best remembered as the District Attorney in the "Perry Mason" TV serial, is normally thought of as a supporting actor, but here he dominates the film with his performance as the malevolent Myers. It quickly becomes obvious that he does not regard Roy, Gil and their car merely as a convenient means of transport to facilitate his escape. It is quite clear that he takes a positive, lip-smacking sadistic pleasure in tormenting them both physically and psychologically. Indeed, it may be this very sadism to which the two men owe their survival; logically it would have made more sense, from Myers' point of view, to have killed them early on and then driven off in the car himself, thus eliminating two witnesses, but had he done so he would have been left without victims to torture. What Myers cannot understand is the mutual friendship and loyalty which prevents both Roy and Gil from attempting to escape separately; altruism of any sort is quite alien to his nature.The film is often categorised as film noir, but in many ways it is also different from most mainstream noir. Some films noirs, "The Big Sleep" being a good example, had notoriously complex plots, but that of "The Hitch-Hiker" is simplicity itself. There are no sub-plots; Lupino concentrates on the main story, the plight of Roy and Gil and their efforts to escape from the ever-present menace of the watchful Myers. It is not set on the mean streets of an American city or in seedy, claustrophobic interiors but in the wide-open spaces of the Mexican desert, and the barrenness and loneliness of this landscape becomes a symbol of the threat hanging over the two heroes. I said above that the film does not contain any Hitchcockian set-pieces, which normally mark a notable increase in the level of tension. Here the tension is maintained at a high level throughout; perhaps the entire film can be seen as one long, extended seventy minute set-piece. An excellent thriller. 8/10

Leofwine_draca ...THE HITCH-HIKER is the original, '50s-made hitchhiking nightmare film. It's a straightforward three-hander in which a couple of buddies (Edmond O'Brien and Frank Lovejoy) are accosted by a manic serial killer (William Talman), who forces them to drive him to Mexico in order for him to escape the authorities.This is a low budget, black and white suspense thriller that has more tension in it than a dozen recent movies. The low budget works in its favour, with tight camera angles making for a claustrophobic viewing experience. Actress Ida Lupino certainly knows what she's doing behind the camera as she rarely puts a foot wrong here: the pacing is exact and the performances are excellent.While O'Brien and Lovejoy ground the movie playing the two protagonists, but in reality this is Talman's turn. He gives a pitch perfect turn as the creepy villain, one that would pave the way for later screen psychos like Robert Mitchum's character in NIGHT OF THE HUNTER. Talman's acting is the stuff of brilliance, and he alone makes the film worth watching. The rest of it is the icing on the cake.

utgard14 Two friends on a fishing trip (Edmond O'Brien, Frank Lovejoy) pick up a hitchhiker (William Talman). That turns out to be a huge mistake as this guy is a psycho who's left a trail of bodies behind him. Now he holds the two men hostage at gunpoint and forces them to drive into Mexico.Based on real-life hitchhiking killer Billy Cook, this is an excellent film noir thriller directed and co-written by Ida Lupino. It might be the best movie she directed, although I'm partial to On Dangerous Ground. Edmond O'Brien and Frank Lovejoy are both fine but Lovejoy gets a little more to work with. Which is funny since O'Brien was the bigger star of the two. William Talman, best known as the district attorney who always lost to Perry Mason, is great here. There's a creepiness to his performance that separates the character from just another thug with a gun that was commonplace in movies, even in 1953. It's a taut thriller with fine performances and excellent direction. Short runtime is a plus. Years of more graphic movies with similar plots may dilute the impact of this some but I think it's still a strong film.