Why is this a classic? I don't get it

I have to say, (for the most part) it's good to see a thread where someone who disagrees isn't getting the usual "You're (insert insult of choice) for not getting it." arguments that usually abound.

I think The Hitcher is a classic, but having said that, I can also see how it is an acquired taste and will not appeal to many people.

Reasons I think it's good....
1 - Some amazing cinematography from the outset, that never lets up. It's one of those rare films where almost every frame is perfectly and artistically put together. It puts most modern films that win oscars for cinematography and lighting to shame.

2 - Some films portray character through actions and situations (and obviously the actor portraying those). And I think this is a perfect example. We don't need to have everybody's backgrounds explained in explicit detail. (John Carpenter is a master at doing this.) Anything from The Thing, to Alien or Bladerunner or Conan manage this in similar ways.

3 - The Story. Now this is where I think it really divides people. You either see it as an almost supernatural thriller, or a standard serial killer thriller.

If you take it as the first, it is a wonderful tale of a 'man' who knows he should die, wants to die, but for some reason has a desire/will to help a chosen person reach their core of strength and determination and will-power before his death. Possibly because he feels the need to find and create someone he finally considers worthy and strong enough to take his life. Perhaps to leave someone good and strong behind him, as a counter balance to his own evil (Interpret as you will). Halsey's strong desire to live, is how he shows he has that potential, which is also doubly shown in the near-suicide scene. His inner strength and desire to live. A strength which Ryder helps blossom within him, by putting him through hell, increasing step by step, and pulling him out the other side. You don't need to know how the Hitcher creates the situations he puts Halsey in. You just need to accept he is is essentially an unstoppable character who is capable of instigating these things off screen. Much like Michael Myers in the first Halloween (Ignore the sequels) You wonder if he is supernatural, or simply a near-unstoppable human force of evil. Either way, doesn't really matter. (There are plenty of ways to interpret the film, really)

If you take it as the second, it is easy to view it as an absurd, improbable sequence of building events, without any particular plot or coherent logic.

It's just a matter of taste, as to which way you see it. Those who like it, will see it as some variation of the first way I described. Those who see it as the second, choose not to see that side (I'm not saying they can't understand the idea, just that they choose not to see that within the context of the film, or see it as something that they agree with plot/character-wise) and therefore they don't see anything to like in it.

As for saying modern audiences wouldn't take to this, I tend to agree, but for different reasons. I think modern cinema often lacks subtlety. Things have to be one of two ways. They're either so simple that there's practically nothing there, or they feel they have to spell every element out perfectly, leaving nothing to the imagination.

Time enough for the earth in the grave!