Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (No Spoilers)

[Dr. Badman]

I saw it last night on an illegally aquired imported DVD.

I was expecting better, but then again I didnt know what to expect with it's minimal advertising (and other than forumites yelling "42!!!" as the new "THERE IS NO SP00N!!!").

The special effects werent very special. The acting was less than average. The aliens looked crappy. The story was messy, and I couldnt decide if I liked the chick in it or not. I'll also add that it being a British movie made it automatically weird(er).

The movie itself has a "fun" tone to it. By that I mean there's no suspense and it's quite comical - very watchable, but not necessarily enjoyable.

The reviewers and book readers/fans say it's all about a new perspective on things. Yay. Perspective on the universe and asking THE questions. Still doesnt make it a good movie.

Overall it was OKAY because it was in space and had lasers.

Thoughts?

[MST3Kakalina]

well. i enjoyed it a lot, but i'm an Adams fangirl. i can't comment on the acting, as i have a hard time pointing out bad acting (except when it comes to, say, Keanu Reeves). i will say that Alan Rickman as Marvin was really really brilliant. the dude who played Arthur was a bit...off towards the end, but that's more because Arthur's character had been changed a tiny tiny bit for the movie. i liked the girl who played Trillian, because she gave her a more appropriate depth of character than was ever in the books. Mos Def was okay, and Zaphod was awesome.

i don't think it's about perspective on Life, the Universe, and Everything at all. even the books and radio shows weren't about that. they were about comedy, that's the bottom line. yes, i'd definitely say it was an INTELLECTUAL sort of comedy, and that you'd have to be halfway smart to really find the jokes funny, but that doesn't mean there was any great philosophical insight contained therein.

if by perspective they mean a new perspective on the story, then they ARE right. it wasn't supposed to be a verbatim translation of the book to the screen. (MJ Simpson can suck my clit.*), but rather a different look at what had already been established. but i've ranted about that countless times, and i don't think this thread's the right place for it.

in conclusion, i thought it was fun, i thought it was enjoyable, i thought it was something DNA would have pretty much liked, and i was very happy with it. to see it top the box office on its opening day made me squeal with joy.


*Mecha's note: "Hey, that's my job!"

[Sally]

I...I liked it. Alot.


Then again, I'm a fangirl, too.

[rocketgal]

that movie suffered horribly.


they removed any intelligence for the more "american" slapstick humor.



god damn people appealing to the us.


still waiting on my Red Dwarf movie

[Sally]

It really did suffer. It probibly would have done well anyway if they hadn't Americanized it.

[Dr. Badman]

Stop agreeing with everyone.

I'll also add that the movie didnt tie up all the loose ends, making it feel unfinished (but I was glad it ended there, which counters it - That mouse scene lamed the hell out of me).

[MST3Kakalina]

well, that's how the books and radio shows and everything else ended. i dunno, how else would you want it to end?

[Rory Storm]

Earth get's destroyed....oh wait.

[argonaut]

I saw it twice. Not because I'm a huge fan or anything, but because I was in two separate situations where people I was with wanted to see it.

I liked the movie. I think it delivered about as much as I could expect. But my expectations weren't all that high. Science fiction is IMO a very hard genre to translate from books into film. The story ends up being lost in the imagery, or flippy aroundy (thanks implode).

Moreso for these books, because at the same time as being SF books, they are also satires of the same genre. The ability of the books to poke fun at themselves never really came out in the movie. With that aspect stripped away, the movie became about special effects, silliness, and geek-jokes.

The effects were adequate. Nobody was trying to advance the art here; that wasn't what the movie was about. The comedy was adequate too, but fell short of the literative brilliance in the books. Again, I don't see how a movie could tell geek-jokes as well as the books, without going into python-esque territory that would have short-circuited the plot. The only thing that I thought carried over well was the Infinate Improbability Drive and the other technical oddities of the ship.

[when you are the moon]

the dude who played Arthur was a bit...off towards the end, but that's more because Arthur's character had been changed a tiny tiny bit for the movie.
Yeah, I remember Arthur being more... indignant. I really like Martin Freeman as an actor, and I do think he was a good choice, but I think that certain decisions made with the script kind of prevented him from coming across as the same Arthur we know from the book. And the added romance just bogged the whole movie down every time it came up, so it really could have done without all that (if it weren't for produces that decided tens of thousands of die-hard DNA fans just wasn't a broad enough base, it wouldn't have had that garbage in it at all).

That being said, Hammer and Tongs (the directing team) did a fabulous job with what they were handed. I mean, the production design alone gets four stars in my book (I sooooo want a big-headed Deep Thought paperweight for my cube at school, now. teehee). I mean, can you imagine tackling something of that scope, knowing that if you don't give the rabid fans exactly what they want they'll be out for your blood, and if you don't give the producers what they want you'll get the axe? That takes some serious balls. And "Hitchiker's Guide" suffers from the same sydrome that all "Dune" adaptations have so far -- there's just no way to give everybody what they want to see out of the book, simply because of the MASSIVENESS of the original concept.

[MST3Kakalina]

the love story was problematic, i guess, except i always wanted to see Arthur and Trillian get together anyway. they're the only earthlings left, after all. so i had no real problem with it, <s>except with Martin Freeman's sap-speech at the end. that was kinda....bad.</s>

i doubt they'll make beyond the first three books, anyway, since the last two aren't as good as the first three, so there's no story with Random or Fenchurch to mess up if they put Arthur and Trillian together.

[Corn 2.0]

I miss when Hitchiker's was funny.

They took away the funny.

Also, I miss when eveyone didn't care about finding the Ultimate Question and the story made slightly more sense.

[Sally]

I miss when Ford was short, British, and slightly insane. :(

[Dr. Badman]

Towards the end of the movie I was expecting the characters to return to that spider-legged, googley eyed jackass to get El Presidente's head back in exchange for the gun, then eventually having to stop him from using it to convert everyone to his religion... or something. Like an end boss.

Y'know, not just a "HERE WE GO AGAIN!!!!" ending.

[when you are the moon]

If I'm not mistaken, there's talk of making a second movie of that.

Malkovich.

[argonaut]

I liked the open-ended-ness of it. As I remember the books always left room for more. And I like the idea of a sequel. There is so much more material that can be covered. I'd love to see a cinematic treatment of the Spaceship Bistromath. Though without any further input from Douglas Adams there is every chance a sequel would suck.

Malkovich Malkovich.

[MST3Kakalina]

Malkovich Malkovich Malkovich?


i think the sequels would be pretty much on par with the first movie, so i would be more than happy to see Life... and The Restaurant... movies.

[AngryGoatFace]

<font face="trebuchet ms">movie-wise, it was okay, but comparing it to the books, it killed the humor. it was all dumbed down. less...adams-y.

malkovitch malkovitch malkovitch malkovitch.</font>