# The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (merged)



## Mark (Apr 26, 2005)

*The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy*

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Martin Freeman (Arthur Dent) will be on Late Show With David Letterman tonight (Monday, April 25th).


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Apr 26, 2005)

I'm proud of you, Mark!

Its only a week early this time, AND you aren't quoting yourself!

You've earned a cookie!


----------



## Mark (Apr 26, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> I'm proud of you, Mark!
> 
> Its only a week early this time, AND you aren't quoting yourself!
> 
> You've earned a cookie!





_"Cookies are an All Time Food"_ - Mark Clover (CreativeMountainGames.com)


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Apr 26, 2005)

Mark said:
			
		

> _"Cookies are an All Time Food"_ - Mark Clover (CreativeMountainGames.com)



 ...well, guess it couldn't last.


----------



## Ao the Overkitty (Apr 27, 2005)

Well.. the advanced showing is tomorrow night here.  We shall see how it is.


----------



## Welverin (Apr 27, 2005)

Ao the Overkitty said:
			
		

> Well.. the advanced showing is tomorrow night here.  We shall see how it is.




Where'd you get passes?

Oh, and let me know what you think.


----------



## Ao the Overkitty (Apr 28, 2005)

Welverin said:
			
		

> Where'd you get passes?




Tickets were handed out last Saturday at Zombie Planet, for our area.  It was a showing at the very small Loews theatre in Rotterdam, NY.  We made the mistake of showing up only 30 minutes in advance, so ended up craning our necks to ee from the second row.  Still could see fine.

Here is what I think.

I'll start out by saying I'm a big fan of Hitchhikers.  I have five books of the trilogy.  I have read them several times.  I own the DVD of the tv series and enjoy it.  I have heard the entirety of the radio series once.  I went into this movie expecting nothing.  I had seen a couple of horrible reviews and know better than to expect the world of an adaptaion of a beloved book (or set of books).

Now, In a word, I'll sum up the movie. Wonderful.  I'll do my best to give no spoilers outside of sblock.

The movie is beautifully done.  The previews hype it up as an action film.  It is not.  It really is a comedy from the get go.  Don't go expecting to see the books on the big screen.  I'm happy they didn't do that, actually.  They did that with the tv show.  The rough plot of the first book is there, but there is much more as well.

What you should go expecting is for them to capture the essence of the books in the movie.  They did this perfectly, in my opinion.  For this movie to work, I feel you should be left at the end with the feeling that the galaxy is just a crazy place where lots of crazy things happen for no real reason.  That is exactly how I felt.  They picked a great cast, had a lot of the great little lines from the book, and even had some nice little cameos.  Now, I love Alan Rickman in all things.  He performs splendidly as Marvin.  I also think Ford and Zaphod were wonderfully cast.  After the movie, my friend James said, "I had never pictured Ford as being black, but it really worked."  Zaphod is just this guy, you know?  He's all about looks and definately lacking in the brains department. 

[sblock]There is even a scene where the tv Marvin makes an appearance.  Look for him.  I also could have sworn that the tv's Slartibartfast was in the same scene.  Maybe the guy just looked like him.[/sblock]

I think Douglas Adams would have been very pleased with how this came out.

I fully encourage everyone to go see this movie.  I had lots of fun and will definately have to go again.


----------



## Crothian (Apr 28, 2005)

WEll, that sold me on the movie.  Thanks Alex!!


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Apr 28, 2005)

Sold me, too. 

Of course, hearing the amount of input Douglas Adams had in it in the first place pretty much sold me...but its a done deal, now.


----------



## Mark (Apr 28, 2005)

Ao the Overkitty said:
			
		

> For this movie to work, I feel you should be left at the end with the feeling that the galaxy is just a crazy place where lots of crazy things happen for no real reason.  That is exactly how I felt.





That's the feeling I get after watching Time Bandits.  I think I'll enjoy this, too. Thanks!


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 28, 2005)

I saw the movie on Monday. And I thought it was a lot of fun. I have never read the books. 

You don't have to be a fan of the books to understand or enjoy what is going on in the movie.


----------



## ragboy (Apr 28, 2005)

Woo hoo! I'm going to see it on my birthday...Saturday. Looking forward to it.


----------



## Kage Tenjin (Apr 29, 2005)

It was great.

I don't want to give spoilers, just go and see it.  You can tell, I think, what parts of the script are Douglas's and what's been added.


----------



## Imperialus (Apr 29, 2005)

*so how many stars out of 42?*

So far the reviews seem pretty good, but lets face it the reviewers are rarely geeks, but for those of you lucky enough to have seen hitchikers guide to the galexy already how is it?  How is it on it's own and how does it stack up to the book?  I'm not going to get a chance to see it till later tonight.


----------



## Xath (Apr 29, 2005)

My university paper gave it a B+.  Read about it here:

http://www.diamondbackonline.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/04/28/42709b40bbc1c


----------



## mojo1701 (Apr 29, 2005)

Roger Ebert's review: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050428/REVIEWS/50413005.

I usually agree with Ebert when it comes to non-comedic films (The Usual Suspects being the noteable exception), but I'm still gonna go see it anyway, despite not ever reading the book.


----------



## Rl'Halsinor (Apr 29, 2005)

I like a lot of reviews Ebert does, but one thing I have noticed about him over the years is that he doesn't "get" sci-fi and even less fantasy.


----------



## EricNoah (Apr 29, 2005)

Ebert's fairly reliable for me, too, but I wasn't in line with him on LotR, and he also gave the atrocious _Fifth ELement _ a thumb's up, so you never know.


----------



## Morrus (Apr 29, 2005)

Mark said:
			
		

> That's the feeling I get after watching Time Bandits.  I think I'll enjoy this, too. Thanks!




Time Bandits!  Fanastic!  John Cleese as Robin Hood is one of my all-time favourite comedy moments.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Apr 29, 2005)

I find Ebert pretty inconsistent. Hoping the Peter Travers (Rolling Stone) review comes up soon -- he's my guy.


----------



## Mark (Apr 29, 2005)

Morrus said:
			
		

> Time Bandits!  Fanastic!  John Cleese as Robin Hood is one of my all-time favourite comedy moments.




No doubt!   Those little bits where Evil is scrying on the little guys are classic, also.


----------



## spider_minion (Apr 30, 2005)

I just got back from seeing Hitchhiker's.

I found it to be a very enjoyable movie.  Unlike most comedies, its funny in a strange, subtle sort of way.  The film is very loyal to the book, so much so that I knew how many of the scenes would play out (even though its been years since I read it). However, I was plesantly surprised to see top-notch production values.  And the raw wierdness of Hitchhiker's paper counterpart remains inteact.

I gave the film a 7--very good, but not great.  Ironically, I think I would have enjoyed it more if I hadn't read the books.

Oh, and there is a funny bit midway through the end credits.

EDIT: 100 posts!  Playin' in the big leagues now!!!


----------



## Samnell (Apr 30, 2005)

Well, I was the other kind of viewer. The books came very highly recommended to me years ago and I read the first. Dear me, that was awful. I'm not trying to pick a fight here, but the fascination utterly escapes me to this day. Friends with very similar senses of humor to my own love the things. But I went to the movie with an open mind, thinking that some stuff might translate better on screen and I would catch what I was missing.

I was wrong. I don't mind craziness. I don't mind the surreal. I don't mind clever lines. All of these things, I can enjoy. Well, maybe not the craziness. I had a few very light chuckle moments, just like the books. No better, no worse.

So the Hitchhiker conundrum remains for me. It just doesn't strike me as funny. Worse, as it goes on, it starts to become very tedious. If you loved the books, I'm sure you're glorying in the celluloid, but the books and the movie both lack appeal to me. Still no idea why.

What's more odd is that I've found some of the scraps of Adams' non-HH work I've read elsewhere completely hillarious. He strikes me as a damn funny guy. It's weird.


----------



## LordVyreth (Apr 30, 2005)

Ao the Overkitty said:
			
		

> [sblock]There is even a scene where the tv Marvin makes an appearance.  Look for him.  I also could have sworn that the tv's Slartibartfast was in the same scene.  Maybe the guy just looked like him.[/sblock]



[sblock]Waiting in line at the Vogsphere, right?  I thought it looked familiar.  And apparently the HoG transformed into Douglas Adams' head for a few moments right at the end.[/sblock]

Damn, I didn't know about the credits thing.  Could somebody post a spoiler for me with what happened?


----------



## demiurge1138 (Apr 30, 2005)

The credit cookie is an excerpt from the Guide, taken from the Resturaunt at the End of the Universe, about the perils of speech travelling through time and space and being heard by those it wasn't intended.

Anyway, I did enjoy the movie a lot. It felt more "Hollywood" than I would have liked, what with the semi-coherent plot and the addition of a love story, but the love story was actually pretty good (if unnecessary), a lot of good stuff from the book remained in the movie, a lot of the additions were good, and I loved all the new Vogon stuff. In the books, Vogons are spiteful and malicious creatures who are cruel for no other reason than because they can be. This comes over a bit in the movie, but its Vogons are a lot less evil than just dumb and overly beaurecratic, which works really well. And the production design was great.

I give it a 7. You could do much worse than see this movie, but it's not a classic by any measure. Just entertaining.

Demiurge out.


----------



## Chain Lightning (Apr 30, 2005)

Trillian (played by Zooey Deschanel) is really cute.


----------



## Ibram (Apr 30, 2005)

I saw it last night, and I liked it.

I didnt love it... but I liked it.  I guess since I read the books it was easier for me to get the in-jokes and other funny bits.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Apr 30, 2005)

My fiance and i saw it last night.  It's a pretty good movie.  It's a pretty faithful adaptation overall, granted I don't remember a lot from the book since I read it 14 years ago!  It's a very funny and intelligent sci-comedy.  There are some slow spots, but overall it's very good.

8/10

Kane


----------



## EricNoah (Apr 30, 2005)

A valiant effort.  Good performances, especially Sam Rockwell.  But far too much time spent on the Vogons at the expense of other funny stuff.  6/10.


----------



## jeffh (Apr 30, 2005)

Here's my review, which has already appeared on Usenet and the mailing lists for my groups. Warning: it does contain a few mild spoilers.

[sblock]Don't panic. "That review" was wrong.

Not as badly wrong as I'd hoped, but a lot more wrong than I'd feared. 
The movie is smart, funny, and true to the spirit of Douglas Adams' 
novels and radio plays. It's well worth seeing for any fan of Adams' 
work and would make a good introduction as well, though ultimately you 
still can't be a proper geek without reading the novels.

I'll get the bad out of the way first. It's true that one of my favorite 
parts, the conversation with Prosser near the beginning, got massacred. 
(In fact, the beginning as a whole moves rather too fast.) I don't care 
how badly you need to squeeze the plot into the time available, you do 
NOT cut the line "On display? They were on display in the bottom of a 
locked filing cabinet in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door 
saying 'Beware the leopard'."

It's also true that the whole movie is held together by improbable 
coincidences. But it's The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy for 
heaven's sake. Criticizing it for being disjointed is like complaining 
that the ocean is too wet. To me, that's always been a big part of what 
it's *about*. Besides, the characters are zipping around the galaxy in a 
ship powered by *what* again? It seems to me that a number of people who 
were perfectly accepting of that element of the radio plays and the 
books (where there wasn't always such a good excuse available) are 
suddenly surprised to find exactly the same thing in the movie (where 
there is).

Trillian is a disappointment. Her intellectual achievements from the 
books are neither mentioned nor otherwise in evidence.  Indeed, I would 
have to say she's an entirely different character, and one that I wasn't 
as keen on as her predecessor. She gets relegated to the getting-rescued 
role in one of the new plotlines and to a gender stereotype (though a 
pretty funny one) in the other.

And the new parts of the plot, while much more in the spirit of the 
original than I had feared, nevertheless tended to be among the weaker 
parts of the film. I think something like them was needed in order for 
the pacing to be right for a movie, and they certainly were not the huge 
disappointment I was worried about, but when I think of my favorite 
parts of the movie, they aren't what jumps to mind (though I did like 
Arthur and Zaphod's improbable team-up in navigating the Vogon 
bureaucracy). And what one of the two new characters is doing following 
Jeltz around is never explained, since you would think from her position 
and what her motives turn out to be that this is the last thing she 
would want to do.

So what did I like? First and foremost, Alan Rickman as the voice of 
Marvin. Brilliant. It's like the role was written with him in mind all 
along. I must be the only Hitch-Hiker's fan in the world who was never 
really sold on the Paranoid Android in the previous versions. Rickman 
gave me a new appreciation for the character (with some help from 
Warwick Davis, who manages to convey a lot more expression than you 
would think that costume would allow). In fact, lines that didn't seem 
funny to me before are *much* better if I imagine Rickman delivering 
them, as I discovered when I found myself quoting one over dinner 
afterward.

While in some cases, beloved sequences and lines have been jettisoned to 
the movie's detriment, in other cases I think it was a help. In 
particular, the over-long and rather sub-par sequence just after Ford 
and Arthur get picked up by the Heart of Gold - which is in ALL the 
previous versions - has been replaced with a single line that's *MUCH* 
funnier than anything in the original (though the infinite monkeys are 
somewhat missed).

[The author of "that review" *says* he understands that concessions have 
to be made to the length and expectations of a movie, but he doesn't. He 
*says* he's not criticizing things just for being different, but he is. 
Okay, okay, I promise I'll stop mentioning him.]

Speaking of the Heart of Gold and its Improbability Drive, the effects 
of it are, at least to me, *MUCH* better done than in any previous 
version. There are lots of good gags, most of them visual, around it 
that are found in no previous version.

The Vogons are better used than in any previous version.

Creepy, creepy (and somewhat underused) John Malkovich as one of the new 
characters. He does his part really well, even if it wasn't a favorite 
sequence on the whole.

Suitably sequel-hunting ending.

And lastly, there is the Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy itself. 
Stephen Fry, who was the voice of the book in all the previous versions 
{ADDED ON EDIT: This error of mine has since been corrected by Nik 
Landauer on Usenet. My apologies in particular to Peter Jones, the original
voice of the book} as well, is as wry as ever, and some of the animations
that go with the Guide entries... definitely something else. (Personal favorite:
Vogons.) By the end I was about ready to cheer whenever a Guide entry
started up. And contrary to what you may have heard, there are quite a few
of them, including at least one entirely new one and a personal favorite that
was in the radio plays but not in the books or TV series. In some we see the 
animated Guide entry (quite different from the ones in the TV series), 
others are voice-overs in scenes that we don't really need (or want, in 
the case of the Vogon poetry session) the sound for anyway.

The majority of the Guide entries must have been added back in *after* 
some of the preview screenings we've seen reviews of, because there were 
far more of them than the early reviews made it sound like 
(especially... oops, I said I wouldn't mention him again).  They also 
explain nearly all the things I've seen those reviewers worry that 
newcomers wouldn't understand, if that helps reassure anyone.

There were a few other minor things I found that I preferred to previous 
versions as well. Zaphod's extra head - while I'm no happier than anyone 
else with the pez-dispenser implementation - is there for a better 
reason and plays a much bigger role in the plot than before. And some of 
the characters actually meet Deep Thought, which I always thought would 
have been nice. 

On the whole, this is an enjoyable interpretation of Adams' work. For 
every scene or line that's been dropped or reduced in importance, a 
throwaway line has been turned into a genuine plot element, or at least 
a better gag than it was the first time around. In fact, I was impressed 
with the attention to the details of the previous versions that the 
filmmakers showed, even if the significance of some of those details has 
changed. Get off your butt and go see it already.
[/sblock]


----------



## Hand of Evil (May 1, 2005)

Enjoyable and fun movie a strong 7/10.


----------



## trancejeremy (May 1, 2005)

Does it happen to use the theme song (or variation on it) from the TV or Radio show?


----------



## demiurge1138 (May 1, 2005)

No, I don't think it does.

But I think that this must be shared
Zaphod Beeblebrox for President 

Demiurge out.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 1, 2005)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> Does it happen to use the theme song (or variation on it) from the TV or Radio show?



A variant of part of "Journey of the Sorcerer" (the Eagles instrumental that was the radio show theme song) was used shortly after Ford and Arthur were blown out into space.


----------



## jeffh (May 1, 2005)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> Does it happen to use the theme song (or variation on it) from the TV or Radio show?




The main theme is (I assume this doesn't qualify as a spoiler) a Broadway-ish "So Long and Thanks For All the Fish" song, but JotS does indeed show up; there's a sort of very short second title sequence with it at the point where the first episode of the radio series ends.


----------



## Tyler Do'Urden (May 1, 2005)

Pretty much ditto jeffh's review-

I loved it; and I've never even read any of the books.  I saw the first half-hour of the TV show about a decade ago, and I was familiar with a lot of the basic ideas and the jokes both through what I had seen and through general participation in sci-fi fandom.  I went to see it with two friends- one who had read and enjoyed the books, and another who is a huge fan of British humor- and we all seriously dug it.

A few quick comments:

Anyone else notice the paralells between the portrayal of Beeblebrox and President Bush?  Seriously- watch the voice and facial expressions.  It's especially funny when he's paralelled with his opponent, a nerd whose entire campaign was based around Beeblebrox being an idiot.  Great, subtle British parody.

The Trillian romance worked- even though purists might hate it, it set up tension between Arthur and Zaphod, which helped drive the plot through what would otherwise just be a string of random gags.

The Vogons were great- bureaucratic drones at their finest.  

The visuals were wonderful, delightfully effective.

All in all, I think it's just surpassed Galaxy Quest and Men in Black as my favorite Sci-fi Comedy...


----------



## Abraxas (May 1, 2005)

Well, it was entertaining I especially liked
[SBLOCK]The TV series Arthur Dent's cameo as the holographic warning at the planet Magrathea[/SBLOCK]
But is was more of a made for TV movie than something that needed the big screen. 6/10


----------



## EricNoah (May 1, 2005)

Tyler Do'Urden said:
			
		

> Anyone else notice the paralells between the portrayal of Beeblebrox and President Bush?  Seriously- watch the voice and facial expressions.




Yeah, I did, and I agree that it's pretty funny.


----------



## mojo1701 (May 1, 2005)

I didn't read the books, so I went into it under the recommendation of some friends and that I was familiar with the genre. 

I thought it was all right. Definitely not a classic, but by no means crap. Some parts just seemed to be strung together, with no real plot to string it together. It just seemed to be a mishmash of Vorgons, the Guide, Earth's destruction, etc. etc. But it was clever.

Marvin the Paranoid Android struck me as a bit TOO pessimistic.



			
				Tyler Do'Urden said:
			
		

> Anyone else notice the paralells between the portrayal of Beeblebrox and President Bush?  Seriously- watch the voice and facial expressions.  It's especially funny when he's paralelled with his opponent, a nerd whose entire campaign was based around Beeblebrox being an idiot.  Great, subtle British parody.




No, but now that you mention it, there MIGHT be a connection.



> All in all, I think it's just surpassed Galaxy Quest and Men in Black as my favorite Sci-fi Comedy...




Close, but no cigar (I would've said 'cookie,' but cookies are now a "sometimes food"...).


----------



## Torm (May 1, 2005)

*Arthur* - Perfect, other than being just slightly too "together" at the end.
*Ford* - Perfect.
*Marvin* - Perfect. He was slimmer in the book, but it also says he was built FOR the Heart of Gold, which was a running shoe in the book. You change the ship, you change Marvin. Makes sense. Alan Rickman rocks.
*Zaphod* - Good. I wish he had been a little more condescending to Arthur. "Monkey-man" and etc.
*Eddie* - Perfect.
*Questulon* - Very weird: he is now a SHE, and Vice President of the Galaxy instead of President of the publishers for the Guide. But good.
*Trillian* - Excellent: the best Trillian period. I wasn't all that happy with the relationship between her and Arthur, but Douglas wrote that in himself, and it _was_ well done, so I'll live with it.
*Vogons* - Perfect.
*Overall* - 8/10. Needed another hour, with some scenes and dialogue added back in. Maybe on the DVD?  <----(Joo Jantas)


----------



## Mark (May 2, 2005)

Tyler Do'Urden said:
			
		

> Anyone else notice the paralells between the portrayal of Beeblebrox and President Bush?  Seriously- watch the voice and facial expressions.  It's especially funny when he's paralelled with his opponent, a nerd whose entire campaign was based around Beeblebrox being an idiot.




I saw a Rockwell interview where he said that he based the performance on Bush, Clinton, Elvis, and a number of others.  Just from what I saw in the trailers, I thought immediately of Tom Petty as he came across in The Postman.


----------



## EricNoah (May 2, 2005)

Torm said:
			
		

> *Arthur* - Perfect, other than being just slightly too "together" at the end.
> *Ford* - Perfect.
> *Marvin* - Perfect. He was slimmer in the book, but it also says he was built FOR the Heart of Gold, which was a running shoe in the book. You change the ship, you change Marvin. Makes sense. Alan Rickman rocks.
> *Zaphod* - Good. I wish he had been a little more condescending to Arthur. "Monkey-man" and etc.
> ...




I agree that more time would have helped.  LotR proved we can tolerate a 2-1/2 to 3 hour movie.

Movie-Trillian -- kind of a mix of book-Trillian and (_So Long and Thanks for All the Fish_) book-Fenchurch, right?  Not a bad combo if it's necessary to cut out a complication from the big overall story.


----------



## Torm (May 2, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Movie-Trillian -- kind of a mix of book-Trillian and (_So Long and Thanks for All the Fish_) book-Fenchurch, right?



Right. Douglas implied on a few occasions that he thought the two should've been the same character, so I guess that's the direction he finally took for the movie.

It definitely needed more time. And especially, more of Marvin and Zaphod's lines.


----------



## ddvmor (May 2, 2005)

No-one's mentioned Bill Nighy's fabulous Slatibartfast!  He was great!  Especially when threatening Arthur...


----------



## Torm (May 2, 2005)

ddvmor said:
			
		

> No-one's mentioned Bill Nighy's fabulous Slatibartfast!  He was great!  Especially when threatening Arthur...



Oh yeah! He _was_ great, I just forgot to mention him. I guess he was Somebody Else's Problem.


----------



## D+1 (May 2, 2005)

7/10  Reasonably good but not in danger of being great.  Read the books, watched the TV series.  Read more books.  As a minor afficianado of things Hitchhiker I think you COULD have expected a LOT more from a movie version - but it's not Lord of the Rings, so this is about right in its degree of faithfulness and so forth.  You weren't ever going to get a masterful 12-hour 3-5 film epic comedic treatment so anyone who does complain on that score clearly has little touch with reality.

What you wind up with is a good, very watchable effort to take Hitchhiker material and present it to The Great Unwashed.  I think they could have done a little better.  First and foremost the pacing and timing in the initial parts there was off.  Thinking back on it now it did feel as if it expected that you already knew the story because it wasn't until the middle of the film that exposition really seemed to catch up to the ongoing plot and that's NOT good for a comedy that relies on being able to wrap people up in the crazy universe it presents.

I think it's because they still were relying a little too much on the books/series/etc. rather than making a movie that stands unsupported on its own.  Movies, even comedies, have much different dramatic requirements than television or the written word.  You've got about 90 minutes to 2 hours to go from knowing NOTHING about the characters or the world to sending people walking out of the theater completely versed in it all.  Hitchhiker fell short of that requirement IMO, but to give them their due they had a lot of material to try to compress/cull to get one cohesive movie out of it.  Eric's right - too much screen time on Vogons that could have been better used elsewhere.  No Oscar for adapted screenplay but A for effort.

The characters were all just GREAT.  Rockwell and Deschanel were particularly good in their parts.  First thing I've seen Rockwell in since Galaxy Quest, and I recognized Deschanel from Elf and I could watch both of them in dang near anything in the future.  Actually I think Mos Def did quite well too as Ford but with Ford and Arthur, especially early in the film, several of their lines got stomped on and I missed the dialogue.  At first I thought it was just bad sound editing (and it was) but I think the accents and annunciation contributed.

So, well worth the $9 ticket but I wouldn't expect too many new converts to the cult.


----------



## mojo1701 (May 2, 2005)

D+1 said:
			
		

> First thing I've seen Rockwell in since Galaxy Quest




The expendable guy, right?


----------



## The_lurkeR (May 2, 2005)

Saw it this afternoon, and gave it a 7.

I've never read the books, but being a geek I was still familiar with much of it. The principal actors were all great in their roles, with Rockwell as Zaphod being most memorable. The movie itself had trouble with the pacing and storytelling as it went along, and felt dis-jointed in the end. Overall though it was enjoyable and worth seeing at the theater, but the matinee if you can work it.


----------



## The_lurkeR (May 2, 2005)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> The expendable guy, right?




You are correct sir!


----------



## Olive (May 2, 2005)

I'd like to give it a 6.5, but I can't so I'm giving it a six.

I thought it was kinda perfect in lots fo ways (great casting, great design) but just felt a wee bit flat to me. It wasn't bad, but it wasn't that good either.


----------



## jglamere (May 2, 2005)

I gave it a 7.

Never read the books, even being the "geek" I am and was not really familiar with much of Hitchhiker's lore.

Saw it with wife and 2 friends and we all enjoyed the humor and the movie as a whole.


----------



## Jakar (May 2, 2005)

I gave it a six.  I was not really fussed on the actors that played Ford or Zaphod and that kind of let it down for me.


----------



## Nifft (May 2, 2005)

I didn't like it. They shouldn't have made it all happy-sit-com ending by putting the Earth back. The main cast was okay, but Trillian wasn't brilliant (in either sense) and Arthur wasn't a particularly expressive touchstone.

Some really good things were in the movie, but taken that way, it was a series of excellent illustrations from the books, loosely connected by a bad plot.

 -- N


----------



## Henry (May 2, 2005)

Mark said:
			
		

> I saw a Rockwell interview where he said that he based the performance on Bush, Clinton, Elvis, and a number of others.  Just from what I saw in the trailers, I thought immediately of Tom Petty as he came across in The Postman.




Actually, I saw more Elvis than anything in the performance, especially with the over-exaggerated body moves he was doing. Maybe it's in the eye of the beholder.  Overall, I gave it 7/10, mainly because there were some laugh-out-lound moments in some things, but it was passingly funny to me overall.

It made #1 box office this weekend, and critics were falling all over themselves trying to explain why it did better than the blast-em-up XXX: State of the Union. It's not that hard to explain in my opinion: There are a LOT of people familiar with the books, in passing if nothing else, and wanted to see what the movie was like. Now, if the box-office doesn't flip next weekend, with XXX being #1, and Hitchhiker being #2 or #3, I'll be surprised. And we ALL know what the weekend of May 20th is going to look like.


----------



## Cthulhu's Librarian (May 2, 2005)

Tyler Do'Urden said:
			
		

> Anyone else notice the paralells between the portrayal of Beeblebrox and President Bush?  Seriously- watch the voice and facial expressions.  It's especially funny when he's paralelled with his opponent, a nerd whose entire campaign was based around Beeblebrox being an idiot.  Great, subtle British parody.




Yep, picked up on that right away. 

I enjoyed it, gave it a 7. I'd see it again. Parts of it were beyond what I expected (the planet construction floor sequence was particularly excellent), and some parts fell a little flat (Deep Thought was a bit of a let down to me). 
My wife and the friend who went with us to see it both said, and I quote, "It wasn't the worst movie ever..."  :\  Laura has never read the books, and our friend Lori has, but a long time ago. They both felt that it was too disjointed, and not as funny as they were expecting. Part of this could have been becasue we had 7 or 8 obnoxiously drunk college students sitting right behind us who laughed very loudly and commented on every little thing that happened, funny or not.


----------



## TanisFrey (May 2, 2005)

Abraxas said:
			
		

> Well, it was entertaining I especially liked
> [SBLOCK]The TV series Arthur Dent's cameo as the holographic warning at the planet Magrathea[/SBLOCK]
> But is was more of a made for TV movie than something that needed the big screen. 6/10




yea but half of the joke was
[SBLOCK]they filmed in in 3D.  He will pop out at you if you have the 3D glasses.  They did not tell the studio about this till after filming was rapped.[/SBLOCK]


----------



## Mark (May 3, 2005)

Does anyone who has seen it think it will lose much for those who choose to wait until it comes to the small screen (rental, cable movie channel, etc.)?


----------



## demiurge1138 (May 3, 2005)

Well, the movie's biggest selling point (compared to the book) is really the visuals, which would probably lose quite a bit on the small screen.

Demiurge out.


----------



## Tolen Mar (May 3, 2005)

When I came out of the movie, I was dissapointed.  I soo much wanted to see the first book in its entirety on the screen.  (The kicker is I kept telling myself not to...but hey.)  That dissapointment dealt with, I realized I had a great time during the movie.  

A lot of the lines got shortened, but in a way it works for me, cause Ive practically memorized the first book, and a lot of the second.  Kept me from quoting the whole thing as we went along.

I thought the acting was great, the animations awesome, and I spotted the BBC marvin right off.  (Didnt recognize adams, but Ive never seen his face, so there you go.)

What didnt I like?  Well the whole Hama wants his gun line.  Where the heck did that come from.  however, I do have to admit it was a truly appropriate adams-style invention (I got a kick out of it when marvin grabbed it up.)

I also did not like Zaphod.  Blech.  Yuck. (Various publicly inappropriate sounds).  Too annoying for one, and I knew he would be.  But he was far and away too much.  The 2nd head sucked horribly.  As did the reason for having the second head.

So, once I thought about it, and realized just how much I laughed throughout, I realized it wasnt a half bad film after all.  Definatly rewatchable.  

However, I left when the credits started rolling, and having heard about the one guide entry I so wanted to see being played during the credits, I wish I had waited..o well...Ill see it again eventually.


----------



## Abraxas (May 3, 2005)

TanisFrey said:
			
		

> yea but half of the joke was
> [SBLOCK]they filmed in in 3D.  He will pop out at you if you have the 3D glasses.  They did not tell the studio about this till after filming was rapped.[/SBLOCK]




I noticed that right off but didn't bring my peril sensitive sunglasses to catch it


----------



## Abraxas (May 3, 2005)

Mark said:
			
		

> Does anyone who has seen it think it will lose much for those who choose to wait until it comes to the small screen (rental, cable movie channel, etc.)?




No, not really, depending on how small a screen we are talking.


----------



## Aust Diamondew (May 3, 2005)

I enjoyed the movie alot.  It wasn't entirely faithful to the books but I wasn't expecting it to be.  It seemed to capture the spirit of the books however very well.
I thought Zaphod was a bit too stupid but thats okay.


----------



## Andrew D. Gable (May 4, 2005)

Tolen Mar said:
			
		

> I thought the acting was great, the animations awesome, and I spotted the BBC marvin right off.  (Didnt recognize adams, but Ive never seen his face, so there you go.)



Wasn't Adams at the very end, when the Heart of Gold was flipping through its very images?  I think he was the very last one, shown for an instant.

I gave it an 8.  I thought it was good, not wonderful, but a bit beyond what I expected.  It actually turned out to be _fairly_ much like the book.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (May 4, 2005)

Saw it and... didn't hate it.

Didn't love it either.

I would give it a 5 to the radio show's 8.

Rickman's voice was great, Marvin's body... meh.

And Trillian _was_ cute.

The Auld Grump, who did not like Zaphod as shown in the movie at all at all... but didn't like him in the TV show either (a 6).


----------



## Viking Bastard (May 5, 2005)

Saw it. Liked it. Gave it a 8.


----------



## Felix (May 6, 2005)

The casting was very well done.

The production value was high.

The jokes were all there. (Bowl of petunias thinking "not again")

The Guide animation was charming.

Heart of Gold was a Douglas-looking spaceship.

And yet, for all those things the production crew got right on this move, I just didn't feel that the movie had the soul the books held for me. When I re-read the books, as I do every few years or so, I get chuckles and guffaws. The movie really did nothing for me except provide images for me to think of the next time I read the books. I thought the funniest part of the movie was the sighing the Heart of Gold doors made when they opened and closed, but all the other jokes fell flat on their face when they put a stich in my side as I read.

Too bad, really. I gave it a 4.


----------



## ddvmor (May 6, 2005)

Anyone seen Zaphod's Election Campaign yet? http://www.media-file.net/hhgg/zaphod.mov

Also... you guys may be able to help me out with this.  I used to have a set of cassetees of the first 4 books read by Stephen Moore.  They're long since lost and I'd love to get hold of them again - The only version I've seen for sale is the one read by Adams - anyone know where I can get hold of a copy?


----------



## sniffles (May 6, 2005)

I really enjoyed it, as evidenced by the fact that my face hurt from smiling by the time it was over.

It was not perfect, but then what adaptation of a book ever is?  And this wasn't even an adaptation of a book - it was an adaptation of a radio show that was made into a book that was made into an album that was made into a television series.   

I thought the casting was very good, except perhaps for Trillian, who was a bit lackluster.  On another forum I read someone complaining that Arthur didn't look the way he was described in the book (always a silly complaint IMHO), but I just reread the description of him this morning and I think Martin Freeman was fine.  I am now thoroughly a fan of Bill Nighy - he's just great.

My fiancee thinks they ought to have limited the number of jokes they were trying to reproduce and fleshed out what remained - for example, making the Vogon poetry sequence a bit longer, as well as Arthur and Ford's arrival on the Heart of Gold.  We did really find it amusing that the Vogon destructor fleet captain was sitting on a chair shaped like a squashed deer - that's a little reference back to the book that even I didn't get until my fiancee reminded me.

I'm not sure I could agree that people who aren't familiar with the books would "get" this movie.  I think most of the people here who haven't read the books or seen the tv series at least know something about the story.  People who know nothing about it would probably find it a bit more impenetrable.  

But oh, how can you not love Stephen Fry as the voice of the Guide?


----------



## Wolv0rine (May 6, 2005)

demiurge1138 said:
			
		

> No, I don't think it does.
> 
> But I think that this must be shared
> Zaphod Beeblebrox for President
> ...




That was the most wonderful, delightfully hillarious thing I've seen since someone posted Leonard Nemoy's wonderful rendition of The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins (which, unlike so many people, I love).  Thanks Demiurge.


----------



## demiurge1138 (May 7, 2005)

Wolv0rine said:
			
		

> That was the most wonderful, delightfully hillarious thing I've seen since someone posted Leonard Nemoy's wonderful rendition of The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins (which, unlike so many people, I love).  Thanks Demiurge.



No problem. Also, did anyone notice that the book Arthur was reading at the fancy dress party was "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins? For a while, Douglas Adams claimed it was his favorite book. I thought that was a nice touch.

Demiurge out.


----------



## Crothian (May 7, 2005)

It was a good movie.  It was a little chaotic at the beginning as they seemed to want to use the book but skip over so much, but it found its grove and I enjoyed it.


----------



## Krieg (May 9, 2005)

All the pieces were nearly perfect...but there was something tiny lacking from the whole.

Still I had a smile on my face throughout the entire film and enjoyed it quite a bit.

Gave it a 7.

PS - Zaphod was brilliant.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 11, 2005)

Unlike most people, I was very disappointed with it. The visuals were great, but I thought they truncated too many of the excellent dialog jokes, I thought Zaphod was awful (he just came over as stupid - where were all his trademark cracking one liners? Zaphod is supposed to be so hip he can't even get his trousers on!). Marvin seemed like an add-on rather than integral to the story, Trillian wasn't (apparently) an astrophysicist, I prefer the more 'lost at sea and bewildered' Arthur Dent.

I'm glad that lots of people enjoyed it, and in fact I haven't come across anyone who felt the same as me about it, so take my opinion as an outlier 

(p.s. I heard it on the radio first then later read the book, saw the tv series etc. Radio is still far and away the best for me. Definitely got the best pictures!)

Cheers


----------



## Torm (May 11, 2005)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I'm glad that lots of people enjoyed it, and in fact I haven't come across anyone who felt the same as me about it, so take my opinion as an outlier



I dread to say this, and I'm not trying to be political, but this movie made me briefly ashamed of America. I know the dialogue you're referring to as missing, and I know just as certainly that most people I know would have been left scratching their heads instead of amused, and that is just sad. :\ 

I feel exactly as you do. I was just so exceedingly pleased with the accuracy of what WAS shown, and understanding of the fact that much of what was trimmed was trimmed for the target audience, that I'm still willing to give it a thumbs up and hope that there is a lot of bonus material on the DVD. And, I want a sequel. Maybe if this does well enough, they'll allow Restaurant more screen time. Lord of the Rings type screen time would be nice, enough time to deliver some of the more obscure stuff, and then leave a beat or two for people to think about it.


----------



## Pants (May 13, 2005)

I gave it a 9. I loved it. Hilarious movie.

I really wish that the Vogon Poetry part had been longer. Mos Def's facial expressions were classic.

Overall, a great movie that will be added to my DVD collection as soon as it comes out.


----------



## Arnwyn (May 18, 2005)

Saw it and liked it - gave it an 8.

But, in any case, the opening "song 'n' dance" number was worth the price of admission.


----------



## der_kluge (May 18, 2005)

I really liked it. I gave it an 8. My wife and I went to see it this past weekend.  I think it gets funnier after you see it, like a Monty Python movie.

I feel like a sofa.
I know what you mean.

Great stuff.
I loved the "throwing up thread" scene, too. Very funny.


----------



## der_kluge (May 18, 2005)

There was also an easter egg in the credits, for those that sat through them.

Just a little cartoon talking about the fleet of ships which were so outraged when they heard Arthur's quote about his towel float through space-time, they attacked earth, and then were promptly swallowed by a small dog.


----------



## Arnwyn (May 19, 2005)

I was going to mention that (I hate leaving and then finding out later that there was something additional during or after the credits).

Glad I stuck around and saw the additional "Guide entry".


----------



## reveal (May 19, 2005)

I've never actually read the book. I saw the movie on Monday and really liked it. It was silly for the most part and I thought it was very well done. Yesterday, I bought the book on CD (unabridged and read by Stephen Fry) and listened to it during my long car trip home. I enjoyed it very much and was surprised at how much had been left out of the movie. I was also surprised at how much had been changed for the movie. All in all, I can see why this Adams guy is so popular. 

I've put the TV series into my queue on Netflix. We'll see how it compares.


----------



## Krug (Jun 7, 2005)

I thought it was alright. Didn't always grab the humour of the book but it worked visually. I thought Zaphod was terribly annoying though, but that might have been the whole point. 7/10.


----------



## jonesy (Jun 7, 2005)

Krug said:
			
		

> I thought it was alright. Didn't always grab the humour of the book but it worked visually. I thought Zaphod was terribly annoying though, but that might have been the whole point. 7/10.



Well I found the book-Zaphod terribly annoying as well.


----------

