Telegraph Reviews Hitchhiker Movie, Approves

LPetrazickis writes "The Telegraph has reviewed the movie adaptation of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. The review notes that the film is every bit as much a loving tribute to Douglas Adams as it is a joyous comedy. American actors acquit themselves well, and the sense of intelligent wonder transfers well to the technicolour screen. The many incarnations of The Guide are summarized at the end."

Comments

Cake is for eating

[nakly]

What's sad is how unfair criticism of this movie is inevitable, rather it turns out to be any good or not. When you get something that's so ridiculously popular with such a devout fanbase, there's going to be a gigantor contingent of those who aren't capable of understanding that this is not the book. Can anyone say LotR?

I, for one, look forward to the movie. I have confidence that it will incredibly funny, while still staying true to the spirit of the books. I ask all those who demand a carbon copy to please bellyache out of my earshot.

I wish I could believe him, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds rather bought-and-paid-for to me. Puff piece. Astroturf, even.

And what's with nonsense like:
Zooey Deschanel as Trillian, a minor character in Adams's book

or

and a towel, a manic-depressive android and a whale falling from the sky all make important appearances.

I'm sorry, Trillian is a "minor character"? Marvin is lumped in with the whale as a character who makes "important appearances"? Important appearances? The reviewer doesn't even give his name? If the movie slashes his role that much, there is serious trouble.

My Joo Janta peril-sensitive sunglasses are strangely opaque. I suspect this movie will suck, and will only do slightly better than if every theater showing it was blanketed in an SEP field.

I just don't understand

[Nate53085]

Has it gotten to the point where we don't even watch a movie to figure out if we like it? How often are critics wrong? Watch the movie for yourself and make up your own mind.