Slashdot Mirror
Hitchhiker's Guide Reviewed
me at werk writes "The Register has posted it's review of h2g2. 'The radio series, that became a book, that became a TV series, has finally made it to the silver screen. The film version of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is faithful to author Douglas Adams' legacy. The trouble is it's simply not especially funny.'"
Pretty sure I enjoyed it more because of the books. The Register had it right about plot development: you'll need to have read the books to make sense of some parts - like the dolphins - but otherwise it's a pretty funny film.
I love the sound effect tie-ins too, watch for the bread knife and it's upcoming George Lucas prequel.
-Matt
--- Need web hosting?
First off, I was there with towel on shoulder...
Watching the previews, Marvin was my biggest concern. That concern ended up not panning out,,, he fit in pretty well. I'd say just put aside your preconceptions and go watch a movie. There are enough of the little things added that only a Hitchiker's afficiondo would appreciate to make it worth your time. Just don't get stuck up in the "Well, they did it different in the book" trap. This is alot easier to do if you realize that Douglas Adams never intended for previous works to be Canon. He's just telling a story. It has to be altered a bit here and there to allow for different mediums, so while some of the old gems are lost, new things show up.
Synopsis sans spoiler: while I didn't bust a gut laughing, I did laugh out loud in the theatre. That's alot more than I can say for just about any other "comedy" I've seen in a while.
I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
I've read the books, and I watched it with someone who has memorized most of the jokes, and we both enjoyed it. It's different, and if you want to see the books (the first one, in this case) translated exactly to film, you'll be disappointed. The movie exists as its own entity, just like the radio show and the TV show and everything else. The British humor is extremely toned down, but it's still pretty funny. That poor whale...
Give a man fire, and you warm him for the night. Set a man on fire, and you warm him for the rest of his life.
I saw it last night. The problem with it is that it is "silly" rather than funny. It is almost like the writers knew it was meant to be funny, yet didn't understand any of the jokes in the original material - so the pacing and punchlines where all wrong. The only really hilarious bits where the voiceovers by Steven Fry. Alan Rickman was casted well... but the lines he was given didn't allow him to shine. The rest of the cast was pretty ignorable, except for perhaps the aliens. I was playing the game of "spot the resemblance to which UK politician" throughout. I wonder if Boris Johnson is going to notice... :-)
Didn't Adams himself help write the screenplay? He's credited.
--
The Marines: The few, the proud, the not very bright. - Slashdot tagline 04/21/05
Personal favourite bits: seeing the original Marvin in the queue on Vogsphere, as well as the cameo played by Simon Jones (the original Arthur). And the gun, don't forget the gun.
"I am Heisenborg. You will probably be assimilated"
People with good memories for the book might find the movie funny because their minds fill in the missing dialogue. But as Ebert says, to someone who doesn't already know the book, its not funny.
Whats interesting is that the movie does have some of the funniest scenes from the book, but those scenes just don't work. Partly because the persectives are different. Being inside the head of a newly born whale as it plummets to earth is funny, but watching a graphic of it hit the ground isn't funny.
Other things were just poorly done, for example, the babble fish. They actually do cut to the Guide to explain what a babblefish does, but totally skip the part about God disappearing in a puff of logic. So the scene is not funny at all save maybe a little slapstick about putting a fish in Authur's ear.
Sadly, this movie is exactly what you expect from Hollywood doing a foriegn movie, dumbed down to the point of irrelevance.
I saw the movie this afternoon, and I can't understand your mindset. The mindset of anyone who'd post a negative review puzzles me. I've seen, heard, and read, the other versions of H2G2, and this new film was legitimately the best non-novel draft of that story. They MUST make sequels galore.
"I am a fictional character."
Story telling is exactly what movies are supposed to be about, and long winding asides is exactly what movies aren't supposed to be about.
My point is, the books are funny in a way that movies can't be funny, and the books are only marginally funny at that. Douglas usually gets 5 or 6 REALLY good jokes in per book and the rest is pretty marginal -- it works becuase the book gets you on a roll which lightents your expectations -- which the movie never did.
I think the movie did an excellent job of bringing material not suitable for film -- to film. That being said, the delivery of the jokes was simply off, as you say. They spoke much too deliberately -- you can't deliver quick witted comments slowly.
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
Spoiler alert... I guess.
Why does it seem like I'm the only one that thought the playing up of Arthur and Trillian's romance was ridiculous? Why does Trillian have an American accent? Why... why... why...
Yes, I probably sound like just another rabid Adams fanboy who expected the movie to be a direct copy of the book. That isn't the case. I thought the film was awful. The acting was not very good, some of the revised dialog was really awkward, and... many other things simply related to the filmmaking itself and not just the script. My girlfriend and I were incredibly tempted to walk out many times, especially when Arthur made his incredibly awkward (I cannot use that word enough... that is my official review of the whole film... AWKWARD...) attempt at a sweet soliloquy at Trillian while about to have his brain removed by mice...
I think I'm just incredibly sore at the fact that they even attempted to make the film accessible to the general public. Am I being elitist? Probably... I mean, I can see the value in attempting to bring Adams' work to a broader venue, but when they cannot be done justice, some things are probably left unsaid. Or un-filmed in this case.
The film attempts to "have it's cake and eat it too" (to indulge in a trite cliche); make broad swaths of generic American love-story candy-coated filmmaking and sneak in the funny dialogue and faithful-to-the-series bits when the "normals" in the audience are distracted by something shiny. The hardcore fans will deride it for its creative license, and the great unwashed will view it as a quirky little film that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to them and is only "kinda" funny.
After getting in my car afterward and popping in Radiohead's "OK Computer", especially "Subterranean Homesick Alien", all I could think of were the smiling faces of the proleteriat in the audience, laughing their heads off every time Ford, Zaphod or Arthur were hit in the face with while walking on Vogsphere. The same scene that made me groan loudly. I wondered quietly as I took occasional peeks at the moon while driving: am I right on the money about this, or am I completely wrong? If the latter is true, then perhaps, like Ford, I've been trapped on this planet for far too long.
*sigh*... tommorrow's another day, I suppose...
It is very possible that the timing or rhythm was off for the jokes. I just figured that the lack of humor I perceived was due to the fact that none of it was new to me.
I've read the books enough times that I don't get the same experience as I did the first time around. That happens. The jokes stop being as funny as before, the more times you hear/see/read them.
I saw this at this past Monday's preview, and thought it was great. Much better than the BBC production, but not as good as the books.
It was much better than I expected it to be.
Given the responses from the audience, including the group that sat directly behind us, who didn't realize there was a book, I think it went over well enough. However, I doubt it will do well enough for us to see a sequel. Time will tell though, I suppose.
If you are a fan of the books, it's worth a viewing, in my opinion.
H.
When VCR's are outlawed, only outlaws will have VCR's.
If you're a fan of the TV version of Marvin, watch the queueing scene carefully. I saw the film last night and thought the new Marvin was really good. You can't see it in the stills but his movement and posture fits his personality perfectly. The film is quite different from the radio/TV/book versions, but the bits that have changed work well.
Decode these
its as if you have no awareness whatsoever of this concept called 'a generation'.
.. if they liked the movie enough, they feel compelled to read the book.
believe it or not, but there are some people who did not grow up reading books. there are a generation or two, or three, of people who do not read books.
these people go to movies.
should the story be inaccessible to them?
making a movie about a book, might prompt people to read the book. believe it or not, but this does actually happen. people see movies, they hear that it was based on a book, and then
translating one form of literary culture into another form, is usually a good way to spread that culture. don't you agree?
oh, wait. you're one of those self-ism types, for whom the idealization of the self is all there is. your self, having read the book, can't possibly think of why there is any reason whatsoever to contribute to another cultural form.
next time you see a 9 year old, ask them if they know the answer to life, the universe, and everything.. you might get a kick out of the answer.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
So we're letting all the people who don't like to think very hard while enjoying a good book or radio program, ruin the film version of a story we all love? Why do we want people like that to see the movie anyway... they *still* won't like it if it's dumbed down for them... all that does is ruin the movie for everyone.
This movie should have been made for FANS only.
Although I've been a techie my whole life, i was raised by religiously fanatical parents, so none of this talk of space exploration and evolution would be tolerated in our home. So that excluded enjoying HGG on the radio, television, or bookshelf.
I bring this up because it seems most everyone else here has gotten intimate with HGG in some form or another, so I thought I would provide some insight into the reaction of someone who saw the movie with no previous knowledge of what this thing was all about.
I was so eager to see HGG, I got to the theatre 45 minutes early last night to ensure good seating. I will say it simplye: the movie did NOT disappoint. Funny? Absolutely! There is a lot of silly humor, mainly in the forms of irony and cynicism. Many, many times throughout the movie, the entire theatre was laughing out loud together. I'm not sure who all in the theatre was familiar with the HGG story, everyone there from the 8-year-old kid to the 80-year-old grandparent gave it a unanimous thumbs up. I am actually thinking of going to see this thing again today, it was such a joy to watch the first time! I also just picked the literature from half.com.
How is that a troll . . .
9 ..
Jesus do you guys ever have a clue what your moderating.
It's a joke (Perhaps not funny), those highlited words are all Rivers in Scotland
I think he ment it as a joke (maybe offtopic , however it was on-topic considering the grandparent)And it dosn't even look like a troll, wow your a bunch of uncultured luddites
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll&e=979
That is what a troll is , now spot the diffrence
Sorry but clearly stupid moderation like this is just offensive.
Oh and BTW , I found this whilst meta moderating .
What movie did you see? I walked out halfway through. I have _never_ done that before- not even Battlefield Earth!
Zaphod was not supposed to be stupid- a "frood" sure. Hip definitely. Zany ok. But not stupid.
Where was the remotely funny dialog? It was not funny in the slightest. It was just- dumb. The humour was Disney-eque slapstick of the type I would expect from Will Ferrel- i.e. the kind of humour that makes me nauseous.
The movie had only a couple of redeeming points- Marvin was funny. The guide was pretty good although the voice-over just sounded... wrong I guess. The heart or gold externally looked cool. Internally it was mind bogglingly boring.
What the hell was with John Malkovich? Why was that scene there at all? It did nothing to advance the plot and was not in the book that I remember reading.
Douglas Adams was all about dialog and this movie had none of it. How did cutting out "Beware of the Leopard" make the movie better? Did saving those three seconds of dialog make the movie short enough to include some other joke? What was with the damned Dolphins at the beginning? Was I watching Monty Python or Douglas Adams? Just because it is British does not mean it has to be Monty Python. And the scene with Mr. Prosser and the bulldozers- Why change it? It was _hysterical_ in the book. It set the entire tone for the story. In the movie- it's just- stupid- boring- pointless...
The book is ecclectic. It seems almost random but at least it is funny. The movie is so far beyond random as to be senseless. More importantly it is not funny.
I rated this on IMDB and actually gave it a 1. And I LOVED the books. I own several copies and have read all 5 books and the short story. I've also read his other books and I just do not think he would have thought this movie was good.
-sirket
I couldn't tell by your post whether you verified that part was in 3D or not. I just saw the movie last night as well and planned on bringing 3D glasses along just to test that part out. Being a 3D aficionado I suspected the hologram was because of the obvious blue and red outlines (Nice to see Simon Jones made it to the big screen (that's the TV series 'Arthur Dent' for those not steeped in HG2G lore). Would be cool if it really was in 3D. Adds to the cheese. :)
The Splintered Mind - Overcoming
Considering that we are friend of a friend and friend of a foe, no idea how to take this one. :)
Yes, the movie is different from the book. The book was different from the radio series. The infocom game was different from all of these. The only things that Douglas Adams wanted to remain True is that The Guide itself is there for narration and asides, and that Arthur is the quintissential british anti-hero. Aside from those, he couldn't care less as long as it made a decent story.
So if you are going in demanding that they make a retelling of the book, then yes, you are better off staying at home. If you want to see a different look on this amazing world that Adams has created (with help from Jim Henson's Creature Shop and it does indeed show if you look) and maybe get a couple of chuckles, then it may be worth seeing the movie. Oh... and if you actually enjoy enjoying movies, do not, I repeat DO NOT read reviews before going to see the movie. Most reviews seem to be done by people who are just bitter that they couldn't actually make it into the business themselves. Having read those reviews the feeling carries with you into the viewing.
I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
I know Adams wrote the damned character- the problem is that it fit so poorly into the story- it was not funny in the slightest- he looked rather stupid, etc.
Most important of all, however, is that just because Adams wrote it does not make it funny or a good idea. Adams had a lot of bad ideas- most were discarded before being thrown in an audiences face. Unfortunately I believe Adams died before he could cull that scene or before he could rewrite it to make it interesting.
The radio series was brilliant. The books were brilliant. The TV show was pretty good. But this? This movie was awful. Period.
As for LOTR- I loved it. I've read just about everything Tolkien wrote and consider myself to be a fan. When I saw the movie my only complaint was that when Frodo had the ring on and was invisible it looked like a bad Photoshop effect. That was my only real complaint. I recognized the difficulty in bringing such a work to the screen. I understood just how much story there was to tell and how little time Jackson had to tell it.
The problem with H2G2 is that it is not funny and it felt like I was watching any number of stupid Disney comedies. All it needed was Will Ferrell playing Zaphod. (Holy shit- I just read the rest of the IMDB trivia and found out that he was considered for Zaphod. Christ if that isn't damning enough I do not know what else is.)
-sirket
Sounds like you should have heeded their warnings.
Not quite sure what you mean.
I'm not gay, if that's what you're getting at. I just think it's a shame to see people so clouded by nonsensical religious bigotry that they'd condemn kids to be raised without any parents at all rather than gay ones.
I do miss religion and the comforts that it brought. I liked singing in church, I liked feeling like I would go to heaven when I died, I liked the sense of purpose and mission my life had.
But it's all lies. Comfortable, well-meaning lies, but also hurtful, destructive lies, too. I just couldn't stand it. Better to know the truth, even if it isn't what you want to hear, than to waste your life. I'm glad I'm a scientifically-minded geek who can appreciate the numinous in this universe without having to also believe in a white-bearded old man who condemns every human being who doesn't follow his bizarre, evil rules to an eternity of torture and suffering.
The god of the Bible is horrendous, a mass murderer, a child murderer. It's funny how Christians are honest enough to condemn someone like Susan Smith for drowning her two children, but can't bring themselves to acknowledge that, if their beliefs about the Biblical flood are true, then Jehovah murdered thousands of children by drowning.
Anyway.
My point in all this was just to say to the parent poster that, yes, there are a lot of people being raised by religious fanatics, and some of them actually are geeks.