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.'"
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.
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.
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
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. --
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.
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