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.'"

27 of 539 comments (clear)

  1. My review by a3217055 · · Score: 4, Informative

    I watched it, it was pretty funny. But then I watched it by myself, and I remember laughing so hard to the show on radio and smiling after reading the boook. But I did not laugh as much.
    Don't know why...

    1. Re:My review by AlXtreme · · Score: 5, Funny

      That is just so... depressing

      --
      This sig is intentionally left blank
    2. Re:My review by gaijin99 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I thought the movie was actually pretty good. What many people keep forgetting is that the book itself falls flat in the last half. Seriously, how long has it been since you read the book? Go back and read it again and you'll discover that once they get to Megrathea it really isn't that funny, amusing yes, but hardly *funny* the way some of the earlier bits are.

      As for the movie itself, it really is quite good. The casting is wonderful, especially the man they got to play Zaphod. And the bits where the Guide is used are truly great.

      The movie wasn't really all that funny towards the end, but neither was the book so I can't complain on that note.

      --
      "Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
    3. Re:My review by shawb · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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
  2. Reviews don't matter here by TheoGB · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well I don't think they do. It's got so much crap to carry round to live up to that you just can't begin to know if you'll like it.

    I hope to see it this weekend and, as long as it's about as good as the TV version (which I wasn't a fan of), I'll be happy I guess.

    Of course, if it's slapstick city I may have real trouble taking it and will feel cheated of my tenner!

  3. contradiction by FidelCatsro · · Score: 5, Insightful
    he 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.'"
    Is it just me .. or does that statment sort of contradict itself.
    One of the main things I enjoy about Douglas Adams works is the humor .
    To be faithfull to his legacy i would say that you need to capture the "Funny" parts aswell as the other aspects , and the humor is pretty much one of the main aspects .
    --
    The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    1. Re:contradiction by Monkelectric · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I just got out of a screening about an hour ago. Let me advance another theory. The books simply aren't that good. Most of the books humor is based on long and winding asides, and almost no story telling. I'm not saying the douglas books are bad, just that people idolize them as some example of perfection and they're not. People do the same thing with Star Wars and it drives me nuts :)

      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

    2. Re:contradiction by Mike1024 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Is it just me .. or does that statment sort of contradict itself.
      One of the main things I enjoy about Douglas Adams works is the humor.


      Well, the 'not all that funny' criticism falls into two categories:

      1) Removed jokes, for instance the planning permission on the bottom of a filing cabinet in a locked underground toilet with a sign saying 'beware of the leopard' on the door. This is justifiable in a way; it simply wouldn't be practical to put everything from the books into the film.

      2) Dry humour delivered in silence. For instance, 'do you know how much damage would be caused to this bulldozer if I let it run over you? / No / None at all'. It's funny. But no-one is laughing. I don't know how to fix that; it might be a problem with the film medium for this type of humour. A laughter track, for instance, would be shite.

      Soooooooo.... what's my opinion? Well, it's a competently made movie. It's well cast, it has decent graphics, it has it's amusing moments. I would classify it as 'ok to good'. I would have classified the book as 'good to very good, tending towards the latter'. So no, I didn't think it was as good as the book, but it was ok. Nothing like as bad as that first review on slashdot made out.

      7 out of 10 from me.

      Michael

      --
      "Goodness me, how unlike the FBI to abuse the trust of the American public." -- The Onion
    3. Re:contradiction by LordLucless · · Score: 4, Informative

      Which is exactly why I like Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency more than Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, and recommend it to all me DNA-less friends before HHGTTG.

      Dirk Gently is still funny, has less of the absurdist asides, has a plot, and one that is funny in its own right, has a bit of character development, and even inspires the occasional emotion apart from humour in the reader. And I like some Coleridge's poetry too :)

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
  4. Reviews Mostly Positive by gad_zuki! · · Score: 4, Informative

    over at rotten tomatoes

    Currently 62% positive

  5. book to movie by timmarhy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    the problem i think is so many people have read the book and have their own idea of how things will look, everyones will be different, which is why it's so hard to please everyone when you adapt a popular book to tv/movie

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
  6. Re:Well... by shawb · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  7. Saw it Friday by FuturePastNow · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  8. I love the movie! by Buster+Chan · · Score: 5, Informative

    The early eighties TV version is a great three-and-a-half hour videotape, the radio version is a great nine hours ... soon to be thirteen hours. The books are a great couple of weeks. The old DC comics version was apt. And the movie is a wonderful way to spend the afternoon. Having experienced the other versions, the new film was a welcome addition to the Douglas Adams canon, in my opinion. I loved the new episode with regards to the Church of the Arkelseisure, because that Perspective Gun was a wonderful literary tool which allowed screenwriter Douglas Adams to have his characters learn things which they otherwise would have learned through bulky dialogue. As for dialogue, the movie had a good mix of "novel dialogue" and "movie dialogue". "Novel dialogue" is bulky, wheras "movie dialogue" is short and to the point, and the film had a good mix indeed.

    I've enjoyed the other versions, and so I found it very simple to enjoy the new version.

    They must make four sequels.

    P.S. Bring a pair of "red and blue" 3D glasses. As the starship Heart of Gold arrives at the planet Magrathea, the crew is greeted by a holographic recording. That recording is only a minute long; however, it's in 3D. You need a pair of "red and blue" 3D glasses in order to properly enjoy that minute of film. This is not a spoiler; it's an enhancer.

    --
    "I am a fictional character."
  9. Moderate: Unfunny by rufusdufus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Moderate: Unfunny by porcupine8 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      There's a IRC chat in bash.org, where a guy got fired for accidently putting Bibles in the fiction section.

      Hm. The only thing I could find was this:

      i got kicked out of barnes and noble once for moving all the bibles into the fiction section

      I'd be pissed and kick him out too. Do you know how much extra work that makes for the employees, who have better shit to do than clean up after someone trying to be "clever"?

      I had to go and search for myself, because your version sounded highly unlikely. In most bookstores, Bibles get their very own (rather large) section - there's no way an employee could accidentally put them in fiction any more than they could accidentally put a dictionary in fiction.

      --
      Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
  10. I've just seen it last night by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And to be honest its not to bad at all. Yes some of the British comedy tone was toned down, but it was still rather funny. It managed to get a good couple of belly laughs from the audiance, including me.

    Good points, marvin was spectacular and outdid the original TV series' version. Zaphod Beeblebrox was outstanding and the true extent of his ego bleeds off the screen (flamebait comment, to be honest I think only an American could pull off the cheesy grin and un-abashed ego... sorry :P). The extended usage of the vogons was quite amusing and they made great bad guys. There are some bits that will make the geek in you go "ooh ooh ooh!" and point excitedly although I wont go into detail as to spoil it.

    Bad points are I'm a bit hmmmm about Ford, Trillian and Arthur though. Ford really didnt create any sort of major screen prescence and as such became a rather minor character with a penchant for towels. Trillian, whilst great at the start of the film, seamed to get relegeted to damsel in distress/love interest (standard hollywood crap). And Arthur... well hes was quite good for most of the film but I suppose I miss the orginal TV version which sticks in my mind as the definative Arthur Dent.

    I suppose the worst aspect of the film is that yes, some of the great witty dialogue is missing. Its not all gone but a lot of the classic lines are trimmed. I quite missed the original lines regarding the babel fish proveing that god did not exist and the very funny bit about the plans being on display (the shortend "I had to go downstairs", made no sense on screen).

    In all I would recommend people go see it, it gets a bit shakey before the middle but still provides a good homage to Adams' legacy.

  11. I always knew... by tekrat · · Score: 4, Funny

    I always knew there was something fundamentally wrong with the universe. -- Arthur Dent.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  12. Angst does not go well with Hitchhiker's by tehanu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The major problem I had with the movie is that it adds angst and sentimentality to the plot. Note, this is very stereotypical *Hollywood* angst and sentimentality and you can practically predict the lines so it's not particularly good angst and sentimentality either. Note I am a girl and I devour trashy romance novels and love chick flicks. However, there are situations where putting this sort of stuff in just simply doesn't really work (esp. when it is so badly written). Basically you sit through the movie. Funny scene. Laugh. Angst, romance, talking (all badly done) get bored. Funny scene - laugh. Angst, romance, talking - bored. Oh let me predict what lines they are going to say next. Wow, I got it right. How amazing (sarcasm). Funny scene - laugh. Etc. etc. Though I suspect the funny scenes were funny because I already read the book as they do seem to cut a lot of stuff out...

    The other problem is Ford Prefect, Mr. Sarcasm in the originals is practically a non-entity and not especially funny when he does exist.

    I loved Zaphod though :)

  13. Re:Well... by betelgeuse-4 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  14. Re:Why the need for a movie? by vistic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Agreed. The magic of this story was always in the dialogue... using great special effects to add a sense of wonder (like the Magrathean construction floor) doesn't do much for the story. Looks cool... but zooming by planets just makes the audience go "oooh" and "ahhh" and that time should have been spent making them laugh their butts off.

  15. Re:Why the need for a movie? by torpor · · Score: 4, Interesting

    its as if you have no awareness whatsoever of this concept called 'a generation'.

    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 .. if they liked the movie enough, they feel compelled to read the book.

    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. --
  16. STAY AFTER CREDITS!!!! by madaxe42 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Stay and watch the credits - about 3 or 4 minutes into them there are some bonus scenes from the guide!

  17. Re:Better with the books by Bozzio · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Personally, I thought it was very well adapted.

    As expected, I didn't see ALL the gags from the book, but I'm happy to say at least they cut the less funny ones instead of the good ones. You can't really expect everything from the book to be in the movie. As you know, I'm sure, a great deal of the book's charm is in the wording of the narration. Converting the narration's humour to movie format without over narrating is definitely hard, and I for one think they did a great job.

    I will agree, however, that I didn't expect Marvin to look that way. I also didn't expect Zaphod to look that way either, but his character was great!

    Also, in the credits, the BBC is thanked for providing the original Marvin suit from the TV series. I haven't watched the series yet, but is that how Marvin looked? That could be a good explanation.

    Anyway.. there were differences from the book, but they were well done. For example, Ford showing up at the beginning with a cart full of beer. At first I was worried the pub scene would be cut, but it wasn't, and it tied in well! I actually preferred how this scene played out.

    Sadly, they DID cut out the Narrator's explanation of how Ford picked his name.. BUT they still managed to fit in how Ford thought cars were the dominant species of earth. Precious!

    Overall, the movie is pretty damn close to the book. The changes are warranted, and still pretty damn funny. On the down side, I can see how a lot of the plot and humour would be harder to catch if you hadn't read the book(s).

    I still give it 3 thumbs up.

    --
    I just pooped your party.
  18. Loved the movie, though I never read the books by ranson · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  19. Generation? by Jonathan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    believe it or not, but there are some people who did not grow up reading books.

    As there has always been.

    there are a generation or two, or three, of people who do not read books.

    No. If anything, books seem to be on a rebound. Twenty years ago outside of big cities the only bookstore one would likely find would be a Waldenbooks mostly selling Garfield comics. Now you can hardly throw a stone and not hit a Borders or a Barnes and Noble. And they really sell some stuff for literati -- stuff like the Loeb and I Tatti Libraries can actually be found in the sticks these days. And of course there's the bookseller Amazon.com. practically the only dot-com that didn't go belly up...

  20. Yes, Zaphod is supposed to seem Stupid by drivers · · Score: 4, Informative
    from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Chapter 12:

    One of the major difficulties Trillian experience in her relationship with Zaphod was learning to distinguish between him pretending to be stupid just to get people off their guard, pretending to be stupid because he couldn't be bothered to think and wanted someone else to do it for him, pretending to be outrageously stupid to hide the fact that he actually didn't understand what was going on, and really being genuinely stupid.


    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.

    He was a Jatravartid. The narrator pretty much read the first chapter of The Restaurant at the End of the Universe including the whole "in the beginning the Universe was created" bit. (I thought the Ah-choo; Bless You line was hilarious.) They obviously wanted to draw on that background matierial to create a new location and background to create an alternate plot. (Every version of H2G2 has a slightly different plot.) Of course you don't know that the whole gun thing does come into the plot in a very funny moment involving Marvin, but you wouldn't know that because you walked out of the #$@!%@ movie.

    I've heard stories about people walking out of movies. I really have to question their ability to enjoy life.