Genres

Visitors Review

theartinyourself 2012-05-25 20:40:21

A cure for all depression - a rave review of my new favourite film!

I have just come back from seeing this film for the second time - thefirst time I have EVER done this for a film. Now I'm not one to commitmyself to 'favourite things'.. but this is by far and easily myfavourite movie yet! I have read the books, although not recently, andmy boyfriend listens to the radio ones on CD, so I have a fair idea ofthe rest, but I have to say I love this film for pretty mucheverything.. so I shall tell you why! Cause my boyfriend's fed up ofhearing about it so! Firstly, the song... oh my god the song!! I cannotget it out of my head, but I absolutely adore it! Especially thewonderful little dolphin in the middle. Secondly, the factory floor ofMagrathea - as soon as they emerge into this space my face resemblesArthur's, but with far more of a smile! It just totally blows my mind,but in a way I can't quite figure out why! And then the final sequence,with all the wonders of the earth - also makes me smile, and for once,love this sorry old planet/country we live on! For, also, it must benoted that the sequence is not full of things that are from tropicalislands, etc etc, but is full of English, basic wonderful things. (andthis all comes from someone who's really rather cynical and bitter forher grand 20 years!) I think the whole film in fact has a lot to givetowards the Brit friendly factor - it's chosen a fair few actors whoare very telling of our time, and really fitting for it as well (HelenMirren, Stephen Fry, Alan Rickman, Martin Freeman, Bill Nighy (althoughhe was slightly miscast perhaps!)) and the whole collaboration seems tobe full of people who are genuinely enjoying making the film and loveit for everything it is. Also - Marvin. Just.. Marvin... I cried whenhe 'died' even though I knew he wasn't dying. That's another thing,although leaving me with this endless smile afterwards, there's thiswonderful way they have of twisting your emotions - like with the Pointof View Gun and Trisha.. that I realised on second viewing has a lot todo with the music. (So I've now got the soundtrack) - and I think inthe factory floor and earth sequence scenes this is also a big effect.Look, all in all, I'm raving mad about this film, will probably go andsee it again, and recommend it as an absolute cure for any manicallydepressed robots (or humanoids!!) "If I had but one last wish...."

chunuk_bair 2012-05-25 00:55:56

Could Have Been So Much More

Let your reviewer first point out that he has not actually read thebook the movie is based on. From memory, he did read it from a libraryabout fifteen years ago, but it did not make enough of an impression toeither buy or remember much from. Therefore any changes from the bookto the movie, as have been mentioned in other reviews, will not bedissected below.There is something about the British sense of humour, almost anarchic,that is so different to the overwhelming Hollywood version of thephrase. Only the Brits could have done Monty Python, the Goodies, andthe Young Ones. Or, as in this movie, created a depressed robot, madegalactic elections as bouncy, peppy and cheesy as the Eurovision SongContest, and make poetry reading a form of torture.The acting is pretty good as well, with Martin Freeman as Arthur Dentdoing a suitably bemused person who has just had his planet destroyed,being changed into all sorts of things in hyperspace due to theimprobability drive, Mos Def and Sam Rockwell are great as drinkingbuddies Ford Prefect and pompous Galactic President, and Alan Rickmanprovides further comedic relief. Zooey Deschanel as Trillian doesn'tget much beyond wide eyed pretty though, and I am not sure why JohnMalkovich was called in to play such a minor, almost cameo, role.The main gripe with Hitchhiker's though is that although it doescertain parts of itself well, it doesn't seem to be able to pull thestrands together to provide any sort of central core to the movie thatmost audiences would care about. The comedy, good in parts, is patchyoverall, the sci fi is covered by well we are in space and there arealiens around, and the romance, what there is of it, underwhelms therest of the movie.If you want British sci fi comedy at its best, rent or buy Red Dwarf.What could have been Monty Python does Star Wars tries to cover toomany bases and loses at most of them. Much more a typical popcorn moviethan should have been expected.

lord_bifrons 2012-05-24 02:21:12

I voted 10 before seeing the film (wishful thinking).

I'll make this brief. My previous vote is now in reference to the book.I give the movie a 3 to represent the small parts I enjoyed. Oh OK andextra half point for another part I just remembered. I was very upsetby the destruction or omission of many of the great lines from thebook. Disney should be banned from making movies. There are plenty ofwell written bad reviews out there. I like how the email ads I receivedfor this contained imaginary reviews by imaginary film critics. Thisfilm was a certifiable train wreck that horribly disfigured some greatcharacters. What would make a great movie would be an angry mob of fansmarching on Disney (pitchforks and torches in hand) while theabominable snowman plays a violin atop a burning Matterhorn.

paultp 2012-05-23 14:37:29

Mostly Harmless

Now this film will polarise people as there are those who say it wasgood and reflects what Douglas Adams was after and people like me whowere disappointed. Now that is weird as having just read his biography,I would suggest that even he did not quite know what he wanted. So whatis good about the film? Well the effects are brilliant especially themaking of earth. Marvin's revenge on the Vogons is brilliant and,theportrayal of the Vogons is also great and reminds me of our ownwonderful bureaucracy. I have met people like that. What about theplot? Well the story has been tightened and condensed and has abeginning and an end and a very passé type of ending. One should notexpect all the minutia that was present in the books, radio show or TVproduction and you won't be disappointed as you don't get it! Mores thepity as I think that was one of the crucial elements. No matter howtight the situation was one would get a lengthy excerpt from the book,most of which was useless but it screamed out to you "Don't Panic!" Thelack of reference to the guide is a major flaw and without it takingprominence one might easily rename the film "Arthur's big day out."Overall the film takes itself a little too seriously and just does nothave the zing I think typified the work of Douglas Adams. The actorsplayed their roles with varying degrees of credibility. Arthur was nearto great. I don't think he quite got the whingeing character across,but he was the reluctant hero who at least in the film comes up trumps- bit trite though. Ford, well the Prefect was not perfect, in fact hewas woeful. He seemed totally disinterested in the whole thing. GoodGod he is supposed to be a well traveled young alien researching thiszany guide. I suppose from the way he is portrayed here you canunderstand how his only contribution to the guide was " mostlyharmless." Zaphod, well forget him. The two heads were done well butthe character came across as dull, boring and of course stupid. Butmostly stupid, too stupid for my taste and I wanted to fast forward hisinane bits. He was just DULL. Trillion, was OK and the role exploredher a bit focusing on a person trying to find herself. A brilliant mindin a pretty good body. Love my mind or love my body? A slightlydifferent portrayal than the previous one, but perhaps a bit deeper. Ido think Adams would have approved. Lastly Marvin. Well what can I say,it is so depressing , brain the size of a planet and can't act. It wasgood to see a cameo role by you know who, pity he was too expensive toreprise the role fully as that was excruciatingly depressing. SoMarvin, fair, but could have had us all reaching for razor blades toslash our wrists. Oh the narrator, spot on for the very small part heplayed in this production. So long and thanks for all the fish.Flipper.

antgrey 2012-05-23 17:52:23

A trip to nowhere

I am NOT a Hitchhiker nut. I HAVE read all the books, heard all therecordings and seen the TV series though and I thought they were amongthe funniest and most original stuff I have ever read, heard or seen.This movie however was a total disappointment.The meandering, pointless and ultimately uncompleted story line. Thetotal over use of effects. The utter waste of acting talent. A realstinker of the very first order. Most of all it simply wasn't funny.Not all, in any way.The essential 'Englishness' of the plot (petty officialdom, fussingover tea, trying to make sense of a world gone mad etc.) wasnon-existent and the characters were not even slightly explained orfleshed out - the entire premise of Hitchikers was based on itscharacters.There are so many faults it's depressing. This was an ego exercise thatflopped badly. A total non-event and a complete waste of time, moneyand talent. What a pathetic and lamentable legacy for one the mosttalented writers of modern times.Avoid it like the plague.

james_anderson_c2_ 2012-05-22 22:58:45

I would recommend you go Hitch Hiking!

YOU MUST SEE THIS FILM IF YOU HAVE A SENSE OF HUMOUR! ESPECIALLY SO FORTHOSE WITH AN English SENSE OF HUMOUR!OK, so it may not have that stellar cast that all the newspapers loveto cover. But then again, they are only in the spotlight due to theirfame. Fame is not necessarily proportional to the ability of theindividual to act (just in case you haven't noticed). (If you wish tohave this point expanded see the Reduced Shakespeare Company.) So whatI'm really saying is go and see this one because it will at the veryleast entertain you for an hour or so. At the most you'll be smilingfor the next week or more! (Just in case your wondering I VERY rarely give anything 10 out of 10.)

2012-05-16 06:45:20

Surprisingly Good

Thankfully, the film remains quite faithful to the spirit of Adams' book. For example, all of the Guide entries are taken verbatim from it. The massive budget results in a great looking movie that properly captures the scope and scale of the story. There is extensive use of CGI to recreate intergalactic space travel and the planet showroom inside of Magrathea (some of the film's most arresting visuals), but this is mixed with old school, reliable rubber costumes for creatures like the Vogons that gives them a texture that you just can't get with computers. This movie is light years ahead of the clunky BBC version which resembled a bad-looking episode of Dr. Who.The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy may not have done well in North America because it lacked recognizable A-list movie stars (but then again, neither did the original Star Wars) with decidedly British sense of humour. Sadly, it failed to connect on a mass audience level despite a significant marketing push. Regardless, it is still an entertaining, big, splashy science fiction movie that manages to preserve the wit of Adams' book. So long now and thanks for all the fish."Making of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" is a fairly standard making of featurette. Not surprisingly, director Garth Jennings said that the key to this movie was in the casting. So, he gathered an eclectic group of actors.Also included is an "Additional Guide Entry" which faithfully recreates the gag from the book about man proving that God doesn't exist but then it fails to include the book's punchline in which man goes on to prove that black is white and gets killed at the next zebra crossing.There are three deleted scenes that amount to merely extra little bits that include Ford's update entry for Earth as "Mostly harmless."There are also two "Really Deleted Scenes" that are basically goofy outtakes of the cast hamming it up."Sing Along `So Long and Thanks for All the Fish" allows you to sing with the film's catchy Monty Python-esque theme song cum show tune karoake-style.There is an audio commentary by Jennings, producer Nick Goldsmith and actors Martin Freeman and Bill Nighy. It's a fun, relaxed track as everyone enjoys themselves watching the movie.Fans of the book will enjoy the additional commentary track with executive producer Robbie Stamp and Douglas Adams colleague Sean Solle. They talk about the movie in relation to Adams' original vision and also speak at length about the differences between the film, the video game, the radio play and the book, justifying the reasons for certain changes. Best of all, Stamp points out the little details that are buried throughout the film in this excellent track.There is "Marvin's Hangman," that allows you to play a variation of the hangman word game but with Marvin's robot parts.The extras included on the DVD are done in the style and tone of the movie, including a clever feature known as the "Improbability Drive" that will take you to a completely random moment in one of the extras.

2012-05-16 00:54:27

great

enjoyed the movie a lot. It was true to the spirit of the book. A must have for any collection

Tdogg5830 2012-05-06 20:18:16

Mostly awful! Well alright, completely awful!

I was so excited about this movie when I first heard about it. FinallyDouglas Adams will be able to rest in peace, how wrong i was. Douglasmust be spinning in his grave. These are the worst things about thismovie: The acting was rubbish with the actors looking like they werebored. in particular Mos Def who ruined the brilliant character of FordPrefect. Stephen Fry was a nice choice for the narrator and Zaphod wasquite funny but thats it. The best dialogue from the book was cut out,the new character (played by John Malcovich)and the story that wentwith it was poor including Trillian being captured and Zaphods secondhead being sawn off. Marvin, I dare say was just plain bad with AlanRickman sounding like he wasn't actually interested in doing the voice.Not to mention they made him look like this cute little thing. Too muchinformation was crammed at you without pausing for breath and leavingyou confused. I was confused within the first half an hour let alonebored! And I'm a huge fan of the books and the T.V series. I neverrealised how great the T.V show was until I saw this movie. To behonest there was one thing about this movie which was great and itlasted 5 seconds. This was the short cameo from the original Marvinfrom the T.V show. I tell a lie. They used the theme music from the T.Vshow which was a nice touch.I honestly wouldn't see this movie. Its like listening to Vogan poetry,you will be forced to gnaw your own leg off just to survive!

Joe 2012-05-06 02:03:29

Poor, boring and unfunny... loves itself too much..

This film simply is for those guys who think that Terry Pratchett ishilarious... Very unit, ridiculous and very boring, extreme upperEnglish English comedy at its worst... Tim from the office is the onlysaving grace (although Marvin steals every scene he is in), with onlyKelly McDonald's short cameo as a newsreader (ahhhh!) saving the dayfor me.still avoid this movie, would have given it a 1/10 if it weren't forKelly McDonald, but regardless rest of the film is pants.... If youwant better Sci-fi humour then watch Red Dwarf (just hope they don'tdare do some remake of it in 20 years times).

calico_demon 2012-05-05 02:45:41

Oh dear....

So disappointing....Having been first a fan of the radio play, then a fan of the TV seriesand then a fan of the books, i have been looking forward to this filmsince i first heard it was being made. Last night, i made the trip tothe cinema and settled down with my popcorn and coke.And how i wished i had stayed at home and watched the telly.There is a lot of good things about this film. Some genius funnytouches and some 'spot-on' characterisations. But the film as a wholeis a HUGE let down.The good things: Slartibartfast - My favourite character in alladaptations of the story. And Bill Nighy is excellent.The Guide - Stephan Fry is excellent. And the clips from The Guide arevery funny Zaphod - very good. Just like I imagined him from the books.One-Liners - some of the jokes are very witty. Good, dry, Britishhumour.The let-downs: Arthur Dent - Okay. Not poor, not great, but OK. Mindyou, he was never my favourite character anyway.Ford Prefect - awful acting. Truly awful. Wooden as wooden gets.The film itself - So boring in the middle that i almost fell asleep.Not since 'Bad Boys' have i actually felt like leaving a cinema andfinding something else to do.I gave the film 6/10. Mostly because i liked some of the humour andcharacters. If you haven't read the books or seen the TV series, staywell away from this film. Without some prior knowledge you'll leave thecinema thinking "what on earth was that pile of poo?".

shattenjager777 2012-05-04 14:18:04

Some mistakes were definitely made with this, but it is still close enough to Adams to be great

"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" is my favorite novel everwritten. It may even be my favorite piece of literature in history (Iwould have trouble choosing between it and "Hamlet"). So, I watchedthis latest adaptation (since it began as a radio series and was lateradapted into every form of media known to man, though most know it onlythrough being a five-book "trilogy"--as Adams called it--of novels)with a mixture of fear and excitement. I feared it would be ruined,especially without the master himself there to watch over them; and yetI thought that especially with Adams having written the screenplay, ithad to capture at least some of the genius I had found in all ofAdams's work--from "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" to "DirkGently's Holistic Detective Agency" to "Last Chance to See."Thankfully, it was more the latter than the former case.The casting was hit-and-miss, with Sam Rockwell being a perfect choicefor Zaphod Beeblebrox (though he is unfortunately reduced to a jerkishmoron in the film where he was much more real and complex in the novelsand short story), Martin Freeman being a perfect choice for Arthur Dent(who became less bland in the film--moving a bit toward the patheticside), Zooey Deschanel being a terrible choice for one of the fewcharacters whose physical appearance is really described in detail inthe novel in Trillian (whom I found to be much weaker in the film andlacking the toughness that I enjoyed in her in the novels), Mos Defbeing a decent enough choice for a character who was completely unlikethe novel version in Ford Prefect (and we get very little of hischaracter in this film), and Alan Rickman having a perfect Marvin voicewhile the best actor in the film (the always-excellent andever-unnoticed Warwick Davis) was unfortunately hidden underneath theMarvin costume. Also notable, but for the reason of being terriblyannoying, was the performance of John Malkovich as Humma Kavula, whoseappearance in the film I find utterly worthless since the novel hasplenty of bits that could have been added to replace him. Thecharacters lost something of the three-dimensionality they had in thenovel form and thus the performances did not require much of the actorsexcept for Freeman, who had to play a surprisingly interesting versionof the novels' everyman Arthur Dent. However, I must point out that Iabsolutely love this vision of Marvin. While the novel does describehim as a new, shiny, silver robot and this vision doesn't fit that, itabsolutely suits the personality of the Paranoid Android--he has agigantic head ("brain the size of a planet"), which emphasizes hisintelligence and forces him to sort of walk with a permanent stoop thatis what one might expect from the personality prototype.I was happy to see that at least the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traalplayed a part in the film, since that is right next to the Babel Fishas proof of the non-existence of God as my favorite passage of thenovel, but, as was a sort of theme with this film, it went unexplained.They never explained that it was "a mind-bogglingly stupid creaturethat assumes if you can't see it, it can't see you." In much the sameway, the logic behind keeping track of one's towel is never explainedand Ford's logical method for getting Arthur away from the bulldozersis replaced with him bringing beer. Adams was a wacky writer, but let'snot deprive him of all intellectual merits, and those merits aregreatly reduced in this production, as evidenced by these changes andthe complete exorcism of all of the philosophical ponderings thatriddle the series. There was also an attempt to focus the film around astory more tightly--since Adams was definitely given to meanderings andtangents--which is understandable, but it is focused around a lovestory between Arthur and Trillian that Trillian quickly kills off inthe novel. Sometimes this story grows unbearable, such as in Arthur'sscene explaining that "the only question that has ever mattered" to himis "Is she the one? And the answer is yes," which is unbelievably triteand silly, though hilariously ended by the mice exclaiming, "What'swith all this 'is she the one' crap? Let's just take his brain!" Still,the film allowed for Douglas Adams's style to come through to someextent, using a few (though far too few for me) wonderful Guide entriesalong the way and telling some stories that little relate to what'sgoing on with our heroes. Although I must say that I found it very oddthe way this film managed to make the events of the final two novelsall but impossible to work on film and even those of "The Restaurant atthe End of the Universe" awkward, since it would seem sensible to setyourself up to be able to make a sequel. I also have to say that Iloved the fact that Marvin got to save the day at the end, since he hasalways been my favorite character.All in all, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" is abetter-than-expected film adaptation of what I would consider anunfilmable novel (since that is its best-known form) and even a littleof Douglas Adams's genius is enough to make a film more entertainingthan anything since at least "Big Fish" and most likely moreentertaining than anything that will follow for a long time. And thoseof us who loved Adams's work undoubtedly are happy just to see itappearing on the screen, especially when the film ends with a cardreading simply, "For Douglas." I just hope they don't try to make asequel completely without him.

Mark Tomlinson 2012-05-01 23:06:40

Fun Film

First, the bottom line - did I enjoy the film and consider it worth theprice of admission? Yes! My family and I thoroughly enjoyed ourselves.And we HAVE read the books.If you are looking for a semi-accurate retelling of what is in thebooks, you've set your expectations too high. The film takes the keyelements of the books and BBC mini-series and re-frames them for thebig screen. Gone are the jokes that take too long to explain to thesimple movie-goer. (Remember in the books when Arthur discovers thatthe Universe is all about him - because he accidentally stumbled into asimulation of the Universe earlier?) But in their place are new twistsof logic that the astute will have fun with. (Guess why the Vogans arethat way - the gag looks like slapstick, but explains Vogan evolutionif you are willing to pay attention). And the best parts are keptintact. (Remember the whale and the bowl of petunias?) And The Guide isthere, explaining in calm, twisted, and indisputable logic the workingsof this strange universe. The Guide is accompanied with wonderful,traffic sign style animation, where chunky stick figures gyrate, pullthe universe from a hat, and slump into sofas because "they never getinvited to those kinds of parties".But there were a few points I have to quibble with. Towels weretrivialized. Marvin had an inexplicable resurrection. But most of all,the movie suddenly ended with a Hollywood resolution. In fact, itactually appeared that Garth Jennings checked his watch and said, "Heyguys, let's wrap this up". There's a group hug and the rest is done inthe editing room out of left over footage.Still, the high points outweigh the low. You can't miss the musicalnumber at the beginning of the film. Almost any time The Guide explainssomething, be prepared to giggle. And there is at least one laugh outloud moment whenever the Improbability Drive is engaged.My hope is that the producer will clean up the ending before releasingit to DVD. But even so, I think Douglas Adams would be chuckling.

dshookowsky 2012-05-01 12:57:54

Just awful

This movie was terrible. Some people have pointed to discrepancies inthe various incarnations of The Guide, and claim that this is acontinuation of that process. Unfortunately, this is not the case. * Characters and their motivations have been completely changed. * The story is drastically different with only a few casual nods to theoriginal story. * Items from the original story that are included are not adequatelyexplained for those new to The Guide (e.g. Towels) * Jokes from the original story have been completely neutered. The setup is there, but they completely ignore the punchline.

Mikeonalpha99 2012-04-30 08:42:04

"Don't panic!"

Having grown up with the radio show, read the book at an early age, andthen seen the BBC television series, I was interested to see what theywould do with the feature film. Well, this movie version of HitchkikersGuide to the Galaxy is sort of a mixed bag.The film certainly romps along quite merrily, and there are plenty ofstrange characters, improbable, silly situations, and somespectacularly expensive special effects sequences. The producers havealso largely kept Douglas Adam's legacy pretty much intact. But itsgreatest fault is that it simply doesn't live up to the reputation thatpreceded it.The film also suffers the problem of familiarity. Those viewers whohave not read the book, or are not in some way familiar with the story,will probably be scratching their heads in bewonderment at the torrentof talk, much of it of an oblique and scientific nature, and all of itdelivered with a parched, dry, and insouciant British wit.The film is narrated by the guide book of the title (the voice ofStephen Fry), so director Garth Jennings can interject passages ofAdams' text, accompanied by amusing animation, into the plot'sintergalactic shenanigans. This actually works pretty well, and itdoesn't swamp and slow-down the pacing of the main story.One morning, Englishman Arthur Dent (Martin Freeman) wakes up to findthat his farmhouse in rural England is about to be bulldozed for afreeway. Up pops his pal Ford Prefect (Mos Def) to tell him to forgetabout it. Ford confesses that he is actually an alien, and he tellsArthur that his house doesn't matter anymore because Earth itself isabout to be demolished by the Vogons of the planet Vogsphere to makeway for an inter-space expressway.Just as the planet is about to explode, Arthur and Ford transportthemselves onto a Vogon spacecraft. The two escape only to have toplead for their lives with the commander of the Vogon Constructor Fleet(voice of Richard Griffiths), a gigantic rhinoceros-like creature inwhom Arthur discerns a poetic soul and a longing for love. This is thefirst of many tests and narrow escapes.Arthur and Ford are rescued from the Vogons by president of the galaxyZaphod Beeblebrox (Sam Rockwell), Earth's only other survivor, Trillian(Zooey Deschanel), and their maniacally depressed android, Marvin(voiced by Alan Rickman). Madcap adventures ensure as this mis-matchedgroup of outlaws wonder the galaxy, trying to escape from the Vogonarmy.But the group is also given a mission; they have to find "the meaningof life, the universe and everything," a search that takes them to avariety of different exotic planets. Some of the best of the BritishA-list actors fill the minor roles and voice-overs, particularly BillNighy as a planetary architect, Helen Mirren as the voice of DeepThought, a supercomputer whose task is to compute the meaning of life,Alan Rickman as the voice of Marvin, the terminally depressed robot,and John Malkovich as a shrewd, half-bodied religious leader.Rockwell is extravagantly narcissistic as two-headed Zaphod. Only Defis poorly cast; he just seems too small and inexperienced to play thedashing Ford. The brightest presence is the always-fresh ZooeyDeschanel, who has a light touch otherwise absent.The film is goofy and silly, and for the novice viewer probably totallymystifying. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is sometimes audaciousin its metaphysics, along with its attitudes towards religion,politics, and life.The consummate geeks will probably love it, and the loyal fans of thebooks in the series, will be left feeling mostly pleased with theoutcome, even though it doesn't quite measure up to the original sacredtext. The makers of "Hitchhiker's Guide" don't quite get it right, butthey don't exactly miss either. Mike Leonard September 05.

fearlesswarrior90 2012-04-30 00:02:30

The movie is funny, why do fans of the book have a problem with it?

I don't see why so many Douglas Adams fans have a problem with thismovie, yes I have read the books, yes I will admit the books arefunnier, the first three anyway, but you cannot say the movie is badbecause the screenplay was written by Douglas Adams. To say that themovie was stupid because it didn't follow the books exactly is dumb,Adams wanted to make a movie that would be funny to every one, and hewanted to add stuff to his creation. I give this movie 9/10 starsbecause it is funny. The acting is great, Mos Def makes great Ford. Theonly problem with the movie is the decision to have zooey deschanelplay trillian. She acts the same in every single scene, it getsannoying after a while. Alan Rickman was great choice for the voice ofmarvin, he did it perfectly. I do wish they would have drawn it out andeither made it longer or turned it into three movies. great movie, ifyou have the time get it, and then get the bbc version too.

douglasjeffreys 2012-04-28 09:56:24

Hugely disappointing

I finally worked myself up to rent the DVD Hitch hikers guide and wasjust as disappointed as I thought I'd be. The people who made thistripe where counting on the fact that there are many fans of the bookwho would want to see it made into a big budget movie. The BBCproduction although done on a BBC budget is head and shoulders abovethe movie. If you haven't read the book you can't make any sense out ofthe film. The original silliness and dark humor that wound it's waythrough all the books is just so much better than the smarmy movie andsappy love story sub-plot. save yourself a few bucks and your precioustime and stick to the books or try to find a copy of the BBCproduction. The producers of this movie should be ashamed ofthemselves. I guess I should have known something was wrong when theywaited till Douglas Adams was dead before finishing the film.

elvismonkey 2012-04-27 21:14:01

Wonderfully harmful

How does one turn a brilliantly written book into a movie withoutlosing the great writing of the original? Simple: just copy the bookdirectly into the screenplay.I saw this film on opening night, and the guy next to me was mouthinghalf of the dialogue. I hadn't read the book in 20 years, but stillrecognized half the material. Is this a good thing or a bad thing?Argument for good: Adams was wickedly clever, so the writing isfantastic. Argument for bad: Adams was wickedly dense, and much of thepleasure in his books came not from reading the sentences, but fromre-reading them, so when adapted for film, the excellent writing justcruises by too fast.More bad: Mos Def and Sam Rockwell stumble through their parts likethey'd never read Adams as teenagers. Also, after an excitingbeginning, the film starts to slow down a bit and never really picksback up.So why am i giving it an 8? Three reasons: 1. Even though it sails by very quickly, Adam's writing is simplybrilliant. There really is no writing in film like this. I imagine iwill enjoy it more each time i see it.2. Martin Freeman is the perfect Arthur Dent. I really can't imagineanyone else who could have captured Dent's simultaneous depression andawe. Freeman is going places.3. The opening musical montage is, by far, the most enjoyable fiveminutes i have ever spent in a movie theatre. I had never seen anaudience applaud the opening credits before.It's too bad Adams didn't live to see this, particularly the dolphinscene. So long, Doug, and thanks for all the mental fish.

misko14 2012-04-27 11:18:50

Didn't get it..

Sorry.. I didn't get the "briliance" of this movie.. The current rating(6.7 of 10) is an outrage considering what piece of garbage this movieactually is..I imagine that my "problem" is that I haven't read the book. This wouldmean that I wasn't able to tolerate the terrible acting, the chaoticplot, the silly special effects, the lousy scenery and a lot of othersad things they managed to accomplish here.I checked with my friends that also seen this over-hyped movie andtheir view is basically the same. None of them has read the book eitherso maybe it is some kind of freaky pre-condition to enjoy this film..Score: 1 of 10

lev_lafayette 2012-04-27 05:48:43

Not worth it.

Well, at least they didn't totally ruin it. One hardly needs more of a review other than: "The TV series was muchbetter." Seriously, go down to the video store and get the TV series.This movie is clearly derivative of the series, which is a good thing,but in terms of narrative flow, plot and depth of characterization* themovie just doesn't quite cut the grade. Oh, and the acting on the TVseries is better too (except for Zaphod who is brilliantly annoying).Significantly better. All this film has is a few more special effects and a cute introductorysong. And Zaphod. (Sorry, this is IMDb's required spelling, *sigh*)