Hitchhiker's Guide, coming in May

[Brother None]

It's ridiculous to complain about the Arthur-Trillian romance. There were a few hints at this in other incarnations of the series, and it's perfectly natural to want to flesh it out for a movie. The bottom line is that Adams wrote it in...who are we to argue with the guy who created this whole thing?

Yes, he created the first book, and the second one was good too, first half of the third one too. The rest sucked ass. But wait, I can't say that because the guy created the whole thing!

As I said above, some time ago, Nabokov sucked at translating his English works back into his mother tongue (though, to be fair, English was really his mother tongue) Russian. He was a great writer. Are we supposed to call his sucky translations great because, hey, he created the whole thing?

Same difference. Adams could suck balls at writing scripts, that has nothing to do with his book-writing talents.

No, I've not seen the film yet, but this attitude always strike me as stupid and zombie-esque. No, "he created the whole thing" doesn't mean he has the right to destroy it and expect people to be pleased either. We say the same of book or tv series that continue too long, why not about a book translated to film? He has the right to rape it, it's his, nobody has the right to order people not to complain just because he made it himself, though

It reminds me of that story; a writer sits in on a lecture on his own world-famous book. At the end of the lecture he stands up.

"I'm sorry, I don't agree with your interpretation," he says.

"Who are you?" the college professor asks.

"I'm the author," the author states.

"And what makes you think," the college professor replies, "that that gives you any right to interpret the book?"

QED.

 

[Tannhauser]

Right, I just came back from it, my verdict: don't waste your money.

*Spoilers ahead*

If you want a sense of it, here is the last spoken joke in the movie:
They are heading off towards the Restaurant at the End of the Universe, and Marvin tells them that they are heading towards the wrong end. So we have A.) A tired joke that was only slightly humorous at the best of times, and B.) Complete ignorance of the subject material.

At another point, Marvin thinks the command "Freeze" is aimed towards him, so he retorts (with rapier wit indeed) "I'm a robot, not a refrigerator."

On the other hand, classic lines have been butchered. When Arthur is told that the plans for the bypass were on display, he simply says "In the basement." Which kills the joke (no one else in the theater found it funny either).

Zooey Deschanel, the actress who plays Trillian, is simply annoying (I can't figure out if she was trying to act). The romance is over-played, it's not confined to a minor part of the story, it takes up far too much time (and a awkward shower scene).

They never explain the importance of towels, so Ford comes off as a towel fetishist.

Sam Rockwell is all wrong as Zaphod Beeblebrox, not funny except in a slapstick manner. They never bother to tie up the lose end about Beeblebrox giving his second head to Humma Kavula, who only existed so they could find the Point-Of-View gun anyway.

There were a few funny moments, but they don't redeem the movie. It seems to be created solely for the lowest-common-denominator.

I'm quite angry that I wasted six dollars on such a load of tripe.

Go see Kung Fu Hustle instead, now that was entertaining.

Edit: Well, obviously this post was rushed. I think that it captures my anger, or now that I have time to reflect and recreate my message anew; that I can't be bothered.

 

[SimpleMinded]

just back from the movie, and it was pretty good. Not GREAT, not bad. It was weird though, for a while, the movie seemed almost to be identical to the book which actually kind of bored me as I read the book in anticipation of the movie. I guess I should have expected similarities but to hear the same lines repeated was pretty weird. About halfway through the movie makes some DRASTIC redirections on the book throwing in whole new planets and various other odds and ends. Some of these were great and funny, others fell flat.

I noticed that at times, the movie seemed to be trying too hard and the actors were staying almost too true to the dialog of the book that they couldn't really make it their own. Likewise, some lines just seem to work better when read and not heard out loud. However, as a whole I wasn't really disappointed. The book was better but the movie was interesting in it's own right. And Marvin the manicly depressed robot was perfect.

 

[Montez]

It reminds me of that story; a writer sits in on a lecture on his own world-famous book. At the end of the lecture he stands up.

"I'm sorry, I don't agree with your interpretation," he says.

"Who are you?" the college professor asks.

"I'm the author," the author states.

"And what makes you think," the college professor replies, "that that gives you any right to interpret the book?"

QED.

They have a similar joke in the movie "Back To School" - Rodney Dangerfield needs to write an essay on Vonnegut, so he hires Vonnegut to do it. The essay gets an F.

Anyway, as to HHGTG, I just got home from it. My recommendation - if you're a fan of the books you should see it, just because you're a fan of the book and you know that you HAVE to see it. But keep in mind that it's just an average movie.

It's main flaw is that it just wasn't very funny. Part of it might have been that I've read the books so many times that they aren't really going to raise a laugh anymore, but mostly it's just that it was poorly directed. The dialogue was horribly paced and spoken, so much so that most of the jokes didn't come across as jokes. Punchlines got drowned out by the background music. To add to that, they removed all the funniest lines from the books but kept the lines that were just worth a little chuckle the first time you read them. The few times I did laugh were caused by things that definitely weren't in the book and were definitely more visual jokes, which makes me think that the screenplay just wasn't really good. It might have read well, but it just wasn't good on screen. Or it could just be poor direction.

Everything else about the movie could have been overlooked if it was funny, but as is you can't help but notice them. Mos Def seemed like he was lost, like he didn't really know who or what his character was supposed to be, though that might be the fault of the director. Rockwell and Freeman were ok, but again, the dialogue was too badly paced for me to say they were really good. I was too in love with Zooey Deschanel to be able to say whether she was good as Trillian or not. The exposition and narrative were pretty bad, and I'm pretty sure that everyone who hadn't read the books a dozen times had no clue what the hell was going on.

To sum it up - it felt like there really were fans of the books behind the movie and that they really wanted it to be great, but they just didn't have the ability to execute it. I'm disappointed, but I don't feel like I wasted my money - it was an ok movie, and I like Adams enough that even a flawed film of his book is still enjoyable.

 

[MrSmileyFaceDude]

Awful movie.

Good points:
- The Guide entries
- The Magrathea factory floor
- ummm...

Bad points:
- Zaphod's supposed to be the coolest frood in the galaxy, not a complete idiot.
- Malkovich's character ended up beingcompletely pointless -- they kind of dropped that plotline completely, except for GETTING the P.O.V. gun.
- Diverged a bit TOO far from the book. While that's not usually something that bothers me, the changes they made just didn't seem to fit for some reason.
- Pacing was horrible. This was the director's first motion picture, and it showed. Most every joke fell flat.
- I'm a fan of Sam Rockwell's, but he was underutilized. I blame the writers totally messing up Zaphod's character.
- The soundtrack is awful. I liked the opening musical number, but what's up with that Looney Tunes soundtrack?
- The movie COMPLETELY misses the point of Adams' humor. HHGTG is absurd, not silly. It's not supposed to be a zany random cartoon. It's supposed to be "smart" humor, not lowest common denominator slapstick.
- Easter eggs. Yeah, that was the TV series Marvin in the queue on Vogsphere, but you really don't need to show him several times for as long as you did. That sort of thing if present should be subtle, in the background, not waved blatantly in our faces. WE GET IT.

I think that the main thing is that I felt the movie insulted the viewer's intelligence, which is something the books, radio show and even the TV show NEVER did.

For me, the original cast BBC radio show remains the best HHGTG experience.

 

[Bradylama]

Zaphod's supposed to be the coolest frood in the galaxy, not a complete idiot.

That's kinda the point. He is a complete idiot because he's the coolest frood in the galaxy.

I think that the main thing is that I felt the movie insulted the viewer's intelligence, which is something the books, radio show and even the TV show NEVER did.

Its ironic then that in a small-town theater filled to the brim that me and my friends were the only people who laughed at the jokes.

I was satisfied with the movie because its one of the few legitimately funny films I've seen in years. Or maybe I'm secretly retarted, and jokes about miscalculations of scale and the probability of improbability are lowest-common-denominator.