I've found a review of the Hitchhiker's Guide Movie

[David Panzer]

Just to make things clear- I've been a fan of Douglas Adams since grade school when a friend of mine told me about The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. He was reading a copy of "So Long, and Thanks for all the Fish". Once I came home, I had my mom take me to a bookstore where I bought all 4 books in one swoop. Since then, I've purchased the books twice since they literally fell apart since I read them so much. I've seen the BBC TV series, which was done well for a budget that could only afford 1/2 of a single shoestring.

I saw the trailer for the movie 2 months ago, and was hooked. One of the sites I visit had a link for a review of the Hitchhiker's movie. I read the review which ruined my day and outlook for the movie. So much so, that I've lost all interest in seeing the movie.

Here's the link- http://planetmagrathea.com/shortreview.html

[Radhil]

OK, I tried reading the review (I've heard it's making the rounds before), and was following all along in stunned silence until I got to this bit...

- the film also suffers by having an entirely nonsensical plot. It is driven by convenience and unexplained happenings. Characters just happen to be where they need to be and have what they need to have, even if it makes no sense for them to be there or to have that.

... and now I'm wondering whether this guy is just a loon or has utterly selective memory that fanboys usually have. Because that sentence describes the book. TO THE LETTER. The book (and the rest of the Hitchiker's Guide series) hardly ever makes a coherent plot except to deliver a punchline. But now that it's a movie, it's bad.

And taken in that light, I have to wonder if his complaints about all the "removed lines" and "missing explanatory guide entries" just amount to the same sort of whining that Rings fanboys gave out when they heard Jackson took out Bombadil.

EDIT - And I swear I wrote that sentence before I scrolled down to the bottom and saw the very blatant link that says THINGS THAT AREN'T IN THE MOVIE.

[colonyearth]

I have no desire to read some ripped-off-copy-of-the-film-fanboy-wannabe-critic's poor sense of what a film is. Therefore, I didn't read any of this person's tripe.

I will go and see this film and be the judge of it myself. I can't wait.

CE

[Towelmaster]

Well CE; he was invited to the prescreening...

Having said that, I stumbled into this review myself the other day and I think he went over the top. Indeed, the original guide was not too coherent, that was something DNA tried to do afterwards. Also; several things have been changed since then, like mentioning PanGalactic Gargleblasters and ToWeLs...

So I reserve my judgement for after I've seen it myself. I do not expect to get the same kick out of the movie that I got from the radioplay anyway. I do suspect it will be less surprising after 25 years.

Oh, and I think Marvin is great! Want the screensaver etcetera ? www.hitchhikersmovie.com

[David Panzer]

Ok, after a full night's rest on it, I have decided to see the Hitchhiker's movie. I think it's just a hold-over I have from my Phantom Menace experience where I was looking forward to it, saw the movie, then went home and curled into the fetal position and cried myself to sleep.

On the website where this guy's review was, you can also read up more about him. While most of his work is related to Douglas Adams, he does have other writing credits to his name. So at the least, it's not like he's another fella who has created a blog on the internet. Since he's contributed articles to Fangoria, that's a plus in my book

[colonyearth]

I agree with Towelmaster and will reserve my judgement until I see it for myself.

Will it exactly be the book? or the radioplay? or the BBC mini? NO. I will go hoping it captures the spirit and zany british fun that Adams gave it. If it achieves that, then it will rock, no matter what's been changed.

As I always say, "Never judge a film by its book's cover."

CE

[DGTWoodward]

Just to make things clear- I've been a fan of Douglas Adams since grade school when a friend of mine told me about The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. He was reading a copy of "So Long, and Thanks for all the Fish". Once I came home, I had my mom take me to a bookstore where I bought all 4 books in one swoop. Since then, I've purchased the books twice since they literally fell apart since I read them so much. I've seen the BBC TV series, which was done well for a budget that could only afford 1/2 of a single shoestring.

I saw the trailer for the movie 2 months ago, and was hooked. One of the sites I visit had a link for a review of the Hitchhiker's movie. I read the review which ruined my day and outlook for the movie. So much so, that I've lost all interest in seeing the movie.

Here's the link- http://planetmagrathea.com/shortreview.html

Well, I have just read te full review - spoilers and all - and I must admit that I am not even a bit surprised. If this review really IS accurate, then it confirms what I have thought all along.

Whilst the public knows what it wants, and knows what it likes to watch...the suits responsible for most of the mainstream entertainment have NO IDEA what constitutes 'good'. Never more so that in international versions (or, in this case, movies) of TV shows. The list of wasted opportunites is depressingly long. The Office, Fawlty Towers, Steptoe And Son, Dear John, Thunderbirds, Red Dwarf to name just a few and now....finally, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

I wasn't sure if I would see it or not, being a big fan of the original. After this review, well......

[SpooRancher]

Well, this summer I know there are two must-see movies. I have decent expectations of HGTTG, and very low expectations of SWIIIRotS.

I pretty much ignore critics anymore. Sideways was supposed to be excellent, I thought it was one of the two most depressing movies I have ever seen. (the first was About Schmidt)

They said Catwoman tanked, I thought it did OK (not great, but OK).

About the only movie I have agreed with the critics on was the Lord of the Rings movies, and I had a problem or two with them. They were great, but lost a few things from the books that I considered important (and changed Faramir a bit, he wasn't supposed to be tempted by the Ring).

So, I will wait until I see the movie myself, and then will either go into a Pan-Galactic Gargleblaster induced tizzy, or mourning, as appropriate.

[colonyearth]

The one I'm looking most forward to for the first half of the blockbuster seasin this year is War of the Worlds. And that one has taken quite some license with the book as well.

Again, to me, it's the spirit that needs to be there. Books cannot translate into screen verbatim. They are also reflections of a group of people's subjective interpretations, takes, feelings, inspirations from said book, as well as skewed by recent and current events. Which is why one version of a film made in the 50's would be completely different than one done in 2005. Each piece of art, whether based on another or not, is the reflection of the time in which it was made.

I judge for myself.

CE

[tlsmith1963]

I'm afraid that the movie won't be very good, judging from the trailers. It just doesn't seem like HGttG to me. Ford doesn't have two heads? Marvin looks *cute*? It's another symptom of the dumbing down of entertainment. I wish they would have brought in a director who really understands the material. About the only interesting thing they did was make Ford black.

Tammy

[tlsmith1963]

Well, this summer I know there are two must-see movies. I have decent expectations of HGTTG, and very low expectations of SWIIIRotS.

I pretty much ignore critics anymore. Sideways was supposed to be excellent, I thought it was one of the two most depressing movies I have ever seen. (the first was About Schmidt)

They said Catwoman tanked, I thought it did OK (not great, but OK).

About the only movie I have agreed with the critics on was the Lord of the Rings movies, and I had a problem or two with them. They were great, but lost a few things from the books that I considered important (and changed Faramir a bit, he wasn't supposed to be tempted by the Ring).

So, I will wait until I see the movie myself, and then will either go into a Pan-Galactic Gargleblaster induced tizzy, or mourning, as appropriate.

I just read the novelization of Star Wars III, & if the film is anything like the book was, it will be a good film. The book is excellent. In fact, it reminded me of B5's more tragic episodes. But Lucas has a bad habit of sucking the emotion out of things, so it's possible the film won't be as good as the book. I hope not, because the book was so well done. I'd love to see a film that is faithful to this novelization.

Tammy

[SpooRancher]

I'm afraid that the movie won't be very good, judging from the trailers. It just doesn't seem like HGttG to me. Ford doesn't have two heads? Marvin looks *cute*? It's another symptom of the dumbing down of entertainment. I wish they would have brought in a director who really understands the material. About the only interesting thing they did was make Ford black.

Tammy

When did you last read HGTTG? Ford didn't have two heads, that was Zaphod.

[Towelmaster]

And at least this time Marvin does not look like the scarecrow from The Wizard of Oz. Marvin was perfect except for that slightly depressing GPP. At least this version does not look like it can fall apart any moment.

Anyway : Marvin's looks are the last thing I worry about, it's the lines he has in the movie. They'd better be good!

P.S. I heard that they have been changing several things at the last moment so the review is not completely accurate anymore.

[Radhil]

I'm afraid that the movie won't be very good, judging from the trailers. It just doesn't seem like HGttG to me. Ford doesn't have two heads? Marvin looks *cute*? It's another symptom of the dumbing down of entertainment. I wish they would have brought in a director who really understands the material. About the only interesting thing they did was make Ford black.

Tammy

Marvin looks shiny sleek and new, which is probably what the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation Marketing Division thought he should look like.

And I'm sure he absolutely relishes looking cute and cuddly.

The whole Heart of Gold things looking like ping-pong balls (down to Zaphod's helmet, I think I saw in one shot) puts me in a Spaceballs frame of mind really. That ain't a bad thing.

[DGTWoodward]

[QUOTE=SpooRancher]
About the only movie I have agreed with the critics on was the Lord of the Rings movies, and I had a problem or two with them. They were great, but lost a few things from the books that I considered important (and changed Faramir a bit, he wasn't supposed to be tempted by the Ring).QUOTE]

Perhaps not so difficult to understand when you consider the sheer scope of the project. Yes alot was lost, and many things were changed quite alot.

(Arwen became a major character in the films, whilst almost non-existant in the books, Bombadil went altogether, Treebeard became a tree instead of a tree-hearder, the scourging of the Shire didn't happen and Saruman and Wormtongue's fate is determined at Isengard, to name just a few.)

That said, even when you splice together even the extended versions of the three films, that is still only about 12hrs into which to cram a HUGE amont of story.