What did you think of Hitchhicker?

[kumquatq3]

I thought it was decent

 

 

Thanks for all the fish

[Silvershadow]

I thought it was all right... I'm probably the only geek on the planet who hasn't read the book, so I can't really compare... though it did leave me with the impression that the book was probably better.

 

But yeah, not a bad movie. It was entertaining, to say the least. Marvin was hilarious. The chick bugged me a little bit though... she wasn't very convincing.

 

I can't really complain though, seeing as I got free passes to the premiere last Wednesday.

[Darth Flatus]

First two books are awesome! havent seen the film yet hopefully i will enjoy it.

[Baley]

I liked the game more :D

[Reveilled]

I liked the game more :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I haven't seen it yet, but yeah, the game was brilliant! Just remembering the babelfish puzzle...frustrated anger mixed with laughter is a strange emotion!

[Oerwinde]

I read the book like 10 years ago so I had forgotten most of it, all I remembered was the stuff from the beginning of the text game. So the whole time they were in the pub I was like "BUY THE CHEESE SANDWICH!"

 

But yeah, I loved it. It was the only movie I've ever seen where people applauded at the end.

[Shadowstrider]

Never read the books, but the movie was pretty damn entertaining.

[Oerwinde]

A lot of people were apparently like "OMG THEY BUTCHERED THE BOOK" and "DOUGLAS ADAMS WOULD SPIN IN HIS GRAVE"

 

Those people are funny, because you can point out that Douglas Adams wrote the screenplay and see their reaction.

[B5C]

I loved the movie. I know the ending is a little off, but what the hell it leads to the next part of the triolgy.

[taks]

andybody that reads a book then sees the movie will probably like the former over the latter. the same goes if you see the movie first then read the book.

 

unfortunately, i read, and loved, all of the books in HGttG. well, mostly harmless was mostly boring, but still had it's moments that made it a good overall read.

 

the problem with this story is the pure idiocy of everything. it's like a british version of the simpsons meets south park meets family guy. everything we would consider normal is turned on its head and it's all happening at the same time. if you ask me, that makes comparisons between books and movie rather weak... at least in terms of raw content. it's just not possible to capture that essence in a 2 hour movie.

 

i hope i will enjoy the movie, though i probably won't be able to see it till it hits pay per view. however, my expectations are not high.

 

taks

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I liked it but wouldnt rave about it. Much of it was familiar and it didnt have the wow factor that would make up for already knowing the story.

 

The end was ok if cheesey. The books end wouldnt really work in a movie.

[SteveThaiBinh]

The fourth book, So Long and Thanks for All the Fish, has now been adapted for the radio with the original cast. The first part was broadcast here:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/networks/ra...io4/hitchhikers

[Baley]

Can i listen to it?

[Darth Flatus]

Thats the romantic one. My least favourite.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Thats the romantic one. My least favourite.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It wasn't the best, I'll admit, but it had its moments. I often wish I could go outside the asylum..

[Oerwinde]

andybody that reads a book then sees the movie will probably like the former over the latter.  the same goes if you see the movie first then read the book.

 

unfortunately, i read, and loved, all of the books in HGttG.  well, mostly harmless was mostly boring, but still had it's moments that made it a good overall read. 

 

the problem with this story is the pure idiocy of everything.  it's like a british version of the simpsons meets south park meets family guy.  everything we would consider normal is turned on its head and it's all happening at the same time.  if you ask me, that makes comparisons between books and movie rather weak... at least in terms of raw content.  it's just not possible to capture that essence in a 2 hour movie.

 

i hope i will enjoy the movie, though i probably won't be able to see it till it hits pay per view.  however, my expectations are not high.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, Douglas Adams wrote the screenplay, so it at least captures the parts that he feels are most important.

[cewekeds]

I enjoyed it for the most part and I liked that they didn't follw the book to closely.

However I was bugged when they started grate passages from the book and didn't finish. example:

 

Worker: the plans where on display at city hall.

Arthur: I went to city hall and the plans where in the basement

Worker: Thats the display department.

 

that was it if you read the book you should know how the rest went. marvin kicked a$$. I was also excited when I saw the old marvin from the T.V show in line. :">

 

I didn't like the love story or that mock 2 was built. I was happy that the whale part was left in.

[Squidget]

Well, Douglas Adams wrote the screenplay, so it at least captures the parts that he feels are most important.

 

So...what?

 

*shrug* People who watch movie adaptations like this and then try to make up some opinion from the original author always baffle me. It doesn't make any sense to question whether or not the author would have liked it, and in the end it doesn't make any difference who the author was. If you thought the movie wasn't enjoyable then whether or not Douglas Adams liked it probably wouldn't change that.

 

That said, here's my review of the thing...

 

"The first half hour...that was the worst. And the second half hour...that was the worst too. The third half hour I didn't enjoy at all, and in the fourth half hour I went into a bit of a decline."

 

Well okay, maybe it wasn't that bad...but it was pretty bad.

 

I'm by no means a purist to the original Hitchhiker's Guide. Don't get me wrong, I loved both the radio show and books, but I went into the movie expecting some fairly major changes and hoping that they'd end up being for the better. I wouldn't have minded shifts in the story or cuts in the dialog, but what I do mind is a film that doesn't work - and more importantly, a film that constantly shifts gears between 'Zany look at a bizarre universe in keeping with the books' and 'Typical Hollywood story'.

 

I actually had high hopes in the opening scenes. The credits and opening scenes seemed quite in-keeping with the spirit of Adam's original work, right up to the familiar Hitchhiker's Theme, straight out of the radio show, when the book makes its first appearance. Likewise, throughout the movie you consistently see glimpses of the sort of world the book was about. Momentary scenes and small bits of dialog, even those not directly taken from the book or radio show, manage to evoke the feel of the universe Adam's created.

 

Unfortunately, to see those glimpses you will have to be ready to put up with long boring scenes that are at such contrast to the feel of the book you'll wonder why Douglas Adams would have ever filled the screenplay with them.

 

This is, perhaps, why I found the movie so infuriating - one moment I would be chuckling in typical geek fashion at Alan Rickman's flawless portrayal of Marvin (who singlehandledly makes the scenes that involve him both engaging and amusing as well as a manically-depressed robot reasonably can), and the next rolling my eyes at the random idiocy expressed by Ford and Zaphod, or more frequently the movie's failed attempts to bring seriousness to what simply does not work as a serious setting.

 

Some of the actors and scenes in the movie are worth watching out for. Stephen Fry does an impressive portrayal of the book, always combined with fitting animations that suit the movie's inherently whimsical nature. Bill Nightly is a dynamite Slartibartfast, and Richard Griffiths does an excellent job with the awful Vogan poetry. Likewise, some of the visuals are simply stunning, perfectly translated from the book or not.

 

My suggestion on this one is to wait for the DvD - if only so you can pick and choose the scenes that are worth watching without wasting time and money on the movie as a whole, because as a whole it really isn't worth it.