Hitchhiker’s movie reviews: Some balance needed, perhaps
Posted: April 11th, 2005 | 16 Comments »
Yoz: let me see if I’ve got this straight in my head
Yoz: The company that made Tomb Raider has been bought by a company named after a song written for the Tomb Raider movie by the guy who’s on the board of said company
Yoz: have I got it?
Tim: oh, pharmacist there I don’t know
Tim: all I know is
Tim: it’s annoying because it looks like it’s annoying because it’s yoz.
Yoz: Thim.
Tim: Npoz.
Despite there having been several positive reviews of the Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy movie before his, more about MJ Simpson’s vitriolic slamming has been getting more linkage than all the rest combined. This is mainly because, for sale as someone who wrote a book about Douglas Adams, capsule it’s generally considered that he should know what he’s talking about. (Oh, and also because it fulfils all the “I knew they’d screw it up!” paranoia which so many fans seem to treasure.)
To redress the balance somewhat from the only negative review that’s appeared, here are some slightly-more-positive ones:
From Kevin Davies, probably the best-known Hitchhiker’s fan after MJ Simpson (whose long Hitchhiker’s-related career is listed here):
I loved it. (I clearly saw a different film to Mike Simpson!) Douglas’s family were there and everyone was delighted with the outcome. Imagine you’ve never heard / read / seen any other version of HHGG. You’re all in for a treat – so long as you keep an open mind.
From Moriarty of Ain’t It Cool News:
[…] I can tell you that I thought the film was a glorious shambling tribute to the work of Adams, a beautifully realized vision filled to the brim with quirky performances and hilarious details. It’s almost shockingly eccentric and manages to stay very faithful to the spirit of all the previous incarnations of the story while also contributing some fascinating new ideas to the overall mythos.
From Nicholas Botti, webmaster of h2g2movie.com:
I would have difficulties to understand someone who says that he’s a Hitchhiker’s fan and hates the movie. This is certainly the best movie we could hope for.
From now on, I’m a great fan of Garth Jennings and Nick Goldsmith. They really deserve all our respect.
From Jenz Kjellberg, webmaster of douglasadams.se:
Bearing in mind all the way that this was a rough cut of the movie, with not all the FX finished and the music score not all there, I have never seen anything quite like it, and nothing springs to mind to compare it with. Did I like it? Yes I did, very much. Did I laugh? Oh, yes indeed I did. Very much so.
From Jim Lynn, the technical lead on h2g2.com:
What some people might be expecting is a version of the radio or TV series with better effects, and those people will be disappointed if that’s all they want. What we do get is a film which still contains a large amount of Douglas’ words but which, more importantly, recognises that film is a visual medium and not radio with pictures. It somehow manages to do the kinds of things with pictures that Douglas did with words in the Radio series and books.
From Tim Browse, lead developer on Starship Titanic and producer of h2g2.com:
Today I saw the movie for the second time, and once again I find myself coming to the conclusion that I must have been shown a different movie to the one that MJ Simpson saw. Having twice been in a cinema full of people who were laughing all the way through at the movie (and these are British people, for crying out loud!), and then reading that the movie is “staggeringly unfunny” leaves me somewhat confused. Partly because I heard all those people laughing myself with my own ears, but mainly because I loved the film.
From Sean Sollé, who also worked on Starship Titanic and h2g2.com, as well as the new mobile adventure game of the film:
If you want a damn fine Hitchhiker’s movie, something that you as a fan (and hence contributor to the original success of Hitchhiker) can be bloody proud of, and something that your non-fan friends will enjoy and finally understand what you’ve been going on about for the last twenty-something years, then this is it.
(Disclaimer: Sean, Tim, Jim and I have been tangentially involved in various stages of the movie’s production and publicity. We’ve also been massive Hitchhiker’s fans since we were young, and have worshipped practically everything Douglas ever wrote. So our perceptions are somewhat coloured.)
And me? Take a wild guess. But in order to redress the balance somewhat the other way, I’m going to make an effort to be as critical as I can:
- A couple of the gags are corny.
- While the four main stars are great, a couple of the other performances don’t work quite as well.
- A couple of bits are rather rushed.
- A couple of my favourite lines are missing.
- Er…
- That’s it.
(And until I get the chance to think things through and write a proper review, that’s about all you’re getting from me.)
If you’re the kind of Hitchhiker’s fan who’s going to turn up with a checklist and base your opinion on a final total at the bottom then you might not enjoy it. On the other hand, if you’re a fan who realises how different each version of the story has been and who wants to see Hitchhiker’s performed with the kind of visuals (and more importantly, the kind of utterly stunning production design) it deserves, and who, most importantly, wants to see a good new movie, I think you’ll love it too.
To finish, a favourite old quote:
I loved the film of 2001, saw it six times and read the book twice. And then I read a book called The Lost Worlds of 2001
in which Clarke chronicles the disagreements between himself and
Kubrick – he goes through all the ideas left by the wayside, “Look at
this idea he left out, and this idea!”, and at the end of the book one
has an intense admiration for Kubrick.
… from Neil Gaiman’s Don’t Panic, as spoken by Douglas Adams.
Frank Herbert wrote (in “Eye”) about the making of the Dune movie, that “film is another language” into which the director “translates” a book. I would guess Douglas would have understood that perfectly well, and it seems, from the reviews I’ve read, that’s what’s been done to HHG. I suspect Arthur Clarke didn’t quite get that (at the time).
At last somebody got my name right! Thanks Yoz!
You can thank Jim Lynn for that, Jenz – I got it wrong first time!
Hahaha, that’s ok Yoz.
Oh, where to start…
First of all, Arthur C. Clarke wrote 2001 alongside Kubrick at the same time the film was being made. They worked together, even though there were minor differences between the film and book, so Clarke can not be critisized for any part he had in the film or the novel.
As for the Guide…
Posting “reviews” by people involved with the production of the film itself is a good way to discredit all the content on this page. Way to go.
I have not seen the film, and I fear seeing it. It’s obvious that the timing of this film’s production coincides with Adams’ death; it took his death to allow this heap of a film to be made.
The fluidity of the telling of this story over the years can be used as an excuse to rewite huge chunks of the story and the jokes, but it seems, by most accounts, that this film went too far.
That said, I like the prospect of Mod Def as Ford, and Alan Rickman as the voice of Marvin. But no amount of acting (or over-production) can salvage a film that has the audacity to remove Adams’ jokes and insert new ones.
That Simpson guy needs to get out more,,, seriously,, I’m worried about him. I’ll be there, towel in hand.
“First of all, Arthur C. Clarke wrote 2001 alongside Kubrick at the same time the film was being made. They worked together, even though there were minor differences between the film and book, so Clarke can not be critisized for any part he had in the film or the novel.”
I think you’ve completely misunderstood the point of the quote, which is not to criticise Clarke for problems with the film, but rather to point out that Clarke’s own criticisms of omission are faulty. Leaving something out does not necessarily make the movie worse.
“Posting “reviews” by people involved with the production of the film itself is a good way to discredit all the content on this page. Way to go.”
All those who were involved with the movie have been listed as such, and only make up half the review excerpts on this page. Perhaps you missed that.
“It’s obvious that the timing of this film’s production coincides with Adams’ death”
Nice theory, but completely wrong. Douglas was actively working on the movie when he died. The movie that’s being released is the culmination of the same project that started in the late ’90s.
“The fluidity of the telling of this story over the years can be used as an excuse to rewite huge chunks of the story and the jokes, but it seems, by most accounts, that this film went too far.”
Where do you get this “most” from? By now I’ve seen other negative reviews than Simpson’s, but they’re still hugely outweighed by the positive ones, including those from print publications.
“But no amount of acting (or over-production) can salvage a film that has the audacity to remove Adams’ jokes and insert new ones.”
You appear unaware of the role of a script editor, of the obvious constraints of a 100-minute movie, and the fact that much of the new material was written by Douglas before he died.
I think I was 22 years old when I played Zaphod, strapped to my twin brother, in a play of Hitchhikers that I helped adapt for a University production. Totally illegal, yes, and an absolute dogs breakfast of a show. But by God we were enthusiastic! Anhoo, I just finished reading the reviews on this site and I’m really excited. The film opened here in Sydney yesterday, and I’ve been avoiding reviews as I’m seeing it tomorrow. Well, I was avoiding them, until I got in after a long days work, followed by a few post work ales, and started surfing the net. Yes! I knew Sam Rockwell would kick arse as Zaphod; you could keep a side of beef cold in that guy for weeks. My partner wants to be the mother of Martin freemans children. I know this because I’ve read her emails to him. I’ve been a fan since The Office, and I’m really glad he nailed Dent. Great casting. I’ll be back!
Thanks for the response to Simpson’s article. I’m in the USA and I just saw the film. I am delighted with it!
“If you’re the kind of Hitchhiker’s fan who’s going to turn up with a checklist and base your opinion on a final total at the bottom then you might not enjoy it.” This goes along with any good movie adaptation where viewers criticize its faithfulness to the original book. Any good moviemaker knows that books must be changed in order to make a good movie. (see FIGHT CLUB)
I am surprised that no one has commented on the Arthur/Trillian love story. Was that a Douglas addition, or a marketing tool for audiences? I read one review that criticized the addition, saying that Doug Adams would never include ventures into romantic fluffyness. I guess that person never made it to book four of the trilogy. Fenny?
Unlike some of the people commenting I’ve actually seen the movie – I hadn’t read any reviews, I’d even forgotten Disney had a part so no Disney-bashing – but as a life-long H2G2 fan – since seeing the series at 8 in 1981 and reading them all, writing reviews and then listening to all the radio plays, this film was the biggest pile of crap I’ve ever seen, I’ve never wanted to walk out of a film, this was the first.
It’s Keystone Kops in Space – MJ Simpson is right, all the jokes have been taken out. I wasn’t expecting the TV series or the radio show (I was aware of all the carping about the TV show, but it bore more of a relationship to Douglas’s humour, vision and ideas than the film!).
I didn’t want a blow for blow reanactment, but for a film I’ve been waiting for for 25 years I wanted it to be a good legacy of Douglas Adams’s work even if they rewrote it all, made them all adverts for teeth whitening and set it in States, if it was funny, worked and had that same great dry wit and Adam’s surealistic humour I’d not care.
But the changes to the plot, dialogue, and acting don’t actually ADD anything and actually detract from it. Sorry. Big stinker – worse than Star Wars II – that at least had BIG stoopid battles and FX.
I mean I’m a big fan but not a rabid one – listening to the Tertiary Phase and loving that, even though some of the people *gasp* are not the same some actually sound better – Franklin’s better than Peter Jones actually. It’s not about slavish devotion, it’s that Adams is part of my youth and makeup and it pains me to see some Disney-wash out and meeja-obssesed knowing advertising director’s wet dream labeled ‘HitchHiker’s’ when they may as well done a Star Wars on it.
Then at least the non-fans might have enjoyed it, yes?
I was really looking forward to the film, having come to the “World of Adams” with the radio show, and enjoying its development through books and TV. But I was really disappointed. Ford was poorly cast and badly characterised, as were most of the rest of the cast. No-one stands out as good, the closest being Bill Nighy as Slartibartfast. But still not a patch on Richard Vernon (TV) for sheer “other worldliness”.
Younger members of the audience did seem to find it funny in places, but they were places that the older fan could see coming, and relish being re-aquainted with.
I realise the limitations placed on a cinema offering, and that it is impossible to accurately reproduce H2G2 in the time constraints imposed by the modern cinema. But it was very disappointing.
It was good to see the original Marvin the Paranoid Android again, if only in cameo.
It was a shame that the ‘Guide’ scenes were so poor, my PDA has a better presentation.
Sadly, I wish I’d stayed at home and re listened to the radio series.
It bothers me when people say things like “Sadly, I wish I’d stayed at home and re listened to the radio series”. Such platitudes are simply not true at all. If, before the movie, you had been told that it was so mind-buggeringly boring that it would be better to stay at home and re listen to the radio series, you would have prompty headed to the multi-plex, hand over a small sum of greenies, and delighted in the next two hours. And guess what – you would have walked away saying “I’m glad I didn’t stay at home and re listen to the radio series”.
Please, don’t overeggagerate here. The film, much like the radio series, is merely an entry into the H2G2 Universe. Don’t take it as being any more or less important than previous entries simply because it’s the newest! After all, the radio series, the TV series, the books, the video game… it’s all there to comfort you.
You close-minded twat. 😉
Even on its own terms, it wasn’t a very good movie. The acting and direction seemed clunky and disorganized. Nope, I wasn’t expecting the radio or TV show to be duplicated on the big screen, but I didn’t expect it to be a something where the set-ups and the dialogue seemed so sterile, that three people at the screening I went to said it confused them, and three others and their kids fell asleep.
It wasn’t an awful movie, just unimportant and underwhelming.
just saw the film. nuh.
scott ferguson, sydney.
Saw the movie for the second time in London last Friday. It was even better the second time, because I could relax more and take in all the detail. I assume it’s going to take a week to get through the DVD set when it comes out.
By the way, Yoz. I met up with Dirk Maggs near BBC on Friday, along with a mate of yours named Paul, I think. It was a good day.
Cheers