Comments on: Hitchhiker’s movie reviews: Some balance needed, perhaps

By: The Duke of Dunstable

The Duke of Dunstable — Fri, 13 May 2005 20:07:27 +0000

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

By: The Duke of Dunstable

The Duke of Dunstable — Fri, 13 May 2005 20:05:59 +0000

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: scott ferguson

scott ferguson — Mon, 09 May 2005 11:56:12 +0000

just saw the film. nuh.
scott ferguson, sydney.

By: Ccook

Ccook — Wed, 04 May 2005 07:08:11 +0000

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.

By: Tim

Tim — Tue, 03 May 2005 05:30:07 +0000

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. 😉

By: JohnT

JohnT — Mon, 02 May 2005 21:56:49 +0000

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.

By: tim baker

tim baker — Mon, 02 May 2005 02:14:59 +0000

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?

By: dan d.

dan d. — Sun, 01 May 2005 03:04:02 +0000

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?

By: scott ferguson

scott ferguson — Fri, 29 Apr 2005 22:25:12 +0000

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!

By: Yoz

Yoz — Tue, 19 Apr 2005 07:57:01 +0000

“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.