DON'T PANIC

[HWR MKII]

It is english humor so some people from other places (USA) may not enjoy it since they prefer comedy like Jim Carrey or Mike Myers. Hitchhikers isnt the usual sort of low brow fart joke comedy, well some of it is. Not all of it is though. Its a Hit here in the UK(Im from USA myself) and i enjoyed it but then again i can say that to catch alot of the humor in it you DO have to have lived over here for a bit. Someof it is actually quite politically based.

[Knight26]

Um, so HWR is worht seeing, because I do still want to see it, but after JS' rant, well I'm not even sure if I should take what he said seriously.

[HWR MKII]

Just go in with an open mind that the movie is BASED on the book. There is no way in hell to fit all the info in the books into a 2 hour movie. The BBC couldnt do it with 6 hours. It is worth seeing and catches all the high points of the basic story.

Purists will complain because it wasnt what their mind imagined when they read the book. I have only seen one movie which even comes close to the book that was The Green Mile.

Compared to the BBC miniseries this movie is worth a watch but hey im just one person with an opinion. Dont take my word for it choose for yourself and go see it.

[JsARCLIGHT]

You do realize the BBC miniseries was 3 hours long right? And they fit almost every important thing from the books into it.

This movie is pure hollywood ruination.

Edit: And I'm far from a purist, I was comparing it to the far superior BBC miniseries which with a smaller budget and slightly more running time is a vastly superior execution of the books.

Edit of the Edit:

The things that disappointed me most about this movie are the blatant and very painful changes to key dialogue pieces that "make" hitchhiker's what it is. Rewrites galore and in some cases the complete cutting out of things that other things are supposed to roll into. They cover a lot of bases but in a very hurried half-assed sort of way. The pacing and presentation of the BBC miniseries is very methodical but it at least is approachable and easily viewed by the audience without cutting things out and altering the dialogue.

My disappointment in this movie is also NOT any sort of "joke barrier" that may exsist with me not being British. I got the books completely and I find the BBC mini to be great entertainment... this movie is ham-fisted hollywood mistreatment. I don't like it, pure and simple.

Edited April 29, 2005 by JsARCLIGHT

[HWR MKII]

wasnt calling you a Purist JS there are others i know(all american) who didnt get the movie.They had read the book first and went in expecting a perfect tranlation of it. I havethe BBC version on DVD and its extended from the origional runtime although 6 hours was an exaggeration to point out just how complex the story was.

I loved the point that Earth was a science experiment setup by little white mice to find the answer to life the universe and everything.

[JsARCLIGHT]

But you have to admit that his new movie takes many key elements and either throws them out the window completely, altering the story to hide their omission, or it just glosses over things usually taking out the jokes but leaving the buildups.

That guy that wrote the review that Graham posted hit the nail 100% squarely on the head.

[HWR MKII]

I agree some thngs were left out or changed but i accepted that since i knew how huge the story was as you do as well. Just like AVP i wanted to see a fun movie. I went, i saw , i laughed. this is one of those movies that those who havnt experienced hitchhkers before will enjoy those who have seen th old series may enjoy it or not. I dont fault it because the author did the rewrite for the movie before he died. I consider it a tribute. I do miss Zephod with 2 seperate heads though

[JsARCLIGHT]

I think I have isolated my biggest complaint with the movie... I went with some of my employees from my office and during the movie I could remember the bits, the scenes and I would lean over to my coworkers and say "this is going to be great, watch this..." and then nothing. The movie would just "move on" and totally miss, what I thought, are some of the best comedy spots in the series... either that or it would fumble them.

I'd say if you are very forgiving, go see the movie.

Or better yet if you have NEVER seen the BBC mini a lot and know and love it's execution of the movie then go and see it.

I have to honestly say that I went in expecting certain things that were totally not met. It's one thing to have expectations not be met but rather filled with alternate entertainment you did not predict coming, but this movie just fails to deliver on a lot of levels. It is an inflated, effects heavy juggernaught that gets caught up in it's visuals and forgets its roots.

[EXO]

Never seen the series or read the book... I was thinking about seeing it... Maybe Ill just wait.

[JsARCLIGHT]

If you have no prior knowledge of the book or BBC series I would say you stand the best chance of enjoying it as you will not be noticing all the missing and altered things. I knew going to see this movie I would not be able to remove my preconceptions from my head but I at least hoped the movie would fulfill some of them...

[Zentrandude]

Saw this movie at lunch today, was first in line for tickets for the first showing.

One word: TERRIBLE.

No, two words are better:

ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE

Avoid this movie at all cost, even if you THINK you can stomach a butchery of the original work this movie takes it one step further. Complete waste of money, etc. etc. etc. everything you can say about a horrid movie. I don't think I laughed once the whole time. Every opportunity to be creative is wasted with juvenile humor, every chance to be faithful to the books is rewritten or altered into being not funny and every scene is just like one long drawn out lead up to a joke but with no punchline given.

It was bad... worse than bad, awful.

Avoid at all cost like Vogon poetry.

Thats sad to hear. Another victom of hollywood's pursuit of more money.

[HWR MKII]

JS i think we can both agree that this movie.....

NEEDS MORE COWBELL!

[JsARCLIGHT]

I have to honstly say that Mos Def did not ruin the movie though... people who harshed on him early on as possibly ruining it could not be further from wrong. If only they would release a much longer, "finished" movie with all the removed and altered stuff returned I would be super happy. The movie sure has the look and the feel but not the soul.

[GobotFool]

While on occassion this movie got something right, well, for everything it kinda sorta got right, it did about 15 things absolutly wrong. I went in with very low expectations so I managed to get a modicum of pleasure from it, but purists stay away, and people who have not read the books, well, read the books 1st because this is a movie that is going to make you not want to read the book.

[Phyrox]

I disagree, I have never read the books (heard that they are pretty good), and might think of picking them up after having seen the movie.

I enjoyed the film. I didn't love it, but I had a good time, and appreciated the humor. Realizing that the books would be to the film what all books are to their film adaptions...I am more likely now to pick them up than before.

[Keith]

I've never read the books, loved the mini-series, and enjoyed the movie. Yes it's different (very different in some respects), but hell, I already have the mini-series, so it's no big deal.

What struck me the most was the difference in the ending:

Spoiler

Sticking in a happy ending definately threw me at first, Arthur gets the girl, and doesn't get stuck on primal Earth with Ford, but again, I have the mini-series for that. Hell, I thinkt he one thing I missed the most from the BBC version was the design of Deep Thought, while interesting, the new design didn't do it for me.

And hey, didn't everyone like the cameo of the original Marvin suit? I half expected him to start talking.

[chrono]

If it doesn't alot of Adams dry twisted humor I'll have to pass. The mini-series was good, but damn it after seeing the incredible trailer that makes hugh amounts of fun of itself nothing less will be toleratable.

Oh and it's NOT surprising at all that they gave it a happy ending, it WAS american made and as we ALL know american movies DON'T sell well if they don't.

[F-ZeroOne]

I'm completely confident in saying that The Office is the best television comedy every produced.

Nah, IMO best British comedy TV series would be Faulty Towers, followed closely by Yes Minister/Yes Prime Minister.

Graham

You forgot Dads Army, Graham - the true origin of the phrase "Don't Panic!"

("Don't tell him your name, Pike!")

[Syngyne]

If it doesn't alot of Adams dry twisted humor I'll have to pass. The mini-series was good, but damn it after seeing the incredible trailer that makes hugh amounts of fun of itself nothing less will be toleratable.

Oh and it's NOT surprising at all that they gave it a happy ending, it WAS american made and as we ALL know american movies DON'T sell well if they don't.

*cough*

[Max Jenius]

The producers have stated that this film is not a literal translation of the books (just as the books were not a literal translation of the original radio show), but all of the new ideas and characters came from Douglas Adams himself. The hired writer simply came aboard to improve structure and make the screenplay more coherent.

I thought it was alright, nothin special, but it made me laugh.

[Gunbuster]

This movie is definitely for fans of the book. For those of us who didn't read the book, you'll likely find yourself watching one 2-hour inside joke.

[promethuem5]

Truth be told, that's kinda what I was hoping for... I really dont wanna see this be a dumbed down story with none of it's important elements of what make it great.

[Syngyne]

I thought it was okay. Did anyone stay past the end credits? I didn't stick around, and now I wish I did because I read

there's a final Guide entry about the Vl'hurgs and G'Gugvuntts.

One of my favorite bits from the BBC series.

[JsARCLIGHT]

I thought it was okay. Did anyone stay past the end credits? I didn't stick around, and now I wish I did because I read

Yes it is there, it starts about 65% through the credits. It as well has been "altered" a lot... the basic "jist" is there still but it is quite unfunny in it's new altered form.

My wife was angry with me for not taking her to see it, aparently she was a large fan of the books in her youth. So I did not want to spoil her watching and kept my opinions to myself and we went this afternoon for a 2pm showing.

Low and behold she walked out of the theater on my arm saying "wow... that was... um... different than I remember"

Having a little talk on the way home her biggest complaint about the movie was the newfound "romantic comedy" aspects of Arthur and Trillian, she was quite put off by that. Her "likes" about the movie where the Alan Rickman Marvin and seeing the original BBC marvin in line.

She is a lot more forgiving than I when it comes to this movie but she, like me, really did not like their handling of most of the "jokes". We both feel most of the movie has this "knee-capped" feeling to it. We both agreed it should have been two movies.

Edit: I know it is a Sunday noonish show but the theater we went to was 75% empty... has bad word of mouth spread this much about this flick already?... or did we just pick the right place and time to have the theater mostly to ourselves? The opening day screening I went to with my co-workers the place was packed... same theather too.

Edited May 2, 2005 by JsARCLIGHT

[Ladic]

I didn't like it

[Jemstone]

I didn't like it

Neither did I. But then.... I never read the books.

Edited May 2, 2005 by Jemstone

[Ladic]

I didn't like it

Neither did I. But then.... I never read the books.

me neither

[JsARCLIGHT]

IMHO actually having read the books hurts your take on the movie as soon as Arthur and Ford get aboard the Heart of Gold... right about that point the movie goes left and the books go right.

I stick to my thought that the people who have never read the books will get the most out of this movie as they will not cringe at every cut down joke and have their stomach turn at every missed story piece that could be sort of important

SPOILER: (highlight to read)

Like the whole towel thing... they never explain it in the movie. The books have a good paragraph plus dedicated to the reasoning behind the towels. The movie just glosses over it in a poorly delivered spot between Ford and Arthur and the audience never learns why the towel is so important. If they intended this to be an inside joke that is one thing but it sure as hell ruins elements of the story... then again that is just one of the many stumbled sections they fail to elaborate on.

[Mr March]

Just saw the movie tonight.

It was funny and I enjoyed it. It's not one of the best films I've ever seen, but it certainly was entertaining. Being a fan of the books, I was rather surprised by all the differences, but the heart of the books was certainly there, as well as the style of humor. This film is very british and my english friend was laughing more than I was, which was considerable.

I really approved of much of the cast, especially Sam Rockwell's portrayl of Zaphod. He had some great lines. I also enjoyed the narration with excerpts of the guide. Very much like the book.

Things I didn't like were some of the jokes, that were merely passable and provided little more than a brief chortle. Also, many of the changes from script to screen were very odd and didn't really make much sense. The Arthur/Trillian angle was strange (regardless of whether it worked or not) and several other such "additions" felt unnecessary, especially in light of original book material that could have been included.

Not bad, not great, but entertaining and different. It worked for me and I'll be watching it again.

Edited May 2, 2005 by Mr March

[Jolly Rogers]

I didn't like it

No sir, didn't like it

[chrono]

Edit: I know it is a Sunday noonish show but the theater we went to was 75% empty... has bad word of mouth spread this much about this flick already?... or did we just pick the right place and time to have the theater mostly to ourselves? The opening day screening I went to with my co-workers the place was packed... same theather too.

Nope. According to the returns it's tanking pretty badly. It might not even break even. 70 million maybe a reachable mark(worldwide).

And just so you know alot of people who own cellphones talk about the movie to their friends before they even leave the theather. Toss in the Internet and it doesn't even take 4 hours to 'spread the news' as it were.

This movie is like any other movie. People go in with preconceived ideas, ie their own minds eye viewpoint, and are widely let down.

[mikeszekely]

*MILD SPOILERS*

I never read the books, so to me... I don't know. I enjoyed the irreverant way it tells the audience that all of our preconcieved notions about pretty much everything could be wrong. But that's about it. The pacing in the movie was horrible... there's almost no character development, but they have time to set up a subplot about looking for a gun... a subplot they never follow through on, since they never delivered said gun and retrieved Zaphod's other head/brain.

*END OF SPOILERS*

All-in-all, the movie leaves me with the impression that the books are probably a very enjoyable read (next time I swing buy the bookstore, maybe I'll pick up one of those thick collected works dealies), but on its own the movie fails to deliver.

[Radd]

I could care less if the movie followed the book story to the letter or not. Heck, the books aren't the real Hitchiker's guide, the original material as it were. The radio drama came first. Also, the books, albumns, radio dramas, etcetera all tend to contradict each other and themselves, so there's plenty of leeway as far as a movie goes.

All I ask for out of a movie rendition is good writing and Douglas Adams style humour. Everything I've seen and read, from reviews to trailers, to short film clips, has told me that this is not the case. I'll probably, out of morbid curiosity, go see it at the cheap theatre. If it had only been bad reviews, I'd have gone to see it, but the trailers and clips I've seen have been horribly unfunny and give credibility to the reviews that say that the dialogue is a pale shadow of the Douglas Adams writing that made the books and radio dramas all so hilarious in the first place. The poor plot developement and seemingly cop-out ways of having a 2-armed, 1-headed Zaphod don't really entice me much, either.

If all of this is correct, then I really, sincerely doubt that the notion of preconceived ideas ruining the movie is true. Unless of course you take the angle that people have the preconcieved notion that the movie may be decent, then are let down when the movie isn't, in wich case you've got a strong career in either politics or law ahead of you.

[HWR MKII]

actually zephod has 3 arms and they moved his head from his shoulder to his chest/neck.

[JsARCLIGHT]

I think the point he was making was that it is a cop-out that for almost all of the movie, save a handfull of scenes in close proximity, Zaphod only has one head and two arms.

I personally am in the camp that they did not want to blow the budget on a third CG arm and a second CG head for the whole movie... that would have changed their effects shot count into double if not triple what it probably was. SPOILERS FOLLOW, highlight to read: Personally I saw the whole "losing the second head and arm" in exchange for the gun thing as a complete story cop-out just so they could have a one headed, two armed, stupid texan Zaphod. Oh and my wife believes this was done so they could poke fun at a certain globally unpopular president rather than follow the true character of Zaphod. Just look at many key scenes in the movie and many key lines and it becomes quite apparent that the big Z is just a walking talking insult joke rather than the character he originally was.

Edited May 3, 2005 by JsARCLIGHT