The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2005) Reviews

• Here's a rather non-committal review!

  ianrickard2005-04-25

  So, is the Hitchhikers' movie any good? Yes and no. It is great to finally see one of my favourite stories finally get the big screen treatment. There are moments where the budget has clearly benefited the overall experience, with some breath-taking CGI sequences. Two particularly spring to mind: An impressive backwards zoom out from earth's surface, past the Vogon demolition charges before the planet is so hastily disposed of, and Arthur's journey onto Magrathea's staggeringly colossal factory floor, which is simply overwhelming. Both illustrate, to great satisfaction, the dramatic readjustment of scale Arthur Dent has to undergo in such a short space of time in a stark manner that is just not possible in any medium other than cinema. The on-screen format of the guide itself is an appropriate update of the format developed for the television series, and it's highly enjoyable to see such delightfully silly animations grace a giant cinema screen. Cinema is a different experience, and that is the nub of the matter. We are dealing with a radically different medium from any of the other that Hitchhiker's has materialised in, and not only does that offer new opportunities to explore Douglas Adams' marvellous universe, it also necessitates dramatic changes. Most noticeably, and perhaps most important for a two-hour motion picture, there is more effort to form a conventional plot than is present in the original incarnations and this change is accompanied by major changes in character motivation. This is interesting, because (here analysis becomes problematic since it is impossible to know which changes were instigated by Adams and which were down to Karey Kirkpatrick), none of the characters in Adams' earlier material really had any significant motivations that would lend them to becoming interesting protagonists in a more conventional setting. Previously, Narcissist Zaphod wanted his ego stroked by fame and fortune, Ford was content with the prospect of a decent party to go to and Arthur's only desire was a palatable cup of tea. Trillian didn't really do anything. Although they are far from unrecognisable, the introduction of tangible drives into most of the characters alters the pattern of events in the story to accommodate what begins to resemble a more conventional story structure. One of the first casualties of this is that the principle players overshadow others, who are introduced, half-heartedly expanded upon, and then almost entirely dropped in deference to the favoured few. It never goes the whole way towards a standard structure though, as half of the principle story is seemingly abandoned in favour of a concentration on the romantic subplot and an overall resolution that is at least reverent to the previous formats. The result is a mixed bag. I found Arthur much more likable and Zaphod funnier than I ever have done, but it never actually occurred to me until the film that Arthur was a bit of a whinger and Zaphod quite boring, because I was too busy paying attention to what happened to them, rather than what they happened to do. The other major objection, which may or may not have been inevitable, given the time that must be given over to visuals in cinema, is that the filmmakers appear to try and get too much into a two-hour film. As a result, some brilliantly funny lines are missed and key explanations fudged and both are replaced by a general silliness, which appears to be a compromise between the demands of hardcore Hitchhiker's fans and those of the cinema-going public. A lot of the new material is funny, but some of it doesn't really fit with Adams' universe and sticks out like a sore thumb. Whether this is the consequence of those responsible being caught between the rock of Adam's inventiveness and the hard place of the medium they were working in is hard to say. Perhaps someone braver could have produced something more appropriate, or perhaps this is the best that there could ever be. I suppose we'll never know. To summarise: It's very different.

• Hollywood butchers another great story

  dafamcas2005-04-30

  Are you kidding me? After 25 years of waiting, this is what they come up with? Giant fly swatters smacking Arthur, Ford, and Zaphod in the face while they scream "Waaaaa!"? Apparently the story had to be dumbed down for mainstream audiences: just replace the wit with slapstick. And how about the unnecessarily inflated love story between Arthur and Trillian? Good grief. Some other notable failures: 1) the very flat deliveries of some of the actors (Zooey Deschanel, Mos Def). In fact, none of the actors seemed particularly adept at comedy (except MAYBE Martin Freeman), or to have bothered with any background reading to figure out how to deliver their lines. 2) the rearrangement of Zaphod's physique (WHY?! They managed to give Zaphod 2 heads and 3 arms 20 years ago on a low budget BBC show...but they can't pull it off now?!). 3) the pointlessness of the John Malkovich character. 4) the chopping of so much funny narration and dialogue to make room for the unnecessary detours (Humma Kavula, Vogosphere). 5) Sam Rockwell's annoying accent. 6) the film makers don't even seem to know that the Restaurant at the End of the Universe is at the end of TIME, not SPACE. 7) the rare presence of the Guide itself in the film. 8) And on and on. It was even a little bit offensive that they had the BBC cameos (Marvin, Simon Jones, the music from the opening credits) in a shameless attempt to win over the more hardcore Hitchhiker fans. I have to admit, I fell for it. For at least 10 seconds of the movie I wasn't thinking, "Wow, this is not very good." A couple things WERE good: the Vogons themselves, the Magrathean "factory floor." Marvin was passable. Watch this movie and then go see the BBC version. If you still think getting whacked in the face after stepping on a rake is funny, or seeing someone slip on a banana peel leaves you in stitches, you'll probably like the movie version better.

• What has all the fuss been about?

  mjluk2005-04-27

  First, let me start by saying that this is a funny film. Like many others, I suspect, I was worried by the MJ Simpson negative review, but having seen the film I can't really understand what all the fuss was about. Personally, I am very happy that this version contains the new material. I don't want to sit in the cinema watching a line by line copy of the radio play, book, or TV series. Each of those stand by their own merit, and each were good largely because of the new material they contained. I think the cast did an excellent job, and although Zaphod wasn't quite how I pictured him, Sam Rockwell brought a freshness to the part which largely works. His portrayal of Zaphod as a guy who "thinks he is cool", rather than "is cool" works pretty well, and once you get over the southern drawl, he soon settles as a character. Ford is beautifully played, as are all the major characters. Admittedly, some of the criticisms that were voiced by Simpson have some justification, but most were simply overstated to support his general vitriolic attack on the "purity" of the film. In summary, go to see this film and don't worry. I'm looking forward to the DVD and I have all my fingers crossed for a sequel. Martin

• Very Disappointing

  Hoopsta2005-05-04

  I had high hopes for this movie having read the book and the film having received largely positive reviews in the British press. Good Points Bad Points Overall A big disappointment, I had expected so much more (but should, perhaps, have known better).

• Those Cheeky Mice And Their Excellent Film

  tramsbottom2005-04-18

  Overall a tremendous success. It's very funny, very kooky and visually gorgeous. I saw it with about 2000 media persons and we all loved it, which is a pretty hard thing to accomplish. If you've never read the books (and I suggest you do, it moves at such a pace you might find yourself going 'eh?' a lot) then I don't know what you'd make of it. Think Monty Python in space, or a very British version of The Fifth Element. As an adaptation I think it works extremely well though there were a few confusing moments even for me as the large philosophical questions were crammed into two hours worth of movie. The new stuff is cleverly done and works a treat IMO. The cast: never been a fan of the office but Martin Freeman is perfect as Arthur Dent, Sam Rockwell hilariously OTT and Mos Def a surprising choice but one that really works. Trillian isn't that important in the novel and the movie bumps up her role to a love triangle situation between her Arthur and Zaphod. Again, Deschanel is an odd choice (another yank) but she is utterly spellbinding (oh the shower scene...hubba hubba). The FX are great, both CGI and the Jim Henson creatures (the Vogons, brilliantly voiced by The League of Gentleman). The opening title song is worth the price of admission alone (think Eric Idle at his peak). So I loved it, though the ending is also a bit of an anti-climax, but only perhaps because I was expecting something bigger. Still, it's p***-funny and that's the main thing. Best moment: Ford attacks the Vogons with a towel and foils them by closing a tiny garden gate ("Oh no! We'll have to go around!").