Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Movies Media

Hitchhiker's Guide Reviewed 539

Posted by Zonk
from the my-towel-says-boo dept.
me at werk writes "The Register has posted it's review of h2g2. 'The radio series, that became a book, that became a TV series, has finally made it to the silver screen. The film version of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is faithful to author Douglas Adams' legacy. The trouble is it's simply not especially funny.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hitchhiker's Guide Reviewed

Comments Filter:
  • My review (Score:5, Informative)

    by a3217055 (768293) on Saturday April 30, 2005 @04:39AM (#12391113)
    I watched it, it was pretty funny. But then I watched it by myself, and I remember laughing so hard to the show on radio and smiling after reading the boook. But I did not laugh as much.
    Don't know why...
    • by AlXtreme (223728) on Saturday April 30, 2005 @05:07AM (#12391190) Homepage Journal
      That is just so... depressing
    • by madaxe42 (690151) on Saturday April 30, 2005 @07:45AM (#12391539) Homepage
      Stay and watch the credits - about 3 or 4 minutes into them there are some bonus scenes from the guide!
    • Re:My review (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gaijin99 (143693) on Saturday April 30, 2005 @07:47AM (#12391543) Journal
      I thought the movie was actually pretty good. What many people keep forgetting is that the book itself falls flat in the last half. Seriously, how long has it been since you read the book? Go back and read it again and you'll discover that once they get to Megrathea it really isn't that funny, amusing yes, but hardly *funny* the way some of the earlier bits are.

      As for the movie itself, it really is quite good. The casting is wonderful, especially the man they got to play Zaphod. And the bits where the Guide is used are truly great.

      The movie wasn't really all that funny towards the end, but neither was the book so I can't complain on that note.
    • Yeah I agree with the registers review. Surprisingly as an english man my favourite actor in the film was sam rockwell, his incarnation of zaphod is mesmerizing to watch, I would definitley watch a sequel if he were in it again.

    • Re:My review (Score:3, Insightful)

      by crs3210 (703074)
      I made the mistake of comparing mediums when I first saw the tv series, and I was thoroughly disappointed. I had heard a lot of bad stuff about this movie, so when I went to see it, I had somewhat low expectations, and they were very much surpassed. No, this isn't the book...this is the movie. It's supposed to be different; Douglas Adams even intended it to be so when he wrote the screenplay. Sure they cut out a few jokes, or executed them somewhat poorly, however, there are quite a few extra stuff they put
      • I had heard a lot of bad stuff about this movie, so when I went to see it, I had somewhat low expectations, and they were very much surpassed.

        I don't know how many times this has happened to me. People that love the book/comic book/whatever that a movie is based on slam the movie so much that I start to believe them a little. If I do end up going to see it, I usually end up loving it. But if a movie is hyped and hyped and hyped (I'm talking grassroots hyping here... I've pretty much learned to ignore
  • I usually don't agree with reviews when I actually go see/play/ect whatever was revied. But I'm starting to worry about whether I should see this or not.

    For me, the big turn off is Marvin. That does NOT look like what I expected him to.

    So, should I suck it up and watch it, and risk being dissapointed and bored for 2 hours, or not? If I do enjoy it, I will probably end up loosing another week of my life reading the books again.
    • by Wrexs0ul (515885)
      Pretty sure I enjoyed it more because of the books. The Register had it right about plot development: you'll need to have read the books to make sense of some parts - like the dolphins - but otherwise it's a pretty funny film.

      I love the sound effect tie-ins too, watch for the bread knife and it's upcoming George Lucas prequel.

      -Matt
      • They left out the Guide entry on towels, AND the entry for Earth, which was only the damn title of the fifth book.

        As I saw it put elsewhere, "Hey, Peter! I've got a great idea! Let's leave the Balrog out of the movie!"

        Fuck Disney. Everyone involved in taking this marvelous quirky story and turning it into a fucking Galaxy Quest clone needs to be skullfucked to death.
        • by Bozzio (183974) on Saturday April 30, 2005 @08:27AM (#12391627)
          Personally, I thought it was very well adapted.

          As expected, I didn't see ALL the gags from the book, but I'm happy to say at least they cut the less funny ones instead of the good ones. You can't really expect everything from the book to be in the movie. As you know, I'm sure, a great deal of the book's charm is in the wording of the narration. Converting the narration's humour to movie format without over narrating is definitely hard, and I for one think they did a great job.

          I will agree, however, that I didn't expect Marvin to look that way. I also didn't expect Zaphod to look that way either, but his character was great!

          Also, in the credits, the BBC is thanked for providing the original Marvin suit from the TV series. I haven't watched the series yet, but is that how Marvin looked? That could be a good explanation.

          Anyway.. there were differences from the book, but they were well done. For example, Ford showing up at the beginning with a cart full of beer. At first I was worried the pub scene would be cut, but it wasn't, and it tied in well! I actually preferred how this scene played out.

          Sadly, they DID cut out the Narrator's explanation of how Ford picked his name.. BUT they still managed to fit in how Ford thought cars were the dominant species of earth. Precious!

          Overall, the movie is pretty damn close to the book. The changes are warranted, and still pretty damn funny. On the down side, I can see how a lot of the plot and humour would be harder to catch if you hadn't read the book(s).

          I still give it 3 thumbs up.
          • The original Marvin was a prop in one of the scenes.

            Also a huge scanned image of Douglas Adam's head was one of the planets they were making.
          • by shawb (16347)
            Also, in the credits, the BBC is thanked for providing the original Marvin suit from the TV series. I haven't watched the series yet, but is that how Marvin looked?

            It's the robot standing in line on Vogosphere.
        • Including Mr Adams himself who wrote the script for this ? People seem to forget that it was him who said that every instance of this story should be a little different from the others.

          With every film made after a comic, a book ,a bbc radio series, there are some people that nomatter how good the movie is, will bash it just because they think it is not completely accurate or the writer must have had a different view blah blah blah...

          I just ignore these people, and go see it for myself... I usually end up
    • Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by FidelCatsro (861135)
      I really don't like the new Marvin , he looks kind of Mangaled(sorry for the pun) , and dosn't look entierly crap as he did in the TV-show which really added to the charichter.. Actualy come ot think of it , most of the new costumes are rather odd and make the charichters look like Jedi knights
      http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://w w w.scifi.com/scifiwire2005/gallery_photos/hitchhike rs_cast_gal.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.scifi.com/sci fiwire2005/index.php%3Fcategory%3D10%26id%3D122&h= [google.co.uk]
      • Re:Well... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by betelgeuse-4 (745816) on Saturday April 30, 2005 @06:23AM (#12391370) Homepage Journal
        If you're a fan of the TV version of Marvin, watch the queueing scene carefully.
        I saw the film last night and thought the new Marvin was really good. You can't see it in the stills but his movement and posture fits his personality perfectly. The film is quite different from the radio/TV/book versions, but the bits that have changed work well.
        • I will whatch it , as i am intrested to see how it is as opposed to the reviews etc. It just looks from the stills thats its insanely odd and manga esk.
          However nothing is disuading me from my belife that the other costumes look like those of a jedi .
    • Re:Well... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by shawb (16347) on Saturday April 30, 2005 @04:47AM (#12391148)
      First off, I was there with towel on shoulder...

      Watching the previews, Marvin was my biggest concern. That concern ended up not panning out,,, he fit in pretty well. I'd say just put aside your preconceptions and go watch a movie. There are enough of the little things added that only a Hitchiker's afficiondo would appreciate to make it worth your time. Just don't get stuck up in the "Well, they did it different in the book" trap. This is alot easier to do if you realize that Douglas Adams never intended for previous works to be Canon. He's just telling a story. It has to be altered a bit here and there to allow for different mediums, so while some of the old gems are lost, new things show up.

      Synopsis sans spoiler: while I didn't bust a gut laughing, I did laugh out loud in the theatre. That's alot more than I can say for just about any other "comedy" I've seen in a while.
  • I've always wondered why there is a need for a movie of this...the six TV episodes themselves make for a great story, and there is nothing more that a movie could do aside from shorten the storyline.

    Personally, I'll be continuing to watch the TV episodes myself. Modern 'movie magic' really can't do much for this.
    • by vistic (556838) on Saturday April 30, 2005 @06:25AM (#12391375)
      Agreed. The magic of this story was always in the dialogue... using great special effects to add a sense of wonder (like the Magrathean construction floor) doesn't do much for the story. Looks cool... but zooming by planets just makes the audience go "oooh" and "ahhh" and that time should have been spent making them laugh their butts off.
    • by torpor (458) <ibisum@@@gmail...com> on Saturday April 30, 2005 @06:32AM (#12391395) Homepage Journal
      its as if you have no awareness whatsoever of this concept called 'a generation'.

      believe it or not, but there are some people who did not grow up reading books. there are a generation or two, or three, of people who do not read books.

      these people go to movies.

      should the story be inaccessible to them?

      making a movie about a book, might prompt people to read the book. believe it or not, but this does actually happen. people see movies, they hear that it was based on a book, and then .. if they liked the movie enough, they feel compelled to read the book.

      translating one form of literary culture into another form, is usually a good way to spread that culture. don't you agree?

      oh, wait. you're one of those self-ism types, for whom the idealization of the self is all there is. your self, having read the book, can't possibly think of why there is any reason whatsoever to contribute to another cultural form.

      next time you see a 9 year old, ask them if they know the answer to life, the universe, and everything.. you might get a kick out of the answer.
      • i agree.
        "video killed the radio star" a long time ago :)

        ashridah
      • Generation? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Jonathan (5011) on Saturday April 30, 2005 @08:33AM (#12391637) Homepage
        believe it or not, but there are some people who did not grow up reading books.

        As there has always been.

        there are a generation or two, or three, of people who do not read books.

        No. If anything, books seem to be on a rebound. Twenty years ago outside of big cities the only bookstore one would likely find would be a Waldenbooks mostly selling Garfield comics. Now you can hardly throw a stone and not hit a Borders or a Barnes and Noble. And they really sell some stuff for literati -- stuff like the Loeb and I Tatti Libraries can actually be found in the sticks these days. And of course there's the bookseller Amazon.com. practically the only dot-com that didn't go belly up...
      • there are a generation or two, or three, of people who do not read books. these people go to movies. should the story be inaccessible to them?

        Put simply - Yes. Fuck 'em. If they won't take the time to pick up a book and read the story, why should they have access to it?

        And I don't mean this as a troll... The biggest complaint I see in this thread involves how poorly DA's British, intellectual, subtle style of humor, translates to the big screen. This very consistently happens with productions of de
  • by TheoGB (786170) <theo AT graham-brown DOT org DOT uk> on Saturday April 30, 2005 @04:41AM (#12391125) Homepage
    Well I don't think they do. It's got so much crap to carry round to live up to that you just can't begin to know if you'll like it.

    I hope to see it this weekend and, as long as it's about as good as the TV version (which I wasn't a fan of), I'll be happy I guess.

    Of course, if it's slapstick city I may have real trouble taking it and will feel cheated of my tenner!
  • contradiction (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FidelCatsro (861135) <fidelcatsro&gmail,com> on Saturday April 30, 2005 @04:41AM (#12391129) Journal
    he film version of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is faithful to author Douglas Adams' legacy. The trouble is it's simply not especially funny.'"
    Is it just me .. or does that statment sort of contradict itself.
    One of the main things I enjoy about Douglas Adams works is the humor .
    To be faithfull to his legacy i would say that you need to capture the "Funny" parts aswell as the other aspects , and the humor is pretty much one of the main aspects .
    • by tekrat (242117) on Saturday April 30, 2005 @05:25AM (#12391234) Homepage Journal
      I always knew there was something fundamentally wrong with the universe. -- Arthur Dent.
    • Re:contradiction (Score:5, Informative)

      by Mike1024 (184871) on Saturday April 30, 2005 @06:03AM (#12391326)
      Is it just me .. or does that statment sort of contradict itself.
      One of the main things I enjoy about Douglas Adams works is the humor.


      Well, the 'not all that funny' criticism falls into two categories:

      1) Removed jokes, for instance the planning permission on the bottom of a filing cabinet in a locked underground toilet with a sign saying 'beware of the leopard' on the door. This is justifiable in a way; it simply wouldn't be practical to put everything from the books into the film.

      2) Dry humour delivered in silence. For instance, 'do you know how much damage would be caused to this bulldozer if I let it run over you? / No / None at all'. It's funny. But no-one is laughing. I don't know how to fix that; it might be a problem with the film medium for this type of humour. A laughter track, for instance, would be shite.

      Soooooooo.... what's my opinion? Well, it's a competently made movie. It's well cast, it has decent graphics, it has it's amusing moments. I would classify it as 'ok to good'. I would have classified the book as 'good to very good, tending towards the latter'. So no, I didn't think it was as good as the book, but it was ok. Nothing like as bad as that first review on slashdot made out.

      7 out of 10 from me.

      Michael
  • This has the potential to be either one of the best, or one of the most disappointing movies of the year. I am trying not to hope too much for the former, and keep my expectations low. Too often lately it seems that low expectations are the key to good movies.
  • by gad_zuki! (70830) on Saturday April 30, 2005 @04:43AM (#12391137)
    over at rotten tomatoes [rottentomatoes.com]

    Currently 62% positive
  • book to movie (Score:5, Insightful)

    by timmarhy (659436) on Saturday April 30, 2005 @04:45AM (#12391143)
    the problem i think is so many people have read the book and have their own idea of how things will look, everyones will be different, which is why it's so hard to please everyone when you adapt a popular book to tv/movie
    • I don't think that anybody that read the books and found themselves laughing out loud would have a vision that included Marvin looking stupid or having the funniest lines cut short.

      The Douglas Adams I remember went off on tangents and that was his legacy. If the director or screenwriter cuts that out it will not be as good. Period.

      The lord of the rings trilogy was great because it let the story carry the movie and the director consiously tried to be faithfull to the readers and include everything he could
  • Saw it Friday (Score:5, Interesting)

    by FuturePastNow (836765) on Saturday April 30, 2005 @04:51AM (#12391156)
    I've read the books, and I watched it with someone who has memorized most of the jokes, and we both enjoyed it. It's different, and if you want to see the books (the first one, in this case) translated exactly to film, you'll be disappointed. The movie exists as its own entity, just like the radio show and the TV show and everything else. The British humor is extremely toned down, but it's still pretty funny. That poor whale...
    • Re:Saw it Friday (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I think you need to be careful if you've memorized a lot of the original jokes. There's a fair few times where the feedlines have been worked into the dialog, but the punchlines dropped - if you're new to H2G then you won't notice. But, at least to begin with, if you know the jokes then this drives you crazy. Adams' humour can work much like Python humour - you know the joke, you're waiting for the joke, you enjoy the buildup to the joke, and - bam - you get the satisfaction of the punchline. In this film,
  • I love the movie! (Score:5, Informative)

    by Buster Chan (755016) on Saturday April 30, 2005 @05:09AM (#12391192) Homepage
    The early eighties TV version is a great three-and-a-half hour videotape, the radio version is a great nine hours ... soon to be thirteen hours. The books are a great couple of weeks. The old DC comics version was apt. And the movie is a wonderful way to spend the afternoon. Having experienced the other versions, the new film was a welcome addition to the Douglas Adams canon, in my opinion. I loved the new episode with regards to the Church of the Arkelseisure, because that Perspective Gun was a wonderful literary tool which allowed screenwriter Douglas Adams to have his characters learn things which they otherwise would have learned through bulky dialogue. As for dialogue, the movie had a good mix of "novel dialogue" and "movie dialogue". "Novel dialogue" is bulky, wheras "movie dialogue" is short and to the point, and the film had a good mix indeed.

    I've enjoyed the other versions, and so I found it very simple to enjoy the new version.

    They must make four sequels.

    P.S. Bring a pair of "red and blue" 3D glasses. As the starship Heart of Gold arrives at the planet Magrathea, the crew is greeted by a holographic recording. That recording is only a minute long; however, it's in 3D. You need a pair of "red and blue" 3D glasses in order to properly enjoy that minute of film. This is not a spoiler; it's an enhancer.
    • P.S. Bring a pair of "red and blue" 3D glasses. As the starship Heart of Gold arrives at the planet Magrathea, the crew is greeted by a holographic recording. That recording is only a minute long; however, it's in 3D. You need a pair of "red and blue" 3D glasses in order to properly enjoy that minute of film. This is not a spoiler; it's an enhancer.

      That's actually Simon Jones, who plays Arthur Dent in the radio series and also starred as him in the television series.

      I enjoyed his cameo immensely (possibl
  • Having read the books, a large part of the humor for me was Adams' side commentary. I'm not saying the events and characters weren't funny, but at least half of the humor seemed to come from Adams' wry manner of writing.

    Is it just me, or does that not carry over especially well into film?
  • Cameos (Score:2, Interesting)

    Personal favourite bits: seeing the original Marvin in the queue on Vogsphere, as well as the cameo played by Simon Jones (the original Arthur). And the gun, don't forget the gun.
  • Moderate: Unfunny (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rufusdufus (450462) on Saturday April 30, 2005 @05:19AM (#12391219)
    People with good memories for the book might find the movie funny because their minds fill in the missing dialogue. But as Ebert [suntimes.com] says, to someone who doesn't already know the book, its not funny.
    Whats interesting is that the movie does have some of the funniest scenes from the book, but those scenes just don't work. Partly because the persectives are different. Being inside the head of a newly born whale as it plummets to earth is funny, but watching a graphic of it hit the ground isn't funny.

    Other things were just poorly done, for example, the babble fish. They actually do cut to the Guide to explain what a babblefish does, but totally skip the part about God disappearing in a puff of logic. So the scene is not funny at all save maybe a little slapstick about putting a fish in Authur's ear.

    Sadly, this movie is exactly what you expect from Hollywood doing a foriegn movie, dumbed down to the point of irrelevance.
    • by QuantumG (50515)
      Yep, and 2001 A Space Odyssey made absolutely no sense to people who hadn't read the book, and pretty much every serious film out of Europe makes no sense unless you had a classical education.. unless you're trying to make a "blockbuster", why must we always aim for the lowest common denominator?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 30, 2005 @05:20AM (#12391220)
    And to be honest its not to bad at all. Yes some of the British comedy tone was toned down, but it was still rather funny. It managed to get a good couple of belly laughs from the audiance, including me.

    Good points, marvin was spectacular and outdid the original TV series' version. Zaphod Beeblebrox was outstanding and the true extent of his ego bleeds off the screen (flamebait comment, to be honest I think only an American could pull off the cheesy grin and un-abashed ego... sorry :P). The extended usage of the vogons was quite amusing and they made great bad guys. There are some bits that will make the geek in you go "ooh ooh ooh!" and point excitedly although I wont go into detail as to spoil it.

    Bad points are I'm a bit hmmmm about Ford, Trillian and Arthur though. Ford really didnt create any sort of major screen prescence and as such became a rather minor character with a penchant for towels. Trillian, whilst great at the start of the film, seamed to get relegeted to damsel in distress/love interest (standard hollywood crap). And Arthur... well hes was quite good for most of the film but I suppose I miss the orginal TV version which sticks in my mind as the definative Arthur Dent.

    I suppose the worst aspect of the film is that yes, some of the great witty dialogue is missing. Its not all gone but a lot of the classic lines are trimmed. I quite missed the original lines regarding the babel fish proveing that god did not exist and the very funny bit about the plans being on display (the shortend "I had to go downstairs", made no sense on screen).

    In all I would recommend people go see it, it gets a bit shakey before the middle but still provides a good homage to Adams' legacy.
  • I thought it was pretty good. I've read most all of Douglas Adam's books multiple times and it was comfortably familier, yet interestingly novel.

    If it were 100% faithfully sync'd with the books; there would be little point it seeing it if you had read them.

    The pacing was good, the dialog enough to tell a story, and the visuals fantastic. I think it stand well enough on it's own; and as an addition to the books.

    Folks like this is why there may never be an 'Ender's Game' movie, because someone will complai
    • Folks like this is why there may never be an 'Ender's Game' movie, because someone will complain the that naked boy soap fight scene was missing...

      You know what, though? Fuckem. They're the same people who, with something like 10-12 unique hours of Lord of the Rings trilogy available on DVD, complain about how several Ents were left out or condensed into a revised Treebeard. They're the ones who want a 15-hour movie that's paced like a snail just so that no detail is ever missed. They'll always exist. T

  • by tehanu (682528) on Saturday April 30, 2005 @05:41AM (#12391262)
    The major problem I had with the movie is that it adds angst and sentimentality to the plot. Note, this is very stereotypical *Hollywood* angst and sentimentality and you can practically predict the lines so it's not particularly good angst and sentimentality either. Note I am a girl and I devour trashy romance novels and love chick flicks. However, there are situations where putting this sort of stuff in just simply doesn't really work (esp. when it is so badly written). Basically you sit through the movie. Funny scene. Laugh. Angst, romance, talking (all badly done) get bored. Funny scene - laugh. Angst, romance, talking - bored. Oh let me predict what lines they are going to say next. Wow, I got it right. How amazing (sarcasm). Funny scene - laugh. Etc. etc. Though I suspect the funny scenes were funny because I already read the book as they do seem to cut a lot of stuff out...

    The other problem is Ford Prefect, Mr. Sarcasm in the originals is practically a non-entity and not especially funny when he does exist.

    I loved Zaphod though :)
  • Spoiler alert... I guess.

    Why does it seem like I'm the only one that thought the playing up of Arthur and Trillian's romance was ridiculous? Why does Trillian have an American accent? Why... why... why...

    Yes, I probably sound like just another rabid Adams fanboy who expected the movie to be a direct copy of the book. That isn't the case. I thought the film was awful. The acting was not very good, some of the revised dialog was really awkward, and... many other things simply related to the filmmaking itsel
    • I don't think the getting smacked in the face scene was that bad at all... slapstick yes... but the idea is that they got smacked in the face whenever they had an idea... so they had to not think. I actually thought it was pretty clever.

      The romance though.... *groaaaaaaaaannnn*

      When it said "For Douglas" at the end... and we just saw his face as the last transformation of the heart of gold when going into infinite improbability drive... I just was thinking this isn't much of a tribute... and if anything,
    • According to DNA, only Arthur is *supposed* to have an English accent, and he actually wanted to get some Americans to do the other characters in probably at least one instance.

      Another point is DNA was also the one who added the idea to have a Trillian/Arthur romance.

      That info was all from the answers from Robbie Stamp, posted a few days ago on /.

      http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/26/195224 8&tid=97&tid=133&tid=214 [slashdot.org]
  • I saw it 46 hours ago (I missed the opportunity to say 42 hours) and I must admit I have never read the book, only heard my son relating the highlights as he read it. It seems to me that the film mainly serves to remind you of the funny bits you read in the book rather than being amusing in itself. If you read and like the book then the film will probably be ok, but if you go and see the film cold like me then you might just be glancing at your watch and waiting till you can get back home and read /.
  • I like the TV miniseries better.

    Why must every movie have a love story? Is it a rule somewhere that people will not see a movie if there's no love story subplot?

    Anyway, the funniest part was milking the cow... but I'm not going to spoil the joke for anyone who hasn't seen it.

    When the movie was near the end... I was just thinking, "That's it?" It felt like it should have been much longer... there's so much that was in the miniseries and books that wasn't in the movie... I want a sequel made now... but I
  • Hitchhiker's biggest shortcoming is that it will make absolutely no sense whatsoever to people who have not read the books or seen the BBC series.

    I mean good lord, Ford is carrying around a towel all the time and telling Arthur to make sure he has his towel with him... but the movie never explains to the audience why the towels are so important!

    The first thirty minutes is really the most difficult as well, because they really tried to wow the audience with a strong, fast-paced opening... the problem is th
  • This movie is Jurrasic Park 2 for geeks.

    The books were awesome, but the movie sucked. They took the books and used it as a loose guide for various events in the movie. None of the dialog from the book survived. The acting was poor. The special effects were good. The pacing was rushed. Everything was glued together rather poorly.

    You can tell that the people creating the movie had good intentions -- they wanted to cram many bits from the book into the movie. The problem is that they wanted to do it s
    • Ford 'saves' Author from the scene by rolling up with a shopping cart full of beer to distract the workers.

      Wait, if Ford walks up to Prosser et. al. with a shopping cart full of beer, what's the point of taking Arthur away to the pub in the first place? They could have just thrown back a couple of beers as muscle relaxant right then and there and avoided the whole "let's confuse Prosser" bit altogether.
  • Some friends of mine last night took me to see the movie, and based on the opinions I'd heard up until that point, I didn't think that I'd particularly like it or find it funny. I went in with very negative expectations.

    This wasn't the case at all! We all found the movie to be exceptionally well done, and the entire theatre was laughing consistently throughout the film. The special effects were very well done, the jokes captured Adams' humour well and stayed faily true to the book, and I could muster up no
  • When watching the movie. I honestly expected many of the jokes to be dimmed or cut. Say a 3 hour - 6 Hour Radio Series or a 3 hour TV Show to be shrunk in a 2 hour timeframe and give it a definite beginning and end. They did a pretty good job. There are some things I would have changed. Like make Author and Ford a little more like friends to each other and give Author more wonderment of the Universe, and down play Zaphod and Trillian. But just as long as you were not expecting the Books, Radio Series, T
  • by ranson (824789) * on Saturday April 30, 2005 @08:30AM (#12391632) Homepage Journal
    Although I've been a techie my whole life, i was raised by religiously fanatical parents, so none of this talk of space exploration and evolution would be tolerated in our home. So that excluded enjoying HGG on the radio, television, or bookshelf.

    I bring this up because it seems most everyone else here has gotten intimate with HGG in some form or another, so I thought I would provide some insight into the reaction of someone who saw the movie with no previous knowledge of what this thing was all about.

    I was so eager to see HGG, I got to the theatre 45 minutes early last night to ensure good seating. I will say it simplye: the movie did NOT disappoint. Funny? Absolutely! There is a lot of silly humor, mainly in the forms of irony and cynicism. Many, many times throughout the movie, the entire theatre was laughing out loud together. I'm not sure who all in the theatre was familiar with the HGG story, everyone there from the 8-year-old kid to the 80-year-old grandparent gave it a unanimous thumbs up. I am actually thinking of going to see this thing again today, it was such a joy to watch the first time! I also just picked the literature from half.com.

To err is human -- to blame it on a computer is even more so.

Working...