Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media It's funny. Laugh. Sci-Fi Entertainment

Telegraph Reviews Hitchhiker Movie, Approves 293

Posted by timothy from the gives-hope dept.
LPetrazickis writes "The Telegraph has reviewed the movie adaptation of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. The review notes that the film is every bit as much a loving tribute to Douglas Adams as it is a joyous comedy. American actors acquit themselves well, and the sense of intelligent wonder transfers well to the technicolour screen. The many incarnations of The Guide are summarized at the end."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Telegraph Reviews Hitchhiker Movie, Approves More

Telegraph Reviews Hitchhiker Movie, Approves

Comments Filter:

  • Box office earnings... (Score:5, Funny)

    by kwoo ( 641864 ) <`kjwcode' `at' `gmail.com'> on Saturday April 16, 2005 @09:43PM (#12258715) Homepage Journal

    I forecast 42 million dollars in the first day. :P

  • Must Watch (Score:4, Insightful)

    by StratoChief66 ( 841584 ) on Saturday April 16, 2005 @09:44PM (#12258718) Homepage
    I don't have a choice, I must see it to either enjoy it or to hack it to pieces in person with my friends. Not watching it is not an option, no matter how bad it is.

  • Will The Movie Be A Trilogy Too? (Score:5, Funny)

    by rewinn ( 647614 ) on Saturday April 16, 2005 @09:45PM (#12258725) Homepage
    If a book trilogy can consistent of 5 books, why can't a movie trilogy consist of 1 movie?

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday April 16, 2005 @09:49PM (#12258747)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Thanks for the link. The whale falling monologue seems to have been reproduced faithfully (slightly cut and rushed, but it was there), which gives me some renewed faith in the film.
    • Moviefone? Don't tell me. Every article is written by Kramer, right?

      • Re:Moviefone? (Score:3, Funny)

        by Jeremi ( 14640 )
        Moviefone? Don't tell me. Every article is written by Kramer, right?


        Believe it or not, Moviefone was a happily operating business long before it was ever referenced on "Seinfeld"....

  • Cake is for eating (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nakly ( 772203 ) on Saturday April 16, 2005 @10:02PM (#12258818) Homepage
    What's sad is how unfair criticism of this movie is inevitable, rather it turns out to be any good or not. When you get something that's so ridiculously popular with such a devout fanbase, there's going to be a gigantor contingent of those who aren't capable of understanding that this is not the book. Can anyone say LotR?

    I, for one, look forward to the movie. I have confidence that it will incredibly funny, while still staying true to the spirit of the books. I ask all those who demand a carbon copy to please bellyache out of my earshot.

  • I wish I could believe him, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 16, 2005 @10:03PM (#12258826)
    Sounds rather bought-and-paid-for to me. Puff piece. Astroturf, even.

    And what's with nonsense like:
    Zooey Deschanel as Trillian, a minor character in Adams's book

    or

    and a towel, a manic-depressive android and a whale falling from the sky all make important appearances.

    I'm sorry, Trillian is a "minor character"? Marvin is lumped in with the whale as a character who makes "important appearances"? Important appearances? The reviewer doesn't even give his name? If the movie slashes his role that much, there is serious trouble.

    My Joo Janta peril-sensitive sunglasses are strangely opaque. I suspect this movie will suck, and will only do slightly better than if every theater showing it was blanketed in an SEP field.

  • I just don't understand (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nate53085 ( 782588 ) on Saturday April 16, 2005 @10:04PM (#12258832)
    Has it gotten to the point where we don't even watch a movie to figure out if we like it? How often are critics wrong? Watch the movie for yourself and make up your own mind.

    • Re:I just don't understand (Score:5, Insightful)

      by GeorgeMcBay ( 106610 ) on Saturday April 16, 2005 @10:24PM (#12258918)

      Has it gotten to the point where we don't even watch a movie to figure out if we like it?

      Considering the rather high cost of movie tickets these days (~$10 in many areas of the US), I can understand why people like to hear what others are saying about a film before plunking down their hard-earned cash.


      How often are critics wrong?

      Fairly often, but I find looking to places like rottentomatoes helps because it is rare that all the critics will be wrong about all the movies. Taking a wide sample of critics' views on a movie really seems to weed out the occasional critic who just "didn't get it" or was too far removed from the intended audience.

      Of course, the best reviews are always from people we know with similar tastes in movies, so those are preferred, but not always available...

    • I will explain (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The point is to not pay for bad movies. If you go to a movie such as this, and it turns out to be bad, well now you know it stinks but they have your $9 now so what do they care?
      This is why so many bad movies get churned out over and over again. If you continue to front the cash for them then it's basically the same as saying "shove anything in my face hollywood, because I never learn and I'll continue to pay for whatever trash you deem worthy entertainment" (in my opinion).
      So most people rely on movie re
      • "The point is to not pay for bad movies."

        What really hacks me off is that they should have a refund policy in place. Heck, even a %50 return on your tickets if you didn't like the movie would be sufficient.

      • Re:I will explain (Score:3, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        You're trying to explain this to people who eat at MacDonalds, then go and eat there again. It's no use.

  • Quit mixing metaphors badly (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Quirk ( 36086 ) on Saturday April 16, 2005 @10:09PM (#12258851) Homepage Journal
    Marshall McLuhan's [leaderu.com] message: ""The Medium is the Message" is now about 4 decades old. McLuhan is thought by many to be one of the fathers of the age of technology yet posters on /. seem unable to distinguish between two mediums/metaphors as visibly distinguishable as film and book. The experiences are distinctly different enjoy each according to its merits. If you can't distinguish between two diverse experinces perhaps you're too egocentic and tribal, read primitive.

  • Breaking news: Slashdot ad revenue bust (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 16, 2005 @10:10PM (#12258857)
    REUTERS:

    In financial news today expert industry anylists report that the once popular, geeky, tech news site slashdot.com's ad revenue is in sharp decline.

    Economists assert that Slashdots's new diet of endless lame news items about Google, municipal WIFI and Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy are putting off hungry consumers who are going elsewhere.

    "I just can't take it anymore" said one long time Slashdot afficionado. "It's just Google, HitchHiker's, and WIFI"

    Experts predict that of the remaining 12.5 visitors slashdot gets daily, 98.3% use the adblock feature of the controversial "Firefox" browser.

    "It's a bleak situation"

  • Thank god (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RealBeanDip ( 26604 ) on Saturday April 16, 2005 @10:17PM (#12258886)
    A positive review, now we can all go see the movie...

    Please, as if we weren't going to see it anyway.

    I've yet to find a movie critic with whom I agree with often enough to actually avoid a movie based on their review.

    See the damn movie, make up your own mind 'eh.
  • If no one noticed yet the UK newspapers are doing loads of promos for this (One of the Sunday papers is offering the second book free). No one here is going to insult it, infact I think they'll all plug it majorly and we'll see some HHGG happy meals pretty soon.

  • Hitchin a ride (Score:2, Interesting)

    by cobravenum2 ( 831701 )
    The Hitchhikers Guide to the galaxy is not a book that was adored and loved by all. i know many people that hate it and dont understand why it is so popular. so it is to be expected that some people would like the movie more than others. I personaly am a big fan of hitchhikers and hope that there is enough positive support for them to continue the series with more movies

  • The Real Question (Score:4, Funny)

    by kizzbizz ( 870017 ) * <kizzer@gmail.cPASCALom minus language> on Saturday April 16, 2005 @10:34PM (#12258958)
    How many reviews must a man read before he knows the Ultimate Answer to whether this movie is good?

    42.

  • Horses for courses (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TintinX ( 569362 ) on Saturday April 16, 2005 @10:35PM (#12258961) Homepage
    Let's face it - whoever made this movie, whoever produced it, whoever starred in it - it was always, *always* going to be either loved or hated. Such is the sentiment and legacy towards DNA.
    As is made clear in just about every item one reads about Douglas (including TFA), he saw each incarnation of H2G2 as a different entity in its own right and felt no compunction to translate perfectly between mediums.
    The sad fact is that Douglas is dead. So we can either have no movie ever, or hand it over to someone else. The latter was always the best idea, IMO. Let's stop whining and celebrate the fact that the geek's favourite book has finally made it to film. Films are practically never as good as the books they follow (one or two exceptions like 2001 and, for me, Fear & Loathing (thanks to Johnny Depp, but I digress) spring to mind). H2G2 is the best example of this as it fires the imagination like nothing else.
    I, for one, am all too happy to see both negative and positive reviews.
    It's indifference I don't like.

    • Films are practically never as good as the books they follow (one or two exceptions like 2001

      In that particular case, the book followed the film.

      • Re:Horses for courses (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Teancum ( 67324 )
        In the case of 2001, Arthur C. Clarke was heavily involved with the writing of the script, and the book was always something that was to be done indepently.

        That, and Mr. Clarke (like DNA) were already well established book authors before the movies were in production.

        This movie did at least have a rough draft of a script from DNA, which at least gave some directions as to where he wanted this project to go. The thing that I have been most impressed with DNA was that he totally understood the concept that

        • Re:Horses for courses (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Mark Hood ( 1630 )
          I hope that when [...] the DVD version of this movie comes out that it does not become a lame MPEG copy of the movie with a bunch of boring stuff thrown on as "extras".

          Unlikely, because it has to live up to the BBC DVD [amazon.co.uk] of the TV series... (Which Amazon seems to think is not out yet, but I've had it over a year).

          Special features include:
          • Making Of
          • Extra Footage
          • Peter Jones Intro
          • Original Trailer
          • Communicate
          • Behind The Scenes
          • Animatronics Feature
          • Pebble Mill Appearance By Rod Lord And Alan J Bell
          • Productio
      • Good point, well made.
        You are, of course, correct. I shouldn't have use chronology. What I meant was that films are rarely as good as their book versions.
    • Was Fear and Loathing good? I still haven't seen it, but my 69-year-old father, of all people, told me it was awesome.. he said Johnny Depp is single-handedly saving cinema..

      He is a bright light, but every time I see him, I think "21 Jump Street"... (and, in another OT note, I didn't know Depp was in "Platoon".. thanks IMDB)
  • I write books [spacejock.com.au] in the comic SF genre, so you'd better believe I want to see a good film made out of one. My expectations weren't high, especially as I have such fond memories of the TV series. Sounds like they exceeded them.

    Anyway, Alan Rickman as the voice of Marvin will be worth the admission price alone.

  • Just reading about how this movie was made would make me think that a "making of..." documentary about this movie would be almost as entertaining as the movie itself.

    In short, DNA could very likely be a character in his own book. Or conversely, his own life was so bizzare that in many ways the books (not just the Hitchhiker trilogy) mirror his own life. The more I read about DNA's life experiences, the more facinating I find him to be.

    I found this bit to be almost priceless from the Telegraph story: (to pharaphrase) The producers of this movie are "two men working from a barge named Polly, moored on the Regent's Canal in an unfashionable part of Islington, north London."

    I don't think DNA could have done better for a new book opening scene.

  • Simple explanation (Score:4, Funny)

    by datajack ( 17285 ) on Saturday April 16, 2005 @10:50PM (#12259031)
    [blockquote]the film is every bit as much a loving tribute to Douglas Adams as it is a joyous comedy.[/blockquote]

    so, it's as funny as a funeral and bears no resemblance to the book then?

  • Tom Bombadil! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Brandybuck ( 704397 ) on Saturday April 16, 2005 @11:04PM (#12259112) Homepage Journal
    I'm not going to see the movie. They replaced Tom Bombadil with some stupid robot, and I hear Trillian is going to be fighting at Helm's Deep. Isn't anything sacred anymore?

  • Question (Score:2)

    by JJ ( 29711 )
    So do you trust everything you see in print? I'm not dissing the Telegraph per se, just print media in general. Nothing like trusting the BBC in toto.
  • Were they paid for the review?

    I recall watching in 60 minutes this old man saying how certain reviewers were invited to buffettes and such so they would give favorable reviews of movies that frankly, sucked.

    I'd like to know if this was the case, too.
  • The other review also posted on slashdot tore the movie to pieces. So wich one is true?

    Well it depends of course on what you want the movie to be. LoTR is generally considered to be a good/okay adapation of the books yet some hardcore fans complain that important elements were left out or changed. Most book to movie adaptations do not go well. I robot and the sound of thunder have people who love the original book (or short story) version crying foul about the movie adapatation.

    What I am getting from the

  • FilmFocus has already reviewed [filmfocus.co.uk] this movie...
    "I loved this film. It's faithful, irreverent, fun, funny and in no way the disrespectful waste of celluloid Adams fans had secretly been dreading."

  • "Don't Panic" - brand PDA (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Cloudface ( 702721 ) on Sunday April 17, 2005 @01:02AM (#12259622) Journal
    I met a fella at a party in England once in the seventies. We peed in a field and argued over whether "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Milky Way" was a better title. He thought not... Said I was a telepathic bastard in fact, but that's water out back of the comet now. Point: All I want is a PDA with all the video and movies and radio cross-ref'd with the Texts, with the words "Don't Panic" on its cover. Counterpoint: After all this time, is that too much to ask of Western Civilization? Tesserapoint: Or, at least, of an anonymous yet literate electronics factory in Taiwan?

  • Trillian a romantic interest? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Flyboy Connor ( 741764 ) on Sunday April 17, 2005 @03:09AM (#12260146)
    The review says Trillian will be a romantic interest of Arthur Dent. If anything, this convinces me they did something seriously wrong with the movie. A romantic interest is for heroes, or at least for guys with something going for them. Arthur Dent is a notorious failure, a complete nobody in the universe, and he is driven, at least in the first three books, mainly by a quest to find a decent cup of tea. Is he going to "save the girl" now? Shocking.

    • The review says Trillian will be a romantic interest of Arthur Dent. If anything, this convinces me they did something seriously wrong with the movie.

      Did you know they had a child together...?! (Fifth book)

      (Okay, if you know the scenario it wasn't in quite a romantic way, but there were actually cases of romantic heroism:)

      Arthur picked a fight with a Norse god (Thor) to get her back. (Third book)

      Arthur killed someone to protect her (Second radio series)

      There was also some past sexy business all

Slashdot Top Deals

The rule on staying alive as a program manager is to give 'em a number or give 'em a date, but never give 'em both at once.

Close