The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy Reviews

On average, people found this review very helpful
Report this review

Good Points: It's finally here and it hasn't been thrashed within an inch of its existence by the film industry.

Bad Points: Apparently motiveless cuts in some legendary material.

General comments: I have now seen The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy Movie.

You know, for the last 20 odd years I have hoped, but never thought, that I would actually be able to write that last sentence about The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

To be honest, after all that time and all the critical attention the film has received in recent days, I went forth unto to the Empire, Leicester Square, London last night feeling more than a little apprehensive. But I knew I'd go. I had to. You see Douglas Adams has been responsible for making me laugh. He has made me laugh a lot. He also tried hard over the years to make a film version of the Guide a reality and had fought through several drafts of the screenplay himself. Can you imagine how it must have felt back in 1984 when he churned out three draft screenplays for Ivan Reitman, Joe Medjuck and Dan Akroyd., when in the end they plumped for a little thing called Ghostbusters. So, in a way, I sort of felt that I owed it to him to go; that and that fact that I had over twenty years of cumulative curiosity to satisfy.

First off, let's get the expectation management bit out of the way. It is true that recent press reviews have been less than complimentary about this movie. Comments have been made about it not being the same as the book, or the radio series, or the stage production. (I can't help but see that last point as being a definite plus in my book. I mean, did you see the stage show?) There are new characters too, Zarquon forbid! Reviews have mentioned, almost ad nausea, that the character of Humma Kavula is totally new and this fact seems to have caused some degree of distress for no adequately explored reason. Who said that we couldn't have new characters? Douglas Adams created Humma Kavula especially for the movie and it is his story after all, so just shut up and accept it. Who are we to argue?

Comment has also been made regarding how complicated and disjointed the opening of the movie is and that the novice would find it bewildering. That comment can only have been made with the benefit of hindsight. I personally remember finding the first run broadcast of the radio series all those years ago a tad on the confusing side!

Let's look at some of the big questions that were certainly in my thoughts prior to seeing the film and which seem to have been preoccupying the minds of many others too as of late.

Question number one. Is it as good as the original radio series? No. Of course it isn't. It never could be. It never even stood a chance. Even the new radio series isn't as good as the original radio series and it's got most of the original cast in it. The original radio series has been around so long now that it has passed into the realm of legend. Indeed, amongst a certain fan demographic it is virtually sacred. So, no movie (or any type of new production come to that) could ever hope hold a candle to the original radio series. Apart from the fact that some of those talented individuals who brought us the original series have now sadly departed this Earth, the author not withstanding, there is one other major reason why this production cannot compete with the original radio series. It is a movie, a motion picture. "Picture" and "motion" being the operative words here. We can even throw in the word "colour" for good measure. The original radio series was an audio only experience backed up with that most perfect of visual environments, the listener's imagination. Can you see the difference? It's an apples and pears situation. It's a pointless comparison. So let's just let that one go, shall we? Forget about it and move on. There still is and always will be the original. We'll always have Golgafrincham.
Still with me? Good! Next question. Is it better than the television series? Undoubtedly, yes. But let's look at this a little more closely shall we? The television series was made by the BBC with Eighties technology, on a budget of about £17.62, a book of Luncheon Vouchers and the help of a small hard working elderly snail called Eric. Whereas Disney made the movie with modern day CGI technology, a budget of millions and employed the talents of Jim Henson's Creature Shop. So, how do you think it's going to stack up in comparison?

Finally, the third of the big questions. Are the characters the same as the original? Well, yes, of course they are. They are the same characters we've all come to know and love during these past decades - with the exception of Humma Kavula and he gets his own special mention later on in this review. What we are really talking about here is portrayal, are we not? Just how good is this rabble of upstarts, these pretenders to the throne that call themselves a cast?

Well, let's have a look. Sam Rockwell is excellent; Bill Nighy is superb; Helen Mirren brings a new concept to the character of Deep Thought (Think Deep!), Zooey Deschanel's performance is a pleasant surprise and thus could I carry on at some length. But then, just what is it that we are weighing up here? Martin Freeman plays a very good Arthur Dent, but he does a fairly lousy Simon Jones. But then, he's not playing Simon Jones, is he? In the same way that Sam Rockwell is not playing Mark Wing Davey, Mos Def isn't playing Geoffery McGivern (or David Dixon come to that - who, in turn, wasn't playing Geoffrey McGivern either - in fact, I always felt he was doing more of a Dr Who thing anyway) and Alan Rickman is not playing Stephen Moore*, but is a marvellous maniacally depressed android. We have a different bunch of people who bring their own talents and interpretations to their roles - and that's what all this acting business is all about in the first place, right?

It all really hinges on two main aspects in my humble opinion.

Is the movie true to the concept of the original Guide? Most very definitely, yes. Hammer & Tongs clearly understood their material. Whilst they try to present a fresh point of view for the modern day audience, they have also managed to slip in little salutes that only us die hard fans would ever notice. Our own special little rewards for having waited so patiently all this time for this movie. Keep your eyes peeled during the scene in the Vogon prison on Vogsphere if you don't believe me.

Is it the same story? Well, yes and no. But then even the books were different from the original radio series, weren't they? The double LP was different from the books (Hot Black Desiato v the Hagunenons springs to mind), so why can't the movie be different too? When you actually come down to it the plot differences are relatively minor. The Vogons play a larger part in the movie. There is a whole new subplot involving Humma Kavula and a little thing called a Point of View gun. Some maintain that this thread does not seem to make any sense. Hello? Yes! Can we just stop and think about that statement for a minute? This is the Guide we're talking about here for goodness sake. It's not meant to be sensible. And were we all watching the same movie? I thought the Point of View gun was a nifty little item and it gets its fair share of laughs. The movie makes more of the relationship between Arthur and Trillion. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move. I must admit, that it didn't really work for me, but then it didn't spoil my enjoyment of the movie either. In the end though, it all effectively comes back to the same place. Our heroes still manage to accomplish pretty much all the same things they have always done and we still get to see a displaced sperm whale and a reincarnated bowl of petunias with sudden attack of deja vu.

The best bit about the differences is that after all these years, there's some new material. I don't know about any of you other Old Timer's out there, but I had slipped into the wry smile stage with the Guide a long time ago. The movie, however, made me laugh both with new takes on the old favourites and some jolly good new gags too. We've even given a new Marvinism to annoy people with! "Now I've got a headache" can take its rightful place alongside such classics as "I'm not getting you down at all am I?".

In any event, you can't turn books into movies without changing things. They are two totally different mediums after all. Look at Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" films. He was heavily criticised by purists for daring to make alterations to the storyline and for moving whole subplots from one installment to another. Fair points. All deeply felt and, doubtless, forensically argued, but there is no denying the fact that he turned out three damned good films.

Now what about this movie as a whole?

Apart from the fact that some of the footage had that "I've been filmed in the UK" feel to it, the film is visually sound (Disney, remember?). The Vogons are superb thanks to the combined talents of Jim Henson and The League of Gentlemen. The dolphin intensive Busby Berkeley style opening number (and it is a number) right through to Marvin's closing "end of the universe" gag it's a veritable Hitchhiker's feast. "It's nice to see that the old Dr Who/Blake's Seven style gravel pit equals alien planet surface sets are still in fashion," as a friend of mine commented, after seeing an early trailer for the movie. Actually, having now seen the film in its entirety I am convinced that the scenes in question are, in fact, meant to look like the old Dr Who/Blake's Seven style gravel pit equals alien planet surface sets. The Vogon ships are pretty much perfect in my mind, the Magrathea factory floor is simply superb. Hey, what can I say, it worked for me.

And what about all the old stuff we cherish and hold so very dear? Well, we are still treated to the strains of "The Journey of the Sorcerer" segueing into the those now immortal words (narrated eloquently by Stephen Fry) "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy is a truly remarkable book "

Some things didn't make it into the movie in their original form. The entire canon of Guide entries doesn't make it (how could they, the film is less than two hours long), but some of them are still make it in visual form, even if they are not verbally explained. This provides even more bijoux moments for the truly devoted, such as the plethora of jewelled encrusted crabs scuttling about during almost every Vogon scene and don't forget to check out exactly what it is that Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz is using for a chair.

Not all is sweetness and light. What I did find annoying (other than the sound system at the Empire. Loud is okay, but we're talking distorted treble here. Initially, I thought Mos Def was fluffing some of his lines, but in retrospect I'm pretty sure that most of this was down to the inadequacies of the sound system) was the truncation of some of the classic jokes. I wouldn't mind, but I couldn't understand why the cuts had been made. For instance, the whole "in the basement inside a locked filing cabinet in a disused lavatory with a sign saying Beware of the leopard" became "they were in the cellar". Why? It can't just simply be run time, I reckon that leaving these sacred lines intact would have added no more than five minutes to the overall length of the film. So, what's the deal here then? In the words of Magnus Mangusson "I've started so I'll finish."

And another thing, this whole Americanisation shtick. "Sector zed zed nine plural zed alpha" becomes "sector zee zee nine plural zee alpha". When do they ever Britishise a movie? Let them say "zed" for a change! (I know, I know, this a totally gratuitous personal generic film industry type gripe, but at least I feel better now for getting it off my chest).
And so we come to the final and critical acid test. After all this time, all these changes, cuts and all these new people getting their mitts on the material, is it still funny. Let's ask a purist. Hey, I'm a purist! I'm so pure that I'm sad. I'm so sad I quote verbatim from the scriptures at will. "I'm so cool you could keep a side of meat in me for a month. I'm so hip I have difficulty seeing over my pelvis." So, let's ask me then. Yes, it's still funny. A different funny than what I'm used to in places, but it is still funny. A whole new world ("Oh no, not another one.") of virgin fans can now get a kick out of this story. It is what the Guide should be. It is fun.

Did I enjoy it? Oh, yes and there's more than a good chance that I'll go see it again before it finishes its current run and I'll buy the DVD and I'll keep humming "So Long and Thanks for All the Fish" for some time to come. But don't just take the word of a sad rambling towel clutching old hitchhiker, who sometimes also goes by the name of Rooster. Go see it, help boost the box office and maybe, just maybe they'll make The Restaurant at the End of the Universe. Just maybe.

Until then, I globber.

John Swanson
05/05/05
(Sorry, I should have Americanised that, it should have been 05/05/05. There, that's better now, isn't it?)

(*Stephen Moore was a National Theatre player.)

On average, people found this review somewhat helpful
Report this review

The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy - Having read the books about 20 years ago, I think I was probably the perfect audience for this film. I loved the books as a kid, I remember some of the basic plot, most of the characters and the unique sense of humour and writing style. I do not, however, remember much of the detail, catchphrases, or the very specific character traits that the more hardcore fans probably find intrinsic to their enjoyment.

What this meant is that watching the film, it pret ...

On average, people found this review helpful
Report this review

About 5 years ago I tried to read The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy and gave up because I got bored. I decided to give it another go and see the film. I'm a massive Red Dwarf fan and think that science fiction and comedy can make a great combination, but this film was just a bit too dull. There's a few funny little instances but other than the world getting destroyed in about 5 minutes nothing really happened. I was never moved from my seat with laughter or excitement. A lot of the plot and jo ...

On average, people found this review helpful
Report this review

Douglas Adams must be sitting up in heaven, feet hanging over the edge of a cloud somewhere, harp slung happily over his should, sipping at a beer, generally happy with how those left behind completed his movie.

Or not. After all, Adams was an atheist, so maybe he's not even looking. Either way, after so many years and so much hot air, the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy has finally hit the big screen and for the most part it's worthy of the name.

First off, however, the obligatory discla ...

glenda's review has yet to be rated - Be the first!
Report this review

If you've read the The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy book and heard the radio then this is a poor comparison and not worth the time.

On average, people found this review somewhat helpful
Report this review

The script for The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy was written with an American audience in mind, and even they would hate it. None of the brain slapping hysterical laugh-out-loud moments were recaptured and any text that closely resembled the original was truncated to the point of where a forced smile was often the kindest one could say for the film.
If ever someone was to do this to the Bible or Koran an almighty religious war would break out and end the Earth.
Any fan of the original works ...

On average, people found this review somewhat helpful
Report this review

The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy is very bad!! As I said it was not funny. Trust me, do not pay money to see this film for the many reasons I mentioned above!!