Rate the Hitchhiker's Guide movie

Bard

What did you think of the 2005 movie of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?

Rate it out of 10 and give your review, if you have one, here.

For my part, I'll give it a 7 as I thought it was good - quite entertaining... but wouldn't mean as much to non-fans of the books - and the books weren't ideal for making a movie of in the first place imho.

Steve

Bard wrote: »

For my part, I'll give it a 7 as I thought it was good - quite entertaining... but wouldn't mean as much to non-fans of the books - and the books weren't ideal for making a movie of in the first place imho.

Pretty much sums up my thinking.

It would be impossible to do it properly without it turning into a lord of the rings style epic.

I'm giving it 8 though.

Zaph

Only a 6 from me I'm afraid. An American Ford Prefect and a romantic storyline for Arthur and Trillian that was never even hinted at in any previous incarnation spoiled things a bit for me. That said, it was a lot better than I was expecting it to be and it does have one of the greatest theme songs of any film I've ever seen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojydNb3Lrrs

johnnyskeleton

6 for doing a fairly good job transposing a difficult script into a film and striking a good balance between the fans' favourites, new material/new takes on old material and making the film make sense to someone unfamiliar with HHG2G.

-2 because it seemed lacking in the energy and madness usually instilled by Douglas Adams (although I think it's impossible to have any decent visual media version of HHG2G, as the TV show was missing this energy too)

But +4 because Zooey Deschanel is hot.

So 8, which sounds about right.

johnnyskeleton

Zaph wrote: »

Only a 6 from me I'm afraid. An American Ford Prefect and a romantic storyline for Arthur and Trillian that was never even hinted at in any previous incarnation spoiled things a bit for me. That said, it was a lot better than I was expecting it to be and it does have one of the greatest theme songs of any film I've ever seen.

Well Trillian was american in the TV series, and there was always the storyline of the failed romance between Arthur and Trillian (culminating in so many near misses).

I don't think you can beat the original theme tune played on a banjo with some "futuristic" sounds in the background.

takola

I gave it a 9. I was fairly disappointed when I first seen it I admit. Zaff's heads annoyed me. Thought considering the effects they could do in this day and age they could have done him alot better.

But in saying that I loved the new Marvin. The dialogue was entertaining and I loved the flyswats on Vogsphere. I also want a point of view gun.

I love the movie now. Although it doesn't beat the tv series I have to admit.

Near sure they used the old theme tune in it and so long and thanks for all the fish was great!

Zaph

takola wrote: »

Near sure they used the old theme tune in it

Yep, it was the same music that was used in the tv series. It's called Journey of the Sorcerer and it's by the Eagles, from the One of These Nights album. It was originally used on the radio series before being used for the tv version.

Dinner

I went for a 7. It was good but they could have done better. Thought Martin Freeman was good in it and Marvin was excellant but was I disapointed in Ford and didn't like Zaph at all. The head thing just kept getting to me.

Then they had to end it by missing the point of The Restaurant at the End of the Universe.

ProjectColossus

8 from me, I really enjoyed it. Had me giggling like a lunitic throughout. Fry as the guide was excellent, and I really liked Freeman and Deschanel in their roles. Marvin stole every scene.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Douglas himself write many of the plot elements frequently cited by critics as straying from the source material and ruining it? It annoys me when people get up in arms about stuff Douglas wrote into the screenplay himself.

Loses marks from me because I didn't really like Mos Def as Ford, nor did I love Zaphod's second head. (I'll concede that it was a decent attempt, just a flawed implementation?)

Zaph

ProjectColossus wrote: »

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Douglas himself write many of the plot elements frequently cited by critics as straying from the source material and ruining it? It annoys me when people get up in arms about stuff Douglas wrote into the screenplay himself.

He did, and it's established H2G2 canon that all versions of the Guide are different. I don't have a problem with that, with the sole exception of the Arthur/Trillian love story, it just feels like it was added to appease American audiences.

KnifeWRENCH

Alan Rickman and Stephen Fry were fantastic as Marvin and The Guide.
(Alan Rickman = Coolest voice ever. FACT )

However, I think the rest of the roles could have been cast better.
So I'll give it a 6.

Bard

Don't forget the frankly brilliantly eccentric Bill Nighy as Slartibartfast

Wasn't mad about John Malkovic's 'Humma Kavula' though...

stevenmu

I gave it an 8. It never really managed to capture the type of observational wit that made the books truly great, but some of the slapstick humour worked quite well. And while the nods to classic H2G2 jokes probably fell flat for people who haven't read the books, they were great to see. The theme music and the thanks for the fish song were brilliant too.

Goodshape

I thought every role was badly cast tbh. Fry, Rickman and Nighy included. And Bill Bailey's cameo as the whale. Sure they're all great and/or 'cool' actors but the clout of who they are overpowers the characters imo.

Steven Fry, for example, is a fantastic clever and witty personality -- but this wasn't supposed to be the Steven Fry Show, it's The Guide. It's got a singular wit all onto itself, and doesn't need Fry's nasely charm added to it. Huge distraction imo.

Same goes for Rickman and Bill Bailey. I guess Nighy as Slartybartfast wasn't too bad. Just not what I had envisioned from the books, radio show and TV series.

And everyone else was sort of obviously mis-cast. Zaphod being a slight exception, I think that casting could have gone alright if they hadn't ruined the character.

Probably worth noting that I loved the old BBC TV show. I think that made-on-a-shoe-string, Pythonesque, BBC production style suits the material, and allows the actual writing to shine through, much more than this bigger budget Hollywood style affair.


Having said all that though, it was still HHGTTG - and even at it's worst it's hard not to like it. 6/10 for me. Disappointing as it was, I still would have liked to see a sequel - where hopefully they'd have a chance to tidy a few things up.

Bard

Goodshape wrote: »

I guess Nighy as Slartybartfast wasn't too bad. Just not what I had envisioned from the books, radio show and TV series.

S'funny, tbh... for me, Bill Nighy was almost exactly 100% the embodiment of what Slartibartfast was like in my head from reading the book, from his look to his little mannerisms. I couldn't have thought of a better actor to fill that role.

I agree about the mis-casting of Mos Def as Ford Prefect and thought that it should definitely not have been an American actor in that role (... perhaps Simon Pegg would have been better?... no, wait ... I'm now imagining the role being played by Dylan Moran - that'd be interesting).

Mos Def had a certain quirkiness that worked fairly well though... and he connected with Martin Freeman (who I liked very much as Arthur) about as well as Ford did with Arthur (in other words, not very well at all... chalk and cheese, if you will). Have to agree in liking Zooey Deschanel very much as Tricia McMillan/Trillian although the whole thing with her as the love interest threw me slightly, as I always liked the story of Arthur and Fenny from later on in the books.

There were little touches and in-jokes that I liked too (the original Marvin from the TV series standing in line in the building on Vogsphere, for example) and I *did* like Stephen Fry's narration.

They were never going to please every fan with the movie but I think they did as good a job of adapting it for the big screen as could have been made, apart - possibly -from a few changes in the cast. As much as I'd like to see a sequel, I don't see it happening unfortunately.

DMC

Got to agree with a lot said here, a 7 is about right.

+ points: Zooey Deschanel, Martin Freeman and Marvin. I didn't mind Zaphod at all, a brash over confident American sums up his character. Oh, and Joby Talbot's score.

- points: Moz Def. Nuff said. The use of Simon Jones for the sake of it, I felt a bigger role, maybe even as Slartibartfast might have worked, but as the original Arthur Dent, what other role could he have had. Humma Kavula, and the ending.

Dades

I thought the casting was spot on - particularly Arthur - and the execution was excellent. For me they captured the theme of the books very well.

My big gripe with the film was the introduction of new material, i.e. the Vogon planet stuff. I mean, there was so much material in all the books - why did they need to bring this in? I made for a disjointed trip I thought.

Zaph

Dades wrote: »

My big gripe with the film was the introduction of new material, i.e. the Vogon planet stuff. I mean, there was so much material in all the books - why did they need to bring this in? I made for a disjointed trip I thought.

It's a well established fact that none of the various mediums have exactly the same storyline. There's stuff that happens in the radio version that never made it to the books, and stuff in the books that are different from the tv series, and so on. New stuff isn't a problem, imo, with the exception of the Arthur/Trillian love story I mentioned earlier.

trout

After some consideration, I gave it 6 / 10.

I thought Zooey Deschanel was excellent, and Marvin cracked me up.

The inconsistencies and plot deviations don't bother me so much, you kind of get used to it after a while, what with the variations between the books, radio show, and tv show.

Mos Def and Zaphod sucked ass, I thought ... but overall, I really enjoyed it.

Not having read the books in several years (now rectified) I watched it without any expectations, and felt quite entertained.

The Arthur/Trillian thing really didn't hit me ... I always thought there was an oblique hint of unrequited regard from Arthur, particularly from the books.

MOH

Awful. Hated it. In fact, I feel about the film pretty much the way Marvin feels about everything. 0, because that's the lowest I can give it.

takola

MOH wrote: »

Awful. Hated it. In fact, I feel about the film pretty much the way Marvin feels about everything. 0, because that's the lowest I can give it.

What made you hate it so much?

MOH

takola wrote: »

What made you hate it so much?

Nothing felt right to me. It felt very generic to me. Hard to say since most of it seems to have erased itself from my memory, even though I know I saw it in the cinema at the time. The bits in my head where it used to be are now filled with haterd and loathing. Bit strong I know, it probably wasn't that bad, but that's how I (don't) remember it.

Steve_o

I enjoyed it alot... 8/10 from me!

ArthurDent

Bard wrote: »

S'funny, tbh... for me, Bill Nighy was almost exactly 100% the embodiment of what Slartibartfast was like in my head from reading the book, from his look to his little mannerisms. I couldn't have thought of a better actor to fill that role.
.

snap - otherwise thougt it was ok - had been dreading it , thiniking it would be entirly ruined - it wasn't . but neither was it fab.I gave it a 5 - must go bak and watch it again - have the dvd but didn't watch it yet