PDA

View Full Version : The Hitchhiker's Guide--A Review



m1s1n
01-05-2005, 19:39
Here are some of my thoughts on Garth Jennings' "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy."

Acting: The acting stands out as being interesting and over-the-top at some points, at others it suffers from being too mundane. Mos Def as Ford Prefect tries desperately to be "wacky and not of this world"--and the audience can read this in his performance. Sam Rockwell gives a similar performance as Zaphod, but is more successful. Rockwell's performance is probably the strongest in the film--however, the bipolar nature of Zaphod gets a little confusing and distant at times. Zooey Deschanel and Martin Freeman give good human performances--Freeman standing out as the stronger actor between the two. Freeman's role doesn't stand out in any real way--which could be a sign of his ability.
Score: 5/10

The Directing: "The Hitchhiker's Guide" is filled with a large amount of energy and wackiness. The film tries to emulate this energy, but ultimately falls short. Partially this is due to restraints put in place by choices made in production. For example, the story follows more of a traditional linear narrative than previously. This new "Hollywood Twist" makes the original vision of the "Guide" seem neutered and lame. However, most audiences that are unfamiliar with the story will find it easier to follow. Some will argue that this sacrifice is financially beneficial--other's will be deeply offended. Editing choices move smoothly, and the overall vision of "The Guide" is conveyed.
Score: 5/10

Cinematography: If you do not notice anything about the cinematography, that means that someone is generally doing a good job. If you notice good camera moves and interesting lighting that means someone is doing an exceptional job. In this case, most of the cinematography is just good. There really are no poor camera moves, and the lighting is fine. There are some epic scenes that stand out as being amazing, but most of those are digitally created. Still, the audience is never confused or bothered by the cinematography--which is a good thing.
Score: 7/10

Sound: Fun and lighthearted, which helps to create a better atmosphere for the entire film. Again, if you do not notice the sound that means someone is doing a good job. They are doing a better job if the sound completely changes the experience from negative to positive. In this case the sound has a great effect on the film.
Score: 8/10

Overall: "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" is a good transfer of mediums, however most will be disappointed because it is not the same experience they received from reading the books or listening to the radio show. Some audience members simply will not "get" the film, others will laugh at all the strange moments. Considering that Adams' died while working on the script for this film there is a lot of sentimental attachment that fans will bring to the movie. Generally this film is a good translation between mediums--fun characters, good jokes, and wacky moments--however, most will find it confusing or muted. Unfortunately, there is nothing that is truly outstanding in this film, which makes it feel less glorious than I would like it to be.
Overall Score: 6/10

Inquisitor Engel
01-05-2005, 21:24
I've got to disagree with you on several points:

I enjoyed Mos Def as Ford, he takes a lot from the book, and despite a large hint of American, most of his accent is fairly un-regional and lends itself well to being rather alien. His 'over the top' is precisely what Ford, and the majority of the book, should be. his reaction to Vogon poetry was exactly as Adams described it, and was spot on, if over the top.

I found the directing to work fairly well, it fits with how things should be, it's not 'OMG WE MUST MAKE THIS AWESOME!" but it's not sub-par either. Your rating is decent, but I think you have to take things in context. It was never meant to be an earth-shatteringly awesome spectacle of cinematography, and I think Adams would have been disappointed if it were.

It translated well. I was a little disappointed with Arthur's hook up with Trillian, but I can certainly see it not really getting in the way of any sequels (PLEASE!) as Arthur acts like he probably would in situations anyway, Trillian would just reciprocate. (And Fenchurch can come up once they're seperated anyway)

Personally, I'd give it an 8/10, as it's certainly better than it could have been in the wrong hands, translated much better than I feared it might, and the acting fit with the characters (Bill Nighy, whilst not quite what I imagined Slartibartfast to look like, did an excellent job) and Alan Rickman genuinely made me empathise with Marvin, something I never could do in the books. Funny yes, but not easy to empathise with.

I'm holding my beath for a sequel personally. 3 actually, as I wasn't a big fan of 'Mostly Harmless.' I want to see the Kriket wars! :D

Xhalax
01-05-2005, 21:57
Having never read the book, but with an extremely basic understanding of what the books were about......I still really enjoyed the movie with quite a few laugh-out-loud moments.

There were somethings that I found a bit strange, but I went with a friend who had read the books, so I got the explanations along the way.

The only thing I thought wasn't quite right with the film was the look of Marvin.
Alan Rickman as his voice....excellen (Mr. Rickman rules!)...but he just didn't look right. But I thought everyone else did very well and here was some great casting in my view of people who seemed right for the parts (like Stephen Fry as the narrator).
Not very eloquently put...but then it is me that's typing.

But overall I loved the total craziness of it all and after seeing the films, it's bumped the books up on my 'To read' list and I won't say no to thought of sequeals being made. I know i'd go see them. And Hitchhiker's is one for my DVD collection too.

Baggers
01-05-2005, 23:15
Its the head of Marvin that I have a problem with, the rest of the film no problem and it has translated very well from the books. Just that stupid planet sized head on Marvin does not work.

Did you notice the orginal Marvin in the background of the Vogon office. As well as Arthur Dent doing a double take as he looks at it.

Inquisitor Engel
01-05-2005, 23:21
Just that stupid planet sized head on Marvin does not work.
Actually, I thought it did. I liked it, sure it was a little big to begin with, but it grew on me.

Oh, and the funniest part by far was the "Yarn sequence." :D

TheSonOfAbbadon
01-05-2005, 23:24
Don't you know he has a brain the size of a planet?

I love the new Marvin, the head reflects his intelligence, and the TV show Marvin was ugly!

I haven't seen the film, but my sister has, she says the best part was the babelfish explanation with the cow, and the part where wool-Arthur throws up multi-coloured wool.

EDIT: Oh yeah, I'm really disappointed that it isn't the same as the book, the TV show was a bit different from the radio show but not overly so, but the movie misses out the entire Brontitall thing! NO HUGE BIRDS! NOOOO! There's alot of other stuff they miss out, and add, e.g: the giant lady, Ford Prefect thinking cars are the dominant lifeform on the planet.

Xhalax
02-05-2005, 00:01
The size of his head was problem.....especially as it was almost constantly facing downwards (I feel so sorry for Warwich Davis).
But just coz he has the brain the size of a planet doesn't mean he had to have a head to match.....after all he's an android.
I was told about the old Marvin being in there and it was pointed out to me.

I agree with you Engel on the yarn sequence. Highly amusing.
I also loved the little bit about the sperm whale......that still makes me laugh, even now.
:D

Ass Goblin
02-05-2005, 00:43
I liked it. The Trillian/Arthur thing they could have done without but overall quite a good movie. I loved the Sperm Whale and the dolphin song. They where very well done.

PS. Trillian = Teh Hot.

Bubble Ghost
02-05-2005, 01:11
I was a little disappointed with Arthur's hook up with Trillian

Funny, I thought that was one of the best bits, and I normally hate that Obligatory Romantic Subplot tedium. It's definitely a bow to Hollywood expectations but at the same time, so much other stuff stayed true to the themes if not the specific details of the book, it would have been too easy to have Trillian as a vacuous cow; as far as I'm concerned, the fact that she wasn't was a vital factor in making the plot digestible as a 2-hour movie as opposed to a 5-book novel series. It was a sensible change, and one that showed they were aware of what the thing had to do as movie in its own right as well as being an interpretation of a book.

Dargon
02-05-2005, 01:38
The size of his head was problem.....especially as it was almost constantly facing downwards (I feel so sorry for Warwich Davis).I actually liked this about the new-look Marvin. It both gave Marvin an "ultra-cute" look (which is great for getting that instant sympathy from an audience), and with the all the weight of the head forwards, he had a permanent "slumped" look. Very appropriate for a depressed robot.

I've never read the books, only listened to the radio play.
I though the movie was good, but could have been alot better. I'd generally agree with m1s1n's assessment. I liked Zaphod when he was being charismatic, problem he spent too much time as a clumbsy stoned piece of baggage. Likewise Ford didn't work for me most of the time. Arthur also could have been more interesting ( :eek: ), yes he's suppose to be the dullest person on the planet, but "Shawn of the Dead" has shown it can be done in an interesting way.

I rather liked Trillion (even if she did little but look around with those big eyes) and the added love interest. Alan Rickman was born to voice Marvin, and likewise Stephen Fry "as The Book" (radio play gag).

I'm possibly a little biased though - while the end was clever, I wanted to see Marvin defeating a giant killer robot with his depressing logic like in the radio play... instead of doing the excessively predictable heroic sacrifice common to just about every Disney movie imaginable. I'm really fed up with movies that pretend to kill off characters - it's really cheap. I would have been much happier if Marvin just made a complaint about being left behind, perhpas sat down depressed in the middle of the firefight ("what's the point running, I'll just get shot anyway") and just picked up the gun beside him...

In fact, I think my chief complaint was timing. I think this movie could have moved much, much faster (with the exception of the Guide bits). Most of the jokes (and movie in general) dawdled too much - in British comedy they tend to snap through their jokes much faster. British jokes with american timing just doesn't work - if it's too fast for the casual viewer, so much the better - it'll add to repeat viewings ;) .

Just my thoughts...

Samoth
02-05-2005, 03:17
To tell you the truth, I thought it was a very poor movie. The acting was fine, some of the comedy drew a few laughs... But on a whole it's a comedy that simply isnt that funny. Maybe I dont have that "british sense of humor", but as we walked out I heard lots of other people saying basically the same thing.

For example, the towel thing. It's simply thrown in, very abstract, but it isnt expanded upon at all and is therefore just weird without the hilarity something like that could add to the movie. Many other things in the movie suffered the same way.

Edit - the spoiler tags dont work? Um, dont read the next paragraph then.

Highlight to read -
Earth was supposed to be one giant super computer. Instead it was just a planet with mice conducting experiments. It was supposed to calculate the ultimate question. Instead the mice (who first initiated the building of this "super computer") are just intrested in ratings.

Really, I think it was just a poor movie. Ecspecially the opening sequence. Would have been funny if they didnt drag it on for ten minutes.

Ass Goblin
02-05-2005, 03:21
@ Samoth I suggest you read 'The Restraunt at the end of the Universe. Alot more becomes clearer with the mice and earth issue.

Samoth
02-05-2005, 03:23
That wasnt my biggest complaint, but fair enough.

m1s1n
02-05-2005, 03:45
While I found the animated "Guide" stuff to be really funny and innovative--I also found them to be somewhat jarring. Anyone else feel that they removed the audience from the moment--somewhat upsetting the pace of the film?

Wiseman
02-05-2005, 05:05
havent seen it yet, but read all the books and loved them, is it worth going to see or will it just ruin the books? from the sounds of it its a good movie though.

Cypher
02-05-2005, 05:24
@m1s1n: I thought the guide bits had a slight Python feel to them, like with those strange animation pieces they had with Flying Circus.

I loved this film, but then again I do have a thing for British comedy. As I said, it had a touch of Python in it, and I also thought there were shades of Red Dwarf in there too. There were a few pacing problems: occasionally I found myself waiting for something really good to happen, but all up it was one of the most entertaining films for a while.

Inquisitor Engel
02-05-2005, 05:31
I'm possibly a little biased though - while the end was clever, I wanted to see Marvin defeating a giant killer robot with his depressing logic like in the radio play...
That occurs in 'Life the Universe and Everything' according to the books. (If we're talking about "What a depressingly stupid robot..." The Movie is just the first book, not the entire series.


the giant lady, Ford Prefect thinking cars are the dominant lifeform on the planet.
Both of which are in fact in the movie...


For example, the towel thing. It's simply thrown in, very abstract, but it isnt expanded upon at all and is therefore just weird without the hilarity something like that could add to the movie.
What, just like it is in the book? Ford beats back the Vogons with a towel, a background sequence which I found utterly hillarious. It doesn't serve much purpose in the books, at least until later on. Ford does indeed show how totally useful it is as well several times.



Highlight to read -
Earth was supposed to be one giant super computer. Instead it was just a planet with mice conducting experiments. It was supposed to calculate the ultimate question. Instead the mice (who first initiated the building of this "super computer") are just intrested in ratings.
Which is precisely what they're doing in the movie, and what they wanted in the book. Ratings. Oh, and it was a supercomputer, Deep Thought alludes to it, and then Slartibartfast and the Mice confirm that it was built to order. They needed Arthur's brain to get the answer from the computer.

It really isn't that hard is it? It's not stated explicitly, but it's all there.

Samoth
02-05-2005, 12:06
Well the towel. He beats back the vogans... But then again so does a closed gate. Useful certainly, but how is that the most important thing to have?

I know earth was built to order, but noone says anything about it being a computer. It's alluded to, but to all appearances and such, it seemed to be just a planet.

Looks like it was just me and the other 300 people I saw it with then... Aah well.

Ok then, another question from the one person here who hasnt read the book. Why did they need arthur's brain?

salty
02-05-2005, 12:26
I thought Marvin looked great, and having heard Alan Rickman as his voice, I can't ever imagine it being anyone else now!

"Lend me a hand, ha ha, how am I supposed to fly this tinpot piece of..." - He got it right down to a 't'.

Bill Bailey was a good choice for the whale too ;)

But overall I was let down. I preferred the books.

Salty :)

Baggers
02-05-2005, 13:53
Well the towel. He beats back the vogans... But then again so does a closed gate. Useful certainly, but how is that the most important thing to have?


The reason why a towel is so important is becuase it has so many pratical uses, Food source, blindness causer, drying yourself, signaling device.
Actually thats all from the second radio play, the use of a towel is a joke, like a lot of the things in the film, radio play, book, tv series its there because it is singualry unfunny, like 42.

Samoth
02-05-2005, 14:09
None of that was in the movie.

Well, there was a little drying.

Baggers
02-05-2005, 14:15
None of that was in the movie.

Well, there was a little drying.

Yes none of that was in the movie it is as I think pointed out all from the second radio play. As I said its a joke, maybe the reason why I find it funny is because it is a very British joke.

Lord Lucifer
02-05-2005, 15:00
I quite enjoyed the film.

Marvin worked for me. Voice by Mr. Alan Rickman is just perfect. I can't think of a better cast voice for a cripplingly depressed robot.
And the appearance worked for me too. Thanks to the immense head, it accentuates how pathetically small and uninspiring the rest of him is
Yes, the fake death was annoying but, well, drop in the ocean really.


Maybe the Guide segments broke things up, but I'm a fan of comic asides, and at least they were tidy and didn't get in the way (graphics come up, it's a Guide interlude, graphics go away, it's the story picking up from where we left off... very clean)


The movie set out rather well to be an outstanding comedy of underwhelming proportions :p
I think that was the point, really

Adept
02-05-2005, 15:05
So did they do a condensed version of all the books, or just the first one? Apart from the release date, I haven't really heard anything about it.

Inquisitor Engel
02-05-2005, 15:49
Maybe the Guide segments broke things up, but I'm a fan of comic asides, and at least they were tidy and didn't get in the way (graphics come up, it's a Guide interlude, graphics go away, it's the story picking up from where we left off... very clean)
To be honest, the book does exactly the same thing, and it works fine. (Doing this in a book can be even more jarring than in a movie) I loved them.

The Babel Fish was rather different than I expected it to look, although I do miss the point about God logicing himself into inexistence because of it. Ah well, who knows what's going to be on the DVD? :D


So did they do a condensed version of all the books, or just the first one? Apart from the release date, I haven't really heard anything about it.
Just the first book. Ford alludes to the second book. Hopefully we'll see a sequel.

m1s1n
02-05-2005, 17:13
Considering it pulled in over $20 million in the US on opening weekend, it's pretty certain that it will get a sequel. This movie made its money back, and in a series of films the last one to be made is the one that doesn't make any money.

Wintermute
02-05-2005, 18:25
Yes none of that was in the movie it is as I think pointed out all from the second radio play. As I said its a joke, maybe the reason why I find it funny is because it is a very British joke.

The Guide entry on towels was also printed on the official H2G2 Towels which were produced originally produced when So Long and Thanks for all the Fish was published (back in 1985 :eek: ).

alterion
02-05-2005, 19:18
jus got back form seeing it .. was okay.. some things i was really impressed by... the bok and the planet factory.. but some things sucked.. i.e the actor for ford prefect and for zaphod.. imo owen wilsion w 2 separate heads woulod work well as zaphod.. mavin was okay but not a patch on the radio... still it is hard to mess up a chaacter as supeb as marvin.. dunno about the side romance bit.. kind of ensures there won't be a 4th film... stil nice trillian so i don't mind also pov gun and all that ..naff.. the good stuff was all from the orginal

Baggers
02-05-2005, 19:46
The Guide entry on towels was also printed on the official H2G2 Towels which were produced originally produced when So Long and Thanks for all the Fish was published (back in 1985 :eek: ).

So that is why I can never find one, I was only a baby when they were produced.

de Selby
02-05-2005, 20:31
Literally just got back from the cinema and found this thread.

Wasn't quite sure what to expect, as THHGTTG and TRATEOTU are both highly episodic (what with being radio serials to begin with) and Douglass was basically plotting them as he went along. So they had to just rearrange the concepts and chase sequences to make a film narrative. Still a high recognition quotient for the fans, and a few new ideas that stood out (the point-of-view gun, the predatory fly-swatter things that were attracted by ideas, the knitted sequence...).

The voice acting was good. Sam Rockwell generally gives good value, but he oscillated between manic and lobotomized in a slightly odd way in this version. I liked the animated Guide.

I look forward to L,TUAE, as it's the first one that started with a novel and thus has a more conventional and film-friendly storyline.

Wintermute
02-05-2005, 20:43
So that is why I can never find one, I was only a baby when they were produced.

Needless to say I own a H2G2 towel :D

I've yet to see the film and to be honest I'm a little hesitant. I'm a fan of the original radio verison and I will always prefer the original cast, especially Stephen Moore's portrayal of Marvin.

BTW the fourth radio series begins on BBC Radio 4 tommorrow night (Tuesday) at 6.30pm (BST) and no doubt will be available on the BBC website as well.


I look forward to L,TUAE, as it's the first one that started with a novel and thus has a more conventional and film-friendly storyline.

It actually began life as a script for Dr Who, as did the first Dirk Gently novel.

Getz
03-05-2005, 01:33
While I found the animated "Guide" stuff to be really funny and innovative--I also found them to be somewhat jarring. Anyone else feel that they removed the audience from the moment--somewhat upsetting the pace of the film?

Not really. After all, the treatment of the book in the BBC TV series worked in exactly the same way (and if anything, was superior to the film version). So not really innovative either...

One thing that some people have complained about (although not on this thread) is that the film departs quite radically from the book in places. However, it's worth noting that every single version of H2G2 (the radio series, the vinyl record release, the book, the TV series, the plays, all of them...) has differed from all the others in one way or another - often at least as radically as the film has from the book this time, so that's not something the purist can complain about (and as something of a H2G2 afficionado, I welcome new ideas and material).

As for the Arthur/Trillian thing, apparently Douglas Adams was never really happy with Trillian, which is why she was such a vague character in previous versions. I'm told the romance thing was apparently his idea to inject some new ideas into the group dynamic. I doubt he would have wanted it all neatly resolved with a screen kiss at the end - I expect we was planning on something a bit messier and tortured - but I think it was a good idea that worked for me.

Inquisitor Engel
03-05-2005, 01:50
I expect we was planning on something a bit messier and tortured - but I think it was a good idea that worked for me.
Besides, she can disappear sometime before the alternate realities come into play. :D Or die in the Kriket wars.

Sai-Lauren
03-05-2005, 09:22
If I can just say something, I think a lot of people's dissappointments with the movie come from them expecting "The" HitchHikers... - the definitive version. I don't think there is one - the radio series came first, but the book's probably the one most people are familiar with - for example.

Anyway, onto the movie. I liked it for the most part. A couple of nods back to the original TV series (Marvin 1 and Simon Jones - the original Arthur - as the Magrathean voice mail service ;)) and Alan Rickman had Marvin's voice perfectly - utterly world weary with just a hint of snideness, sarcasm and rudeness. :D

What didn't work for me. Well, Mos Def was ok (nothing more), but faded into the background the instant they got aboard the Heart Of Gold - Ford's a lot more involved than that.
Zaphod's two heads - come on, he's supposed to be able to have conversations with himself, not be bi-polar. And his entire character did feel a little too forced - although that's probably for the global audience.


It actually began life as a script for Dr Who, as did the first Dirk Gently novel.
The Dirk Gently one was called Shada (Tom Baker and Lalla Ward), which got cancelled because the BBC technicians went on strike - for those that care.;)

Getz
03-05-2005, 17:43
Whereas LtUaE started life as Dr Who and the Krikkitmen, which Douglas Admas proposed but was turned down for being just a little bit too silly...

Inquisitor Engel
03-05-2005, 18:32
was turned down for being just a little bit too silly...
Which makes it IDEAL fodder for THHGTTG movies. :D

Although I think some regular cricket should be shown for much longer than in the book for the American audiences, like when Arthur reemerges on the Couch in the Middle of the Cricket Match.

de Selby
03-05-2005, 19:17
Dammit, I hadn't really thought that through. They'll have to make it the Baseball Wars for American audiences.

Good info on the Dr Who thing, though. I'm glad it didn't make it into Dr Who as it's such a perfect quest story for Arthur and the others. The starship Bistromath is my all time favourite fictional mode of transportation, relying for its operation on the strange and counter-intuitive nature of mathematics when applied to the problem of dividing up bills in restaurants.

How many other Guide ideas are rejected Who ideas, I wonder?

Inquisitor Engel
03-05-2005, 19:41
Dammit, I hadn't really thought that through. They'll have to make it the Baseball Wars for American audiences.
On the upside, they won't. The cast and crew aren't big on dishonouring Douglas Adams, and altering it to baseball would make him roll in his grave.

Most Americans (who would see the film at least) are AWARE of Cricket, they just don't understand it.

I once tried to teach my swim team how to play Quick Cricket once. It all went so horribly, horribly wrong... It also didn't help that I was the only one who could bowl properly...

Nid
04-05-2005, 01:31
Saw it last night. Loved the whale, babel fish, and the yarn. I want to do Trillian in the butt.

thunderwolf
04-05-2005, 02:28
Saw the film on Sunday evening, and absolutely loved it, as did my girlfriend. My flatmate hated it, and my brother was unmoved, but I think you just had to be in the right mood for it.

Did the rest of you cats catch the guide bit in the end credits, where it talks about the invasion of earth? Rather funny, but practically everyone had cleared off by the time it came up. Ah well, their loss :D

Inquisitor Engel
04-05-2005, 02:35
Did the rest of you cats catch the guide bit in the end credits, where it talks about the invasion of earth? Rather funny, but practically everyone had cleared off by the time it came up. Ah well, their loss :D
Dammit! *sigh* I GUESS I'll have to see it again... ;)

thunderwolf
04-05-2005, 02:42
Lol it'll be worth it for the dolphin song- had me singing the whole way home :)

Ass Goblin
04-05-2005, 04:26
I want to do Trillian in the butt.


:D so do I, She was really cute.

Inquisitor Engel
04-05-2005, 06:36
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Less "Do her in the butt" comments.

alterion
04-05-2005, 07:29
noo i went w friends so i left w them.. i guessed there might have been somenthing as thera always was on the radio

Eldacar
04-05-2005, 11:35
Invasion of Earth? Damn, I missed it. I may well have to see it again. I ain't complaining though. The Dolphin song simply rocks. Was this invasion thing in the middle of the credits or at the very end of the movie (like Matrix Revolutions trailer was at the very end of Matrix Reloaded)?

Warlord Gnashgrod
04-05-2005, 20:16
I liked the film. It's a lot better than most of what seems to come out these days. I found it very funny. It appealed to my twisted sense of humor.

Alan Rickman was the perfect choice for the voice of Marvin the Robot.

I only wish they had explained the importance of having a towel. Well, I guess there's always the DVD extras, or the sequel.

I left too early too. Didn't realize there was something about an Invasion of Earth during the end credits. I also might have to go see it again.

Deepthought
05-05-2005, 03:37
And the movie isn't out in OZ yet.

Ass Goblin
05-05-2005, 11:33
Yes it is. It's been out for a few days now. I've already seen it.

Tyra_Nid
06-05-2005, 06:53
And the movie isn't out in OZ yet.


Yes it is. It's been out for a few days now. I've already seen it.

Looks like someone got owned ;)

I am also eager to see it, just a matter of finding somone to drag along...

Delicious Soy
06-05-2005, 07:18
I think it will play better on DVD. I liked it but I think that you really need to know what to expect before going into the cinema. I've read Guide and the restruant so I had an idea of the humour and what would happen. My friends didn't and they didn't like it as much. Favourite bits?

-The improbability drive sequences
-Trillian (teh hawt!)

Eldacar
06-05-2005, 07:19
The movie has been out in Brisbane, Australia since eight days ago as of today, I believe (last thursday), but I got premiere tickets. :cool:


I am also eager to see it, just a matter of finding somone to drag along...
Just ask some of your friends if they want to go see it with you.

Dargon
09-05-2005, 00:46
Was this invasion thing in the middle of the credits or at the very end of the movie (like Matrix Revolutions trailer was at the very end of Matrix Reloaded)?It was in the middle of the credits. It is another animated Guide piece - for those familiar, it is the piece where a small wormhole opens and sends Arthurs final words into the middle of negotiations between two warring alien nations, and the translation inspires them to invade earth. The end result is pure Hitchhikers humour - anticlimactic, ridiculous and very funny :D .

And yes, it opened in Australia on Thursday the 28th of April. I saw it on the following weekend ;) .

Just a thought...

The pestilent 1
10-05-2005, 00:43
:confused:
ya mean the one where the entire warfleet spends thousands of years crossing the void only to get eaten by a small terrier?
that was in the middle of the film for me?! :confused:
you seriously cant be telling me that i imagined that happening?

Wiseman
10-05-2005, 00:59
you imagined that happening pestilent 1

The pestilent 1
11-05-2005, 00:40
Seriously?!
im hoping that its just a leftover memory from watching the original TV show on paramount then!

Kohhna
17-05-2005, 20:41
I thought it stank on ice.

Too much of the dialouge had been sacraficed and most of the brilliant adams ideas and flights of fancy were undercooked. Sam Rockwell didn't get it. Zaphod is not a ***** and he shouldn't be played as such, the whole giggly random bloody act was just really irritating.

The visuals were amazing and were at least a good testament to Adams vision (the wool bit justified the film on its own). The rest of it was OK and Steven Fry was good as the narrator, but it just didn't hold together.

Slappy
17-05-2005, 22:37
It was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Most of my friends fell asleep. I was embarassed to say the least. What a waste of money and time.

Rik Valdis
18-05-2005, 20:34
I enjoyed the film but I didnt scream with laughter like I did at the other versions of the story. I think the comedy was somewhat diluted for a non-british audience, still overall it was pretty good and I definately dont regret going to see it. particularly for the song which was quite simply, BRILLIANT.

Slappy
18-05-2005, 20:41
British humor is awful. It is always praised for being so witty and "above" western humor but everytime I watch a british comedy almost all the jokes are not funny and worst of all, very unclever. British humor is too "aware' of itself, like everybody knows they are comedians and knows they are taking part in something humorous and they act the part.

I still LOVE Monty Python though. That was actually genius British humor. The rest can go to poop.

Kohhna
18-05-2005, 21:37
British humor is awful. It is always praised for being so witty and "above" western humor but everytime I watch a british comedy almost all the jokes are not funny and worst of all, very unclever. British humor is too "aware' of itself, like everybody knows they are comedians and knows they are taking part in something humorous and they act the part.

I still LOVE Monty Python though. That was actually genius British humor. The rest can go to poop.

Probably depends on which British comedy you have seen. I mean there is a world of difference between something like Peep Show or Reeves and Mortimer and **** like Keeping Up Appearances which the Yanks eat up. You ever seen any Leauge Of Gentlemen (note. not the Alan moore Comic or the ****** hollywood film adaptation)

Inquisitor Engel
19-05-2005, 00:55
I still LOVE Monty Python though. That was actually genius British humor. The rest can go to poop.

Monty Python is, in my opinion, the least talented of all British Comedy. It's very obvious and very slap stick most of the time. The wittiest things they did generally aren't considered their best by most. (C'mon... The Ministry of Silly Walks?)

The stuff American TV shows on PBS is generally very slow and poor. 'Keeping up Appearances' is by far the most unfunny television show the UK has ever put out.

Things like Black Adder is the creme de la creme of British Comedy. It walks to fine line between being physical [read: American] Comedy and absolute wit and satire. Coupling is a more recent example of the use of wit, situational irony and word play over slapstick.

The League of Gentlemen is also excellent, excellent stuff if you want "silly wit."

If you really want to appreciate and watch the GOOD British Comedy, buy DVD's, don't watch PBS. (BBC America is a decent network if you can get it)

Ass Goblin
19-05-2005, 01:00
I loved Blackadder. Red Dwarf was also a great show. The only real American comedy I like are the cartoons. I don't really watch any American show's.

grey_painter
19-05-2005, 01:17
Ok then, another question from the one person here who hasnt read the book. Why did they need arthur's brain?

Earth was a giant super computer and all life on earth was part of the program. Since Earth was destroyed 5 minutes before the calculation was completed the mice (pan-dimensional super intelligent beings) are looking for some clue as to what the question is. Arthur is the last part of Earth and as part of the program its possible that he knows the question. And wheres the sensible place for the information? In his brain. So thats why the mice wanted to take it, not like Arthur was using it anyway...

Tyra_Nid
19-05-2005, 06:53
It is always praised for being so witty and "above" western humor

Errr... it IS western humour.

I assume you mean American humour?