my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews   » The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy (2005) (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy (2005) Brian Michael Weidemann Expert cat molester Posts: 944 From: Costa Mesa, CA United States Registered: Feb 2004 posted 04-26-2005 06:13 AM                        I must point out that my review is coming from a fairly biased perspective, but I imagine that all previous fans of the book(s) will have similar sentiments going in, as well as coming out. I loved it! I thought what they ended up doing to turn the meandering, aimless flow of the book's narrative into a cohesive movie plot arc was about as clever as the original insights that made the books so appealing. The movie worked, it made a bit more sense as a unit. Granted, it took its adventure-movie twists and sidetracking, but it kept it moving. There are really no dull parts. I knew that stuff would be, and would need to be, added; for instance the John Malkovich character appears nowhere in HHGG. Also, a few bits of dialog were thrown in to kind of smooth over (perhaps gloss over) some of the motivations. After all, in the book, Arthur did seem to just go with the flow more than we'd expect from a normal human in such extraordinary circumstances. There is a nice touch of emotion, and humanity, and the obligatory weight of the romantic tensions between Arthur and Trillian, that wasn't so much in focus in the book. They developed the Vogons as the bureaucratic paperpushers they are, that they previously were really only footnoted as, and they did it in a very British way, I thought. There are plenty of references to the original BBC television series! I clapped to the cameo of the original Marvin costume, for instance. And you can never get sick of that theme song. If there was anything I was disappointed at, it's that some of my favorite bits of dialog were cut from (or perhaps just not written into) some classic scenes that WERE included. All in all, there was enough humour verbatim from the book to satisfy the hardcore buffs trying to mouth the words along with it, and enough fresh and classically Adams content to make it new and exciting for those of us who, though we COULD recite the titles to Oolon Coluphid's trilogy of philosophical blockbusters by heart, would rather just sit back and watch the movie. Now, how does the movie hold up to someone "uninitiated" or previously "uninterested"? I really couldn't tell. I think it's objectively funny, and I like the way they held off on some of the "answers" that are plainly obvious to those in-the-know. But most of all, there's character growth so you don't go "Well, what was the point of that?" when the credits roll (a reaction some people get after trudging their way through the book waiting for something to "wrap up", be it nice-and-tidy or otherwise). Oh, but one more thing (possible spoiler!) ... I never thought the words "So long, and thanks for all the fish." would sound so moving as a musical number.  |  IP: Logged Allison Parsons Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 630 From: East Peoria, IL Registered: Oct 2004 posted 04-26-2005 05:23 PM                        I heard some big diehard H2G2 fans were pissed because Mos Def was playing the character that in the book, so I'm told, was a white english guy. Did you have any problems with that? I'm looking forward to this movie more than the new Star Wars and War of the Worlds combined!!  |  IP: Logged Brian Michael Weidemann Expert cat molester Posts: 944 From: Costa Mesa, CA United States Registered: Feb 2004 posted 04-27-2005 03:45 AM                        I'm pretty sure the original male "human" characters were described by nothing more than "six-foot tall, ape-descended bipeds". Just because Ford was played by a white English dude in the original television series didn't necessarily make Ford a white English dude ... in fact, he's not from Guildford at all, but from somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse. I didn't have a problem at all with Mos Def. He did a great job. Let's see ... The original Trillian was blonde and ditsy. The original Vogons had pig noses and a bad makeup job. So they took some forgivable liberties, big deal! I do happen to think that Martin Freeman as Arthur and Alan Rickman as the voice of Marvin were PERFECT casting. I read that this was one of the challenges of making the Hitchhiker's movie: not making it so BRITISH (because, after all, the galaxy isn't limited to, say, Islington or Cornwall), but keeping the fresh, dry, undoubtedly British-ness of the original sentiment. Whether or not I can make the exact distinction between those, I think they succeeded. It's not a British movie. It's a movie that happens to start with a house, somewhere in England, and follows the perspective of a character who happens to live there.  |  IP: Logged Arthur Allen Film Handler Posts: 99 From: Renton, WA, USA Registered: Aug 2001 posted 04-27-2005 10:50 AM                        Because they kept the same actors for Arthur and Zaphod between the radio and television series, those characters probably bear more scrutiny from the die-hard fans than Ford and Trillian, who were already recast between two previous versions. Everyone else are either voice characters, under heavy makeup, or aren't as important. At the preview showing last night, the theater tried to put foil cues before the tribute credit, but luckily the lights did not turn on and the half the audience that was left got to see the end credits and a bonus sequence under optimal viewing conditions. One more thing: if you go, bring red and blue 3-D glasses. I don't know if it will actually work, but one sequence seems to be in red and blue 3-D. I think blue goes over the right eye. Perhaps this is something dollar houses could do when the audience gets smaller: scrounge up some red and blue glasses and hand them out to the audience.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 04-28-2005 10:22 PM                     Well it's time to chime in here. I must say I thought it sucked crusty ass. It wasn't clever and witty like it seemed they were trying so hard to achieve. Instead they ended up with a goofy, dorky and flat out not funny movie along the lines of Bob Saget's overdubs on America's Funniest Home Videos. Alan Rickman was the best part of the movie, and he was depressing. 1 out of 5 stars  |  IP: Logged Mark J. Marshall Film God Posts: 3188 From: New Castle, DE, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 04-28-2005 11:22 PM                    Never read the book, and had no idea what to expect going in, but I enjoyed it.  |  IP: Logged Tracy Bellar Film Handler Posts: 72 From: Sciotoville, Oh. Registered: Mar 2005 posted 04-29-2005 02:21 AM                        Just think if you took out a reel it would be twenty minutes shorter.  |  IP: Logged Brian Michael Weidemann Expert cat molester Posts: 944 From: Costa Mesa, CA United States Registered: Feb 2004 posted 04-29-2005 03:59 AM                        Yep, I knew I couldn't tell how objectively good it was. I reviewed it as an adaptation, not as it stands by itself. Oh, and Brad, I never said it WASN'T goofy and dorky! That's a given. The only thing I can say is if you didn't find the "humour" very humourous, then you probably wouldn't like the books (at least, not as comedy), since the whole style of the text was quite faithfully reproduced (assuming, fallaciously, that anyone who liked the books first will automatically love the movie). Too bad. I'm looking forward to seeing it again on Sunday.  |  IP: Logged Aaron Garman Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1470 From: Toledo, OH USA Registered: Mar 2003 posted 04-29-2005 04:32 AM                     AJG  |  IP: Logged Allison Parsons Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 630 From: East Peoria, IL Registered: Oct 2004 posted 04-29-2005 10:11 AM                        I saw it last night and enjoyed it quite a bit. I liked the fact that I just didn't know what to expect next in the film. Ohhh.. this is the part where the people turn into yarn puppets! Ok.....? Just really goofy and silly and makes you want to say "What the F*&k?!" while smiling all at the same time. I do hope that parents WILL NOT take their kids to see this since it's PG, cause if many adults are confused and aren't getting it, I can just imagine how the kids are going to react...  |  IP: Logged Mark Lensenmayer Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1605 From: Upper Arlington, OH Registered: Sep 1999 posted 04-29-2005 07:49 PM                     I guess this is a "love/hate" movie. I really liked it. I found it well written and acted. The guide itself was especially well done and entertaining. I thought they did a very good job of presenting the books. Creatures were pretty well done, but a bit too much alike. This is a dialog film, not a special effects extravaganza. Nothing deep, just nice. Pleasant way to spend a couple of hours. Saw it at an AMC. That pre-show is just awful. I'm tempted to write the advertisers and tell them how truly unenjoyable that thing is. Movie Tunes is bad enough, but this is just revolting. ALso, they turn the lights down a bit too low making it hard to climb the mighty stadium stairs. Also it was a 50+' Torus screen. That, combined with the huge size of the room, made the dialog a bit hard to understand. The British accents require a bit of concentration, and the excessive boominess of the room garbled things a bit.  |  IP: Logged Brian Michael Weidemann Expert cat molester Posts: 944 From: Costa Mesa, CA United States Registered: Feb 2004 posted 04-29-2005 09:03 PM                        I've never liked an AMC presentation, and this is disregarding any preshow stuff. A sharp, clear sound presentation is kind of essential to a dialog film, and AMC auditoriums ain't nowhere near the top of my list of choices. Yes, the British manner of talking is difficult to follow, for us "American English" native speakers, since much of it is muttered, which is part of its charm. Even knowing this, AND being familiar with the plot, it's difficult to follow all the words. I caught parts of the movie again today and caught more of the dialog. The love/hate reaction is apparent amongst my fellow employees, too.  |  IP: Logged Richard Greco Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1180 From: Plant City, FL Registered: Nov 2003 posted 04-30-2005 02:24 AM                     Zooey Deschanel is hot  |  IP: Logged Mike Spaeth Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1129 From: Marietta, GA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 04-30-2005 04:21 PM                        This film was horrible ... and of course had the Hollywood sac-religious scene.  |  IP: Logged Sam Graham AKA: "The Evil Sam Graham". Wackiness ensues. Posts: 1431 From: Waukee, IA Registered: Dec 2004 posted 05-01-2005 03:20 PM                        CINEMA: Century 20 at Jordan Creek, West Des Moines, IA AUDITORIUM: 11 PRESENTATION: Dolby Digital/THX PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: Seriously...Is the booth having a minor perpetual earthquake? RATING: Three stars (out of four) My previous experience with "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" is as simple as this...A head shop along a route I regularly walked in my early teens had the book perpetually displayed in the window. I figured that would be everything I'd need to know going in, and I was correct. Having said that, I think the best thing they could have done with this film was keep it at a "PG" level. It's silly and fun enough that kids may just grab this thing and take it straight into summer, resulting in a respectable box office. The general consensus of the adult audience as they exited the show: "Disappointing".  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.