Hitchhikers Guide....

[pshreck]

Just saw this.

Here is how I would describe it.... special effects with great comedic relief. The unintentional humor on them trying to be serious about philosophy and love is pretty good too.

Overall, even after all the average reviews, it was still a pretty big dissapointment. I admit the book itself didn't have a ton of direction, but the book was great for what it was. I tend to hate movies that are basically void of a developed story with a defined beginning, middle, and end. No real conflict even, just random problem after problem. The movie could have just ended randomly at any point in the last 30 minutes of this flick, and it wouldnt have made that big a difference on my opinion of the film, which is a very bad thing.

1.5 / 4 stars.

[spamuell]

[ QUOTE ]
The movie could have just ended randomly at any point in the last 30 minutes of this flick, and it wouldnt have made that big a difference on my opinion of the film, which is a very bad thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? I thought it was funny, so I enjoyed it. I don't really care about direction that much.

Yeah, the book was better, but isn't that always the case? I usually get really bothered when films deviate from books (e.g. LOTR and esp Harry Potter) but with Hitchhikers', it wasn't really that important, it was funny, the special effects were cool, I thought it did very well as a feelgood film.

[Sheriff Fatman]

I was pleasantly surprised by it - particularly as it didn't try to copy the TV series. I liked the mix of nostalgic recreation of old scenes and the novelty of some new twists.

The cameo appearances by some of the original cast were also a nice touch.

I'm coming from a background of listening to the radio series and watching the TV series (which ironically was on TV tonight), rather than having read the books so there was no feeling of the usual angst about what had been left out, etc.

Overall I enjoyed much more than I expected.

Sheriff

[pshreck]

I agree with both of you, but my problem is that it wasnt a pure comedy, and comedic relief can only go so far. I was laughing often, but only a few times did I laugh hardly (the idea-to-getting slapped scene) and the adventure/story was flat out uninteresting. So basically the movie relied on the comedic relief of the adventure, and the whole thing just felt hollow to me.

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
I was pleasantly surprised by it - particularly as it didn't try to copy the TV series. I liked the mix of nostalgic recreation of old scenes and the novelty of some new twists.

[/ QUOTE ]

[kerssens]

I was not entertained, in fact I left the theater in shock. At least I got some good Cherry Coke and Skittles. I people that read the book will like it better since there were times when people cheered and I had no idea why.

[astroglide]

haven't read the books. i was amazed at how "interesting" the content of the movie was compared to how disinterested it made the audience (including me). i didn't find it terrible, but i don't recall ever sitting in a theater with my eyes closed before. it was astoundingly boring to me once it got out of the gates.

[Phoenix1010]

[ QUOTE ]
haven't read the books. i was amazed at how "interesting" the content of the movie was compared to how disinterested it made the audience (including me). i didn't find it terrible, but i don't recall ever sitting in a theater with my eyes closed before. it was astoundingly boring to me once it got out of the gates.

[/ QUOTE ]

My friends actually fell asleep in the theater when we saw it last night (granted they were pretty drunk) and I found it hard to keep my attention on it. I thought it was really bad. Whoever said that it didn't have enough direction to it was spot on. It was just sort of aimless, pointless "adventures" with characters who gave me no reason to give a crap what they were doing. There were some mildly funny bits, and Mos Def is cool beans, but I really really want my ten dollars and 2 hours back. I never read the books though, so maybe I just don't get it.

[NoChance]

It ranks up there with one of the worst I have seen.

[2planka]

Saw it, liked it.

It follows the BBC radio script (which Adams wrote) more closely than the books.

I will say that the uninitiated will have trouble following the film. You have to know the story, the characters, and the humor to "get" it. My wife hadn't read the books and she was perplexed.

BTW, the BBC production is something like 15 hours long. The segments used in the film are roughly 4 hours of the BBC radio program. It's tough to hack that material down to an hour and a half.

3 out of 5 donuts