Guía del autoestopista galáctico

It's a tad hard to put my feelings about this version of the source material seeing as how I heard the radio play, read the books, saw the amazingly great mini-series, and even played the delightful text-based adventure game on my now ancient, then new computer. It's somewhat difficult to divorce my self from all of the aforementioned incarnations and just enjoy this film for what it was. Not to say that it was anything horrid, far from it. Some aspects of the adaption were pretty good. Martin Freeman (who was great in "The Office) made an enjoyable Arthur Dent, Mos Def came off far better than I would have even thought as Ford. Those are two things of the top of my head. I'm sure if I were hard pressed I could think of other aspects I enjoyed, it's just that all in all the movie fails sadly. It goes off on tangents trying to capture more of the books than can be fathomed in a film of 109 minutes and throws in it's own sub-plots that I wasn't quite fond of. My humble opinion ultimately would be to stick with the early 80's mini-series as that will likely be the definitive adaption that we'll likely see on either the big or small screen.

My Grade: C+

When I was about 14, I read the Hitchhiker books and saw the BBC mini-series and was captivated. Now, decades later, I watch "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" and wonder exactly what I saw in it. Yes, I suppose it IS vaguely entertaining and occasionally funny, but it was not nearly as wonderful as I remembered. And, I am not sure how much of this is because the movie was only okay and how much of it is because my tastes have changed. Regardless, I found THIS movie mildly diverting but nothing special. However, it was nice to finally see a film version whose special effects were up to the job--as the BBC series was amazingly bad (even for the 1981) when it came to replicating outer space--and especially Zaphod's extra head. Sorry to be a drip--I just didn't particularly enjoy this film and found it to be just a mildly interesting time-passer.

I've read this series at least a half-a-dozen times.

Mos Def was HORRIBLE. I certainly don't remember the part where Ford Prefect gets a labotomy and mumbles throughout the book. In fact, Ford had no presence in this movie whatsoever! In the book he's witty, charming, mischievous. In the movie, he's a zombie. The scene where he's scarfing down beer at the beginning isn't even explained! It makes no sense without explaining that he's trying to minimize the effects of hitchhiking.

Zooey feels like she's reciting her lines.

Arthur is just some guy in this story who makes funny faces once in awhile.

Slartibartfast obviously had the same acting coach as Mos Def since they were basically the same character (mumbling, weird pauses..).

Kudos to Sam Rockwell as I kinda liked his Zaphod, but even that character fell apart at the end.

The ending. Whoah boy! Talk about dumbing the movie down for mass consumption and completely screwing up the events in the books. So I guess there's not going to be a prehistoric earth in the second movie because SURPRISE Earth was completely restored and everyone lived happily ever after.

Blech.

I keep hearing "True to the spirit of Douglas Adams!" Maybe the guide, the heart of gold and the parts that didn't have actors in it.

Try the BBC version. Sure, it didn't have the special effects budget, but it retained the story and the "spirit of Douglas Adams" much better.

This is a good and faithful recreation of Adams' brilliantly sketchy radio series. Not surprising as Adams wrote the screenplay and was on the verge of having his dream realised when he suffered a fatal heart attack. A fitting credit at the end of the film "For Douglas" serves as a gentle reminder of the genius we have all lost. As for the film, many of the original and wonderful lines thankfully remain and the plot is largely unchanged. There's a new character or two written in for the film by Adams himself and they add to the overall story. John Malkovich is great albeit very briefly as religious leader Humma Kavula. Sam Rockwell, Mos Def and Martin Freeman all carry off their characters with wit and style whilst I felt Zooey Deschanel looked a little out of her depth. At times her dialogue seemed to get lost and her character seemed weaker than Sandra Dickinson's interpretation in the radio and TV series. Bill Nighy marries his own idiosyncrasies into the character of Slartibartfast seamlessly. Simon Jones makes a welcome cameo appearance as a holographic warning system. Stephen Fry steps well into the shoes vacated by Peter Jones as the "Guides" voice and you feel as if you are in safe hands. The "Guides" animated sequences are wonderfully reminiscent of Saul Bellow and though simple they are hilarious. For a feature directorial debut Garth Jennings does a grand job. I was half expecting the pop video influence to be apparent, but thankfully it wasn't. Lastly but not leastly a special mention has to go out to Jim Henson's creature workshop, this is probably the best work they have ever done in a feature, and that's saying a lot, given their success.

So, is the Hitchhikers' movie any good?

Yes and no.

It is great to finally see one of my favourite stories finally get the big screen treatment. There are moments where the budget has clearly benefited the overall experience, with some breath-taking CGI sequences. Two particularly spring to mind: An impressive backwards zoom out from earth's surface, past the Vogon demolition charges before the planet is so hastily disposed of, and Arthur's journey onto Magrathea's staggeringly colossal factory floor, which is simply overwhelming. Both illustrate, to great satisfaction, the dramatic readjustment of scale Arthur Dent has to undergo in such a short space of time in a stark manner that is just not possible in any medium other than cinema. The on-screen format of the guide itself is an appropriate update of the format developed for the television series, and it's highly enjoyable to see such delightfully silly animations grace a giant cinema screen.

Cinema is a different experience, and that is the nub of the matter. We are dealing with a radically different medium from any of the other that Hitchhiker's has materialised in, and not only does that offer new opportunities to explore Douglas Adams' marvellous universe, it also necessitates dramatic changes. Most noticeably, and perhaps most important for a two-hour motion picture, there is more effort to form a conventional plot than is present in the original incarnations and this change is accompanied by major changes in character motivation. This is interesting, because (here analysis becomes problematic since it is impossible to know which changes were instigated by Adams and which were down to Karey Kirkpatrick), none of the characters in Adams' earlier material really had any significant motivations that would lend them to becoming interesting protagonists in a more conventional setting.

Previously, Narcissist Zaphod wanted his ego stroked by fame and fortune, Ford was content with the prospect of a decent party to go to and Arthur's only desire was a palatable cup of tea. Trillian didn't really do anything. Although they are far from unrecognisable, the introduction of tangible drives into most of the characters alters the pattern of events in the story to accommodate what begins to resemble a more conventional story structure. One of the first casualties of this is that the principle players overshadow others, who are introduced, half-heartedly expanded upon, and then almost entirely dropped in deference to the favoured few. It never goes the whole way towards a standard structure though, as half of the principle story is seemingly abandoned in favour of a concentration on the romantic subplot and an overall resolution that is at least reverent to the previous formats. The result is a mixed bag. I found Arthur much more likable and Zaphod funnier than I ever have done, but it never actually occurred to me until the film that Arthur was a bit of a whinger and Zaphod quite boring, because I was too busy paying attention to what happened to them, rather than what they happened to do.

The other major objection, which may or may not have been inevitable, given the time that must be given over to visuals in cinema, is that the filmmakers appear to try and get too much into a two-hour film. As a result, some brilliantly funny lines are missed and key explanations fudged and both are replaced by a general silliness, which appears to be a compromise between the demands of hardcore Hitchhiker's fans and those of the cinema-going public. A lot of the new material is funny, but some of it doesn't really fit with Adams' universe and sticks out like a sore thumb. Whether this is the consequence of those responsible being caught between the rock of Adam's inventiveness and the hard place of the medium they were working in is hard to say. Perhaps someone braver could have produced something more appropriate, or perhaps this is the best that there could ever be. I suppose we'll never know.

To summarise: It's very different.