The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy
Film // Jim // 5th May 2005
Adapting a popular book for the screen must be a complete nightmare. Hardcore fans will never forgive you for leaving out the slightest detail, such as the men in beards moaning that the (amazingly comprehensive) Lord of the Rings trilogy didn’t have those endless songs that no-one ever read anyway. On the other hand, what makes a great book doesn’t always make for a great two hour film, staying too close to the source material can alienate the wider audience.
One way round this problem is to have the original author handle the adaption, this is great if your author is William Goldman cannily adapting Marathon Man from page to screen, but not so good if it is William Gibson turning Johnny Mnemonic from mesmeric short story to hysterical Ice-T starring screenplay.
The
reason I am blathering on about this is that I went (along with a companion
who for reasons of corporate governance in line with the Sarbanes-Oxley act,
I can only refer to as “James”) to see the new film version of
The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy last week.
Already an established radio, literary and TV favourite H2G2 (as its on-line
guise is known) has a fair few rabid fans, who can quote vast tracts at the
drop of a hat. While not in this league, I read the books as a young man and
have
fond memories of the clunky but fun TV programme. The skewed, yet eloquently
explained logic of the stories has always appealed to me, helped by the fact
that the late Douglas Adams had an exceptional gift for a witty turn of phrase.
The one that has always stuck with me is the bit about a load of flying saucers: “They
hung in the air exactly the same way that bricks don’t”. Super.
H2G2: Fanboy expectations?, "Complete shit"?
So the fact that I didn’t really enjoy the film got me wondering. Was my disappointment due to the expectations I had based on previous exposure to other superior versions of the story. Or was it just not a very good film?
Bit of both probably.
The structure of the film pretty much follows the plot of the first book but adds some extra bits and diverges somewhat. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Who wants to go and sit through two hours where you know exactly what is going to happen? Not me.
Unfortuanately these extra bits are where the film feels most rushed, the bolted on romantic scenes are like pulling teeth and the ending is shite.
The main character of Arthur Dent is played by that bloke from the office as a really boring average sort of bloke, which would be fine if the memory of a somewhat wittier, sparkier, Oxbridge-type version, played by Simon Jones wasn’t lurking at the back of my mind. Most of the cast are a bit dull, the exception being Sam Rockwell as the two headed Zaphod Beeblebrox, who just seems to be taking the piss really and there’s nothing wrong with that.
The exerpts from the book are voiced expertly by Stephen Fry and are represented by what look like very swish Macromedia Flash movies an a kind of flat monotone style. very cool, but there aren’t enough of them and they all seem a bit curtailed.
There are some clever bits (the point of view gun) and a few very funny moments that you won’t recognise from previous versions. But it just isn’t enough really.
In summary, if you are a fan of H2G2 in any of its previous forms I reckon you might find the film a bit dull. However, what is probably more important though are the thoughts of those who are going to the film fresh, with no expectations. With this in mind, I told James (who has never heard/read/seen any of The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy) about what I thought, outlined why I think my opinion may not be valid and asked for his honest views so that we can get a clear picture of the subjective quality of the film. This is what he said:
“That film was complete shit. Special effects were good though I suppose”.
So there you have it.
Add heading here
- Official movie site
- dirty flash nightmare
- Douglas Adams Dot Com
- The man behind the whole thing
- Text adventure game
- Play the old school text adventure, ace if infuriating
Comments
This review was hard going. I generally only read the Razzle.
Corporate James : 13/05/2005 09:07:06
There’s me, finger on the pulse and all that - and I’ve just seen it on DVD, finally, after avoiding it, thinking it was going to be a load of cobblers, and I rather liked it.
Sam Rockwell was great as a surfer/Elvis/rockstar version of Zaphod and Zooey Deschanel is impossibly lovely, which was probably why I liked it most, to be honest.
There’s a pile of good jokes missing from the original radio and TV series, but then that was rather longer. The super-2D Flash-esque graphics of the Book were witty, and the bit where the Heart of Gold turns into a ball of wool, and all our characters turn into woolly stop-motion people made me laugh like a faulty windscreen wiper, as usual.
steve : 10/12/2005 22:37:14
ooh. here’s a picture of ms. deschanel.
IMDB gallery
steve : 10/12/2005 22:39:44
they gave it a plot - thats my major objection
Mike : 01/02/2006 11:48:36