|
Forwardcharm |
 |
Latest News 25 / 07 / 2010 11 / 07 / 2010 11 / 07 / 2010 27 / 06 / 2010 13 / 06 / 2010 30 / 05 / 2010 30 / 05 / 2010 16 / 05 / 2010 16 / 05 / 2010 10 / 05 / 2010 10 / 05 / 2010 19 / 04 / 2010 18 / 04 / 2010 06 / 04 / 2010 05 / 04 / 2010 03 / 04 / 2010 29 / 03 / 2010 14 / 03 / 2010 09 / 03 / 2010 08 / 03 / 2010 17 / 02 / 2010 16 / 02 / 2010 31 / 01 / 2010 25 / 10 / 2009 02 / 08 / 2009 18 / 08 / 2005 |
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2005)
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is the film of the first book in Douglas Adams "trilogy" of five books. The series has a lot of fans, so the film has a lot to live up to. Happily, the balance has been struck nicely so that the movie is close enough to the book to satisfy all but the most hardened purists and also simple enough to work as a stand-alone comedy movie.
I liked it then? Yes, I did, the time positively flew by - I couldn't believe it was over already when the end credits rolled, as I was gripped the whole way through (don't leave immediately - there's another Book bit in the end credits). But - and like Anne Widdecombe, this is quite a big but - it could have been better. When I came home from the cinema, I watched an episode of the TV series again and it brought home quite how good the original script was. True, the acting is better in the movie, but the script is far, far better in the TV series. Despite retaining a reasonable portion of the script verbatim, the movie seems to have cut a lot of the funny lines - and for no discernible reason. Maybe it's because of its radio origins or maybe it's the TV series' low budget, but when watching the series you tend to listen and not care much about what's happening on screen. With the movie, you watch it and don't care much about the dialogue. So Douglas Adams probably knew what he was doing when he wrote the screenplay - he was converting it into a movie after all - but for fans of the old series it just isn't funny enough. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a far better adaptation of the book then I expected. I thoroughly enjoyed it and I'm eagerly looking forward to seeing the rest of the books on screen. It hasn't quite fulfilled its enormous potential and it has been popcorned a little in its transition to the big screen, but what movie-from-a-book hasn't? Watching the movie after such fond memories of the books and TV series is like meeting up with a group of old friends after 20 years apart and finding that you still like the same things about each other and still get along famously. It's like Towels Reunited. I enjoyed this film: I think the average moviegoer will enjoy it: Testosterone Satisfaction Rating: Though we are satisfied in other ways! To enjoy this film you should: tolerate remakes.
|
||
Your commentsThe comments printed here are not necessarily the views of Forwardcharm!
The opening credits were magnificent; Stephen Fry should go back in time and do the voice of the book for the original series. The film is not as good as the book but that s down to interpretation by the individual reader so you can t really blame the film for falling by the wayside a bit. In short it s an excellent remake and should appeal to all those who love their towels whilst inspiring others to join the clan.
I'm afraid I have to disagree with most of the above. I must confess to never having read the books, but I couldn't help feel somewhat underwhelmed by it all - but I guess this was inevitable given the hype and fanfare for the film.
i have not saw the film bt i have read the book it is gd so am expecting the movie 2 be gr8!
i think the book was boring a liked the film alot betterXXXXXXX
| ||
As a fan of the books and TV series, it's impossible not to notice the differences. Earth is no longer destroyed to
make way for a "hyperspace bypass" - now it's a "hyperspace expressway", despite the fact that Arthur's house still dies
for a bypass. Arthur and Ford still clutch their towels - though we're not told why it's important.
A new character has been written (by Adams himself) for John Malkovich and there is one too many
Americans for my liking. One in particular. One who pronounces the D in Guildford. Bad apple, thy name is Mos Def and
you do a bad Ford Prefect,
which is a crying shame as the rest of
the cast seems spot on. Martin Freeman is a likeable Arthur Dent, Sam Rockwell is a suitably flamboyant Zaphod Beeblebrox
and Zooey Deschanel (last seen in Elf) is a far more pleasing Trillian than Sandra Dickinson ever was. Bill Nighy never
stood a chance of replacing the wonderful Richard Vernon as Slartibartfast - but to his credit he has an excellent stab
at it and comes up smelling of roses. Alan Rickman, as the voice of Marvin the paranoid android, does away with the
monotone of Stephen Moore to inject a little more character - not entirely successfully, but quite amusingly.
Best of all, though, is Stephen Fry. With hindsight, there could be no better person for the voice of The Book.
With the wrong voice, the book scenes would have fallen flat, but in the capable hands of Mr Fry, with the new
accompanying animations and the old Adams script, they become the highlight of the whole movie. If only there were more!
Pleasingly, the excellent theme tune has been retained and spiced up for the noughties - I actually got goosebumps when
it was blasted across the titles (crazy, I know) - and there is enough of Adams' dry wit in the script to retain the
overall feel of the TV series, whilst sprucing up some parts with the use of modern-day special effects. Slartibartfast's
scenes particularly benefit from these effects, creating a believable planet factory in a way simply not possible 20
years ago. Though peculiarly, they seem to have used the old effect for blowing up the earth. Weird, huh?
