Seeing it tomorrow night. I'm hoping for the best. [-o<

My full review that can be seen in my school paper will be in here soon, so here's my unofficial review:

Don't Panic... too much...

Unlike the book written by Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy was a battlezone of great moments and ones that nearly sunk the entire film. While the cast was solid (no one in particular stood out, though Martin Freeman was very good as Arthur Dent), many may be dissapointed in Sam Rockwell. His Zaphod Beeblebrox, despite an accent that fit very well as not-so-subtle-satire against a certain politician (trust me, you'll know it immediately ), was far more grating then funny, and his schtick got old fast. Unfortunately, a lot of the material was drawn down far too much to appeal more to general audiences. It's not so much that one should whine about the changes to the plot, but much of the tone and clever writing contained in Douglas Adam's books felt like it was missing. The Guide itself occasionally steps in, and as it and it's narration were easily the biggest crowdpleasers, it's unclear why why it wasn't a more integral part of the film. Had Stephen Fry narrarted throughout, in many ways the movie could have been tightened and the lapses in logic could have been changed from pieces left unresolved (John Malkovich has a small role that after the first scene is never brought back again despite it being pivotal to the plot). Though the good moments in the movie are great (the scenes involving the sperm whale scene and Arthur's tour of Earth by Slaribartfast in particular stood out), the end was rather anticlimactic and the entire film felt slightly undercooked. Overall, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy was slightly less funny and much less thought-provoking then the book, but thanks to the little bits of true Douglas Adams that managed to slip through, ended up being far better then not. It's just unfortunate that for a movie that is so uneven the negative aspects are mostly all the ways they tried to make the film more appealing. B

Ahhh, nothing more satisfying than starting the Summer's 1st movie off with a review that begins with "Don't Panic... Too Much.." :laugh: By the way, Ebert panned this movie.. :yikes:

This is a tough one to grade. I'm not as versed in the material as other people but at the same time, I don't think that's a really big issue. All adaptations deal with finding that middle ground, Hitchhiker's is no different.

It's funny at times but some of the jokes fall flat as well. Zooey Deschanel, Martin Freeman, Mos Def, and Alan Rickman all do great work. Sam Rockwell didn't really work for me, I didn't get him. And I'm not sure why John Malkovich is even in the film.

It's a very average film for me, leaning towards the lower half of the C scale.

C/C-

Just saw....

HITCHHIKER'S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY
7:45 showing - 95% Full (300 seater)

Trailers:
- Shark Boy & Lava Girl (this is the most retarded piece of crap I have ever seen)
- Zathura
- Valiant
- Batman Begins (I want to see this)

Movie: A-

I enjoyed this. Very funny and unpredictable. The audience LOVED this movie. The movie ended with an applause from the audience. (a standing ovation)

Will have to watch it a second time before grading this.

Damn, wrong in all the wrong ways. Boring. Failed to catch the spirit of the series, and lacked any sort of linear narrative that would hold attention throughout its length. That's what ultimately failed. People say this is British humor, but Monty Python had something to follow that the jokes tied into. Hitchhikers did not. It felt too random from the first minute, and even then, the randomness wasn't British wit. Zaphod was all wrong and horded the screen killing all sense of even dry wit.

That being said, nor was it offensive, and it had its moments. Most of them having to do with the Guide itself, and any and every line that came out of Marvin's robot mouth.

Though it pains me,

C+

After all the doom and gloom and the lowering of my own expectations I found that there was nothing to be panicy about.

I thought it hit most of the right notes, most of the time. The cast was spot on, the humor was present without being exhausting, and the effects were acceptible for what it was trying to do.

It loses a bit of steam in its second half...

Still... I really, really, really enjoyed it.

My audience also loved it. No doubt mostly Adams fans at this point, but overall this is one of those films that I'll give a little bit of an edge to because it

"tried... to... do... something... different..."

I didn't have high expectations for this movie, and came into the movie without reading any of the reviews.

I felt that the movie had an equal amount of strong points as well as weak points. THe only problem was that the weak points stood out like a SOAR thumb. The acting was SPOT on, and I liked Dern Arthur...I forgot his name...but the President of the Galaxy guy....he was...funny at parts, and annoying on most parts. My favorite parts of the movie were the "Hitchiker Explanations", which were highly comedic. Also, the opening sequence was funny and original. I felt the downfall, though, of the movie was the horribly weak storyline. The movie seemed a bit rushed, and I felt that it rushed explanations that would have proved vital to actually understanding the movie. Some characters were not really explained and some conflicts within the story weren't really solved ( Like, did that other "Spider" guy get the thingy he wanted? ). Overall the movie was a showcase of good concepts and orginal ideas with a broken and weak story line.

C+

But at the end where Alex? Alen? took the "factory tour" with the "architect" was quite amazing. I nearly cried with the music, and the acting and the graphics. It was truly an amazing scene. And when they showed the workers SPOILER painting and reconstructing the earth ENDSPOILER it was quite the most amazing scene ever

SCENE: A+
AS for audience reaction, there were a few parts where they laughed out loud, but the whole movie was just a silent, WHAT THE HELL WAS THAT reaction....pointless fun i guess?
B-

Though it definitely has elements of a cool sci-fi story, this movie adaptation is about as clunky as the book it's based on. That's not necessarily all bad, but it does seem an odd choice for the lead summer blockbuster position.

The cool part of the story is that it continues to break it's frame of reference and the audience's along with it. I enjoy that when it's done well - and some parts are both fun and fascinating. But overall, the story dawdles along and isn't helped by a pretty uncharismatic group of actors.

There's some laughs and and some thought provocation, but I'd say the movie pretty much matches the book for over-ratedness...

3 out of 5.

I wish I could grade in parts because I enjoyed the 1st act. It's the 2nd and 3rd acts that sunk the film for me.

I'm with you Dolce, Marvin needed his own movie.

I'm a decent fan of the books. I'll say it now. Though I like to think I can usually seperate my thoughts on a movie's source material well enough for a semi-objective opinion, I'm ashamed to admit that there' no way I could ever seperate my thoughts and acclaims from the source and the movie.

That said, The Guide as an adaptation from the book does not hold well. All of the jokes that made the book great are simply not as good. "Beware of the Leopards" was cut out (:sad:), the Vogon brute was cut out, Ford's fast talking to the construction person in the aforementioned "Beware of the Leopard" conversation, and a lot of the other classic Guide jokes are either gone entirely or fall flat (due to the Hollywoodization the story suffered).

The Guide as a movie independent from the book, though, is definitely not horrible. Not amazing either. I'd say it is above average or decent. It has all the right themes, and the tour by Slartibartfast was an amazing sequence, but they would have faired better with the original Guide humor.

Great acting all around. Sam Rockwell didn't annoy me as much as I thought he would. I didn't mind him that much. Mos Def was probably the worst, though he wasn't that bad. The Trisha girl was good enough with the material given to her. But Martin Freeman totally stole the show for me. His Arthur Dent was completely spot on.

The plot has no coherency. Even for someone who has read the book it was difficult to follow. It never really explains the history of earth, the mice, and the ultiate answer. I think the movie could have done a lot better with some better pacing.

I have a lot of more comments, but I'm just diong this before work, so I don't have time. Overall I'd give the movie a B/B-. The humor and spirit of the book it does contain isn't enough for diehard fans, but for the more casual fans (like myself) it is good enough. The Hollywoodization brought a lot of foulwith it's changes, but many of the changes it makes are really good. The themes of the movie are really quite good.

ditto, this was a meh movie in every way...it just jissed the spirit of the book. We neede dmore of hte guide nad the narration..hell thenever even went over what the guide said about Earth.

It felt random, disjointed, lacking any spirit...and not really ath funny.

The guide and Marvin where the best parts.

I think they picked the right actors, and they did well, but the script is were the problem lies.

Is So Long & Thanks for All the Fish an original song?

My Review up

http://www.worldofkj.com/Arsalan/HitchHiker.php

Interesting but somehow the jokes that translate well in a book dont normally go too well on the big screen. I try my best not to judge the book vs movie and will accept a few changes they made in the movie. Overall, Im very satisfied with the movie and I wasnt letdown at all although Marvin could of been improved a little better. For those that dont follow the book, the movie resembles Space Balls meets MIB

Other than knowing that the book was good according to people I know who've read it, I went into watching this film with no real idea as to what it was about other than what I gathered from the trailer.

At the start I was a bit underwhelmed and it wasn't until just after the "poetry reading" that I really got into it but once I did I found it highly entertaining, some of the humour was brilliant and overall, while I haven't seen many good movies this year, this is my favourite of 2005 so far. I give it a B. I'm a fan of "different" movies though (Brazil, David Lynch, Monty Python etc.), so I might be more inclined to enjoy this more than the average person.

If the book really is a lot better like many have been suggesting,then it must be pretty damn awesome. I'll be sure to check it out.

a lot of people i know who know nothign of the books seem to be enjoying it.

I can see that, I think those who ead the bok will grad eit in the C range and those whohave not might fidn it funny..they don't know what they are missing damnit!

I loved it and I love the book.

8/10 (B+)

Never read the boo, know nothing about the story and did not like it very much. It had it's moments of occassional hilarity and social commentary disguised as satire, but overall this film is much too obtuse and esoteric for the layman to enjoy. I think I have to see it again to maybe like it a bit more, but maybeb what i should do is just read the book. To me, it was a fikm about a guy who goes on some zany adventures and frankly, it got kind of boriong quite fast. Looks like it is aanother aaadaption from book to screen that just didn't work.

C

Book is better, but...

Eh, I enjoyed it. Marvin stood out. B

A

I loved it. There were some weak points (I wasn't a big fan of Freeman's Dent, or the first 15 minutes in general), but it's one of those films where the whole is much greater than the sum of its parts. I may write a full review if I can be bothered, if only because I disagree with baba so strongly.

Stupid baba.

I'm glad people like this!