Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy- My 2 cents.
On Thursday night, at the Metreon's midnight show, I saw the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
The theater wasn't crowded. There were about 60 people total, about 10 of which were die hard fans who grumbled every time something new or cheesy happened (they came carrying towels, and two of them were wearing bathrobes). A guy sitting in front of me would violently punch himself in the head anytime anything particularly contrary to the other adaptations of the story happened. The guy behind me was reciting lines right along with the movie. It was that kind of crowd. I was also very tired. These conditions undoubtedly influenced my opinion of the film.
I thought Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy was an okay adaptation of the existing material. Not outstanding, and not particularly bad. As movies go, it was nothing groundbreaking. As adaptations go it was typical Hollywood. Sure it had all the campy highbrow humor of Douglas Adams, but the filmmakers added a cheesy love thing that became the driving motivation for Arthur throughout the movie- a love thing that seemed as believable as Anakin and Padme's romance in Attack of the Clones- just kinda pasted in there. I'm disappointed that the filmmakers felt they had to pander to mass audience appeal (by inserting cheesy romance) instead of trusting the strength of the source material to carry the movie to a new generation of potential Hitchhiker fans.
It was fun to see some of the Hitchhiker concepts brought to life with a bigger budget, but actually, the cheesy BBC tv series was more satisfying for my tastes. The cheese and low production values of the tv show matched the pacing and the style of Adam's humor. The look of the film was typical Hollywood. I was expecting something more along the lines of Brazil, or City of Lost Children. The scenery and the cinematography was just too mainstream... too realistic for the characters it was meant to support. I wonder how the film would have turned out if Terry Gilliam had directed (a friend and colleague of Douglas Adams).
Some other things that bugged me about the film were an added character (Humma Kavula) played by John Malkovich that just goes nowhere. I don't know if I fell asleep and missed something while I was watching, but I don't remember that storyline going anywhere. As far as I can remember, they just dropped it. Perhaps Mr. Kavula is being saved for a sequel- whose pending production is painfully obvious at the end of this film (movies created as advertisements for their sequels is a pet peeve of mine).
So what was good about the film? I thought the casting was excellent- Everyone fit their characters. Martin Freeman was the perfect Arthur Dent, Mos Def was great as Ford Prefect, and the new Marvin design is much more appealing than the TV series incarnation. The Jim Henson Company's Vogon puppets were outstanding- the practical creature work brought a credibility missing from most CG character films. I also enjoyed the homages to the previous HHGTTG incarnations (the music, the voice of the book), and the cameo appearances by Simon Jones and the BBC Marvin.
As of right now, I'd give it a 3/5... The film is 75% there, and maybe a recutting would help it out a bit. I think I'll go see it again sometime when I'm more alert. And the next time, I'll remember to bring my 3D glasses with me to see Simon Jones in stupendous anaglyphic 3D.
The theater wasn't crowded. There were about 60 people total, about 10 of which were die hard fans who grumbled every time something new or cheesy happened (they came carrying towels, and two of them were wearing bathrobes). A guy sitting in front of me would violently punch himself in the head anytime anything particularly contrary to the other adaptations of the story happened. The guy behind me was reciting lines right along with the movie. It was that kind of crowd. I was also very tired. These conditions undoubtedly influenced my opinion of the film.
I thought Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy was an okay adaptation of the existing material. Not outstanding, and not particularly bad. As movies go, it was nothing groundbreaking. As adaptations go it was typical Hollywood. Sure it had all the campy highbrow humor of Douglas Adams, but the filmmakers added a cheesy love thing that became the driving motivation for Arthur throughout the movie- a love thing that seemed as believable as Anakin and Padme's romance in Attack of the Clones- just kinda pasted in there. I'm disappointed that the filmmakers felt they had to pander to mass audience appeal (by inserting cheesy romance) instead of trusting the strength of the source material to carry the movie to a new generation of potential Hitchhiker fans.
It was fun to see some of the Hitchhiker concepts brought to life with a bigger budget, but actually, the cheesy BBC tv series was more satisfying for my tastes. The cheese and low production values of the tv show matched the pacing and the style of Adam's humor. The look of the film was typical Hollywood. I was expecting something more along the lines of Brazil, or City of Lost Children. The scenery and the cinematography was just too mainstream... too realistic for the characters it was meant to support. I wonder how the film would have turned out if Terry Gilliam had directed (a friend and colleague of Douglas Adams).
Some other things that bugged me about the film were an added character (Humma Kavula) played by John Malkovich that just goes nowhere. I don't know if I fell asleep and missed something while I was watching, but I don't remember that storyline going anywhere. As far as I can remember, they just dropped it. Perhaps Mr. Kavula is being saved for a sequel- whose pending production is painfully obvious at the end of this film (movies created as advertisements for their sequels is a pet peeve of mine).
So what was good about the film? I thought the casting was excellent- Everyone fit their characters. Martin Freeman was the perfect Arthur Dent, Mos Def was great as Ford Prefect, and the new Marvin design is much more appealing than the TV series incarnation. The Jim Henson Company's Vogon puppets were outstanding- the practical creature work brought a credibility missing from most CG character films. I also enjoyed the homages to the previous HHGTTG incarnations (the music, the voice of the book), and the cameo appearances by Simon Jones and the BBC Marvin.
As of right now, I'd give it a 3/5... The film is 75% there, and maybe a recutting would help it out a bit. I think I'll go see it again sometime when I'm more alert. And the next time, I'll remember to bring my 3D glasses with me to see Simon Jones in stupendous anaglyphic 3D.
2 Comments:
This post has been removed by the author.
By madeline skillz, at 4/30/2005 3:21 PM
I just saw H2G2 last night, and I liked it. But then again I like the whole Brits in space thing. Red Dwarf, etc. So it was a great chance to see that "genre." :) But obviously it was not like the original Hitchhiker's book or radio play from what I gather. I guess to make a "popular" movie these days, certain central character arcs are becoming somewhat of a required element. That's an interesting idea. In some movies it's probably helpful for the audience to feel for the protagonist in this way. But if it's not genuine, it feels tacked on, and loses the point of having it there in the first place.
I think to have this sort of "identify with Arthur and his struggles!" approach to the story missed the absurdist humor the original medias were going for. Although, there was a lot of this great style of humor in the movie, which I liked. I liked all the wit of the Guide entries and thought they where kind of unique to current cinema. But I think the heart of this film's story, Arthur's "dilemma", was foreign to the whole point Douglas Adams had with the books. I could be totally wrong, as I haven't read or heard much of the originals. But I gather that it's like if we took Seinfeld and made it into a movie in which the whole time we had these longer lingering tracking shots Jerry wondering about what is happening to him, expecting the audience to feel for him, which totally misses the point of the humor.
But in the end, if you look past that inconsistency, it was a weird mash-up that I enjoyed watching! It's probably my naiveté about the original medias, but I liked the adventurous element of trouncing about the galaxy with all of it's absurd weirdness coming at you from all sides and all you can do is hold on to your towel, not panic and enjoy the ride while you spaceship turns into a 17th Century Ming Vase.
By Mike, at 5/01/2005 10:31 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home