Let me first confess that I will forever be a devoted fan of Douglas Adams' beloved "Hitchhiker" novels (the first three, anyway), and that going into this film I was expecting the worse.
I mean, how can you honestly expect to properly translate Adams' witty, tangential writing to the literal, visual medium of film.
The BBC mini-series aside, many have failed at adapting verbose satirical novels in the past. Just look at "Breakfast of Champions" or "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" and you'll see what I mean. The intentions are always good. It's just that the subject material doesn't lend itself well to the translation.
So you could understand my feelings going into Garth Jennings' "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy."
Upon seeing the film, my reaction was divided. On one hand, I was relieved that the filmmakers understood Adams' subtle humour, and made it their task to include several of the books' larger sight-gags (the improbability drive, babel fish, sentient missile-cum-sperm whale). I was also happy to see several nods to the BBC mini series.
However, something was missing. And I couldn't decide whether this was the filmmakers' faults, or the adaptation dilemma rearing its ugly head again.
At its worst, The Hitchhiker's Guide is an incoherent mess. The exposition is muddled, and the average viewer is left wondering the significance of certain key devices. For instance, the importance of the towels' is completely lost on us, and simply becomes an absurd prop. The same can be said of certain characters. Zaphod (the usually brilliant Sam Rockwell, slumming it here) is unbearably annoying (even more than the book affords him), and comes across as a coked-up actor mugging for a non-existent audience. And what is the significance of the Humma Kavula sub-plot? It adds nothing new to the plot, and if anything, complicates things unnecessarily. It also makes literal what was originally a throw away joke from the novel - the Jatravardians worshipping a giant sneeze.
At its best, The Hitchhiker's Guide loyally illustrates the larger set pieces of the novel. The Vogons are nicely done, with help from Jim Henson's creature studio. And Marvin the Paranoid Android is brilliantly rendered by the voice of Alan Rickman (although I still prefer the look of the BBC mini-series Marvin). Arthur Dent is nicely played by Martin Freeman. And the "Guide" sequences are expertly done.
So yes, my feelings were mixed. Ultimately, the sequel may be able to wrap things up a bit nicer. We'll see. It's a daunting task.
I mean, how can you honestly expect to properly translate Adams' witty, tangential writing to the literal, visual medium of film.
The BBC mini-series aside, many have failed at adapting verbose satirical novels in the past. Just look at "Breakfast of Champions" or "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" and you'll see what I mean. The intentions are always good. It's just that the subject material doesn't lend itself well to the translation.
So you could understand my feelings going into Garth Jennings' "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy."
Upon seeing the film, my reaction was divided. On one hand, I was relieved that the filmmakers understood Adams' subtle humour, and made it their task to include several of the books' larger sight-gags (the improbability drive, babel fish, sentient missile-cum-sperm whale). I was also happy to see several nods to the BBC mini series.
However, something was missing. And I couldn't decide whether this was the filmmakers' faults, or the adaptation dilemma rearing its ugly head again.
At its worst, The Hitchhiker's Guide is an incoherent mess. The exposition is muddled, and the average viewer is left wondering the significance of certain key devices. For instance, the importance of the towels' is completely lost on us, and simply becomes an absurd prop. The same can be said of certain characters. Zaphod (the usually brilliant Sam Rockwell, slumming it here) is unbearably annoying (even more than the book affords him), and comes across as a coked-up actor mugging for a non-existent audience. And what is the significance of the Humma Kavula sub-plot? It adds nothing new to the plot, and if anything, complicates things unnecessarily. It also makes literal what was originally a throw away joke from the novel - the Jatravardians worshipping a giant sneeze.
At its best, The Hitchhiker's Guide loyally illustrates the larger set pieces of the novel. The Vogons are nicely done, with help from Jim Henson's creature studio. And Marvin the Paranoid Android is brilliantly rendered by the voice of Alan Rickman (although I still prefer the look of the BBC mini-series Marvin). Arthur Dent is nicely played by Martin Freeman. And the "Guide" sequences are expertly done.
So yes, my feelings were mixed. Ultimately, the sequel may be able to wrap things up a bit nicer. We'll see. It's a daunting task.