The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2005) User Reviews

Those Cheeky Mice And Their Excellent Film

[tramsbottom · 7/10 · 18 April 2005]

Overall a tremendous success. It's very funny, very kooky and visually gorgeous. I saw it with about 2000 media persons and we all loved it, which is a pretty hard thing to accomplish.

If you've never read the books (and I suggest you do, it moves at such a pace you might find yourself going 'eh?' a lot) then I don't know what you'd make of it. Think Monty Python in space, or a very British version of The Fifth Element.

As an adaptation I think it works extremely well though there were a few confusing moments even for me as the large philosophical questions were crammed into two hours worth of movie. The new stuff is cleverly done and works a treat IMO.

The cast: never been a fan of the office but Martin Freeman is perfect as Arthur Dent, Sam Rockwell hilariously OTT and Mos Def a surprising choice but one that really works. Trillian isn't that important in the novel and the movie bumps up her role to a love triangle situation between her Arthur and Zaphod. Again, Deschanel is an odd choice (another yank) but she is utterly spellbinding (oh the shower scene...hubba hubba).

The FX are great, both CGI and the Jim Henson creatures (the Vogons, brilliantly voiced by The League of Gentleman). The opening title song is worth the price of admission alone (think Eric Idle at his peak).

So I loved it, though the ending is also a bit of an anti-climax, but only perhaps because I was expecting something bigger. Still, it's p***-funny and that's the main thing.

Best moment: Ford attacks the Vogons with a towel and foils them by closing a tiny garden gate ("Oh no! We'll have to go around!").

Don't Panic! Douglas Adams' legacy has been turned into a delicious acid-trip of a movie, featuring love, aliens and the answer to life, the universe and everything.

[charlismorgan · 8/10 · 27 April 2005]

Douglas Adams turned his sci-fi phenomenon, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy into a hit radio and TV series, a five-part trilogy of novels and a BAFTA-winning computer game, but complained making it into a movie was like "trying to grill a steak by having a succession of people blow on it".

After a 20-year battle with Disney to get the film made - and a day after a planet was named after the story's protagonist Arthur Dent - Adams died of a heart attack. Fans rushed to their nearest webring to console each other when they discovered the bum-clenchingly great scripting responsibilities had been passed on to Karey Kirkpatrick, the brains behind fluffy kiddie flick, Chicken Run.

To make matters worse, Terry Gilliam and Jay Roach passed the honour of directing the film to Garth Jennings and Nick Goldsmith, two movie first-timers who made their livings as production duo Hammer & Tongs - the company behind music videos for REM, Supergrass and Pulp among others.

But Don't Panic! As Robbie Stamp, Adams' pal and the movie's executive producer, rightfully says, "The cast and crew rose to the challenge and created the perfect tribute to Douglas."

The film carefully brings the story into the noughties without incurring the wrath of Hitchhiker fans, and adds enough smug nods in their direction to keep them happy. They will relish whispering to their unimpressed cinema neighbour, "Look, Douglas Adams' face is in that shot" or "That's Marvin the Paranoid Android from the TV series." And for the uninitiated, there's an acid-trip of a movie featuring love, aliens and the answer to life, the universe and everything.

A galaxy of stars were enlisted to bring the mind-boggling story to the big screen, including Martin Freeman, who reprises his superb Everyman role from The Office to play Arthur Dent, a tea-loving Londoner who becomes the last man from Earth, following its destruction to make way for a hyperspace bypass.

Mos Def proves not all hip-hop stars are fist-gnawingly embarrassing as actors, in his part as Ford Prefect, a revoltingly cool alien who accompanies Dent on his hitchhiking adventure around the universe.

The unspeakably delicious Zooey Deschanel provides the love story that was sadly lacking in Adams' script drafts. She plays Trillian, the last surviving humanoid female, who finds herself caught in an unsavoury love triangle between Dent and Zaphod Beeblebrox, the President of the Imperial Galactic Government and owner of three arms, two heads and one planet-sized ego.

And if you've ever wondered what Freddie Mercury and George Bush's lovechild would be like (and frankly, who hasn't?) watch Sam Rockwell's extraordinary portrayal of Beeblebrox. As Rockwell testifies, "I studied footage of US presidents and rockers for this role until I tasted blood."

The essential Britishness of the film is provided by the delectable Stephen Fry and Bill Nighy, who are more English than chips, awkward dinner parties and halitosis.

Who better to voice The Guide, a book which contains all the knowledge in the universe, than bulging-brained Fry, who uses the perfect amount of middle-class haughtiness, irony and intelligence to narrate the delightfully complicated story.

And Nighy can't fail as planet builder Slartibartfast (who, as every nerd knows, won an award for creating the twiddly bits around Norwegian fjords) because he based the world-weary alien on the nation's best-loved character, Bill Nighy.

I almost missed out one character, insane religious leader Humma Kammula, a new character Adams wrote especially for John Malkovich. He is easily forgotten because despite his amusing dialogue, the special effects drown out his performance, preventing him from doing the honour justice.

But fans will forgive this small transgression, for the pleasure of seeing a beast of a movie which has defied the laws of the universe to make it onto the big screen.

Jennings and Goldsmith have proved that despite their movie virginity, the first time isn't always messy, awkward and disappointing, it can also be earth shattering, amusing and very, very satisfying.

Here's a rather non-committal review!

[ianrickard · 25 April 2005]

So, is the Hitchhikers' movie any good?

Yes and no.

It is great to finally see one of my favourite stories finally get the big screen treatment. There are moments where the budget has clearly benefited the overall experience, with some breath-taking CGI sequences. Two particularly spring to mind: An impressive backwards zoom out from earth's surface, past the Vogon demolition charges before the planet is so hastily disposed of, and Arthur's journey onto Magrathea's staggeringly colossal factory floor, which is simply overwhelming. Both illustrate, to great satisfaction, the dramatic readjustment of scale Arthur Dent has to undergo in such a short space of time in a stark manner that is just not possible in any medium other than cinema. The on-screen format of the guide itself is an appropriate update of the format developed for the television series, and it's highly enjoyable to see such delightfully silly animations grace a giant cinema screen.

Cinema is a different experience, and that is the nub of the matter. We are dealing with a radically different medium from any of the other that Hitchhiker's has materialised in, and not only does that offer new opportunities to explore Douglas Adams' marvellous universe, it also necessitates dramatic changes. Most noticeably, and perhaps most important for a two-hour motion picture, there is more effort to form a conventional plot than is present in the original incarnations and this change is accompanied by major changes in character motivation. This is interesting, because (here analysis becomes problematic since it is impossible to know which changes were instigated by Adams and which were down to Karey Kirkpatrick), none of the characters in Adams' earlier material really had any significant motivations that would lend them to becoming interesting protagonists in a more conventional setting.

Previously, Narcissist Zaphod wanted his ego stroked by fame and fortune, Ford was content with the prospect of a decent party to go to and Arthur's only desire was a palatable cup of tea. Trillian didn't really do anything. Although they are far from unrecognisable, the introduction of tangible drives into most of the characters alters the pattern of events in the story to accommodate what begins to resemble a more conventional story structure. One of the first casualties of this is that the principle players overshadow others, who are introduced, half-heartedly expanded upon, and then almost entirely dropped in deference to the favoured few. It never goes the whole way towards a standard structure though, as half of the principle story is seemingly abandoned in favour of a concentration on the romantic subplot and an overall resolution that is at least reverent to the previous formats. The result is a mixed bag. I found Arthur much more likable and Zaphod funnier than I ever have done, but it never actually occurred to me until the film that Arthur was a bit of a whinger and Zaphod quite boring, because I was too busy paying attention to what happened to them, rather than what they happened to do.

The other major objection, which may or may not have been inevitable, given the time that must be given over to visuals in cinema, is that the filmmakers appear to try and get too much into a two-hour film. As a result, some brilliantly funny lines are missed and key explanations fudged and both are replaced by a general silliness, which appears to be a compromise between the demands of hardcore Hitchhiker's fans and those of the cinema-going public. A lot of the new material is funny, but some of it doesn't really fit with Adams' universe and sticks out like a sore thumb. Whether this is the consequence of those responsible being caught between the rock of Adam's inventiveness and the hard place of the medium they were working in is hard to say. Perhaps someone braver could have produced something more appropriate, or perhaps this is the best that there could ever be. I suppose we'll never know.

To summarise: It's very different.

Well, I loved this stuff when I was 14....

[planktonrules · 6/10 · 3 October 2012]

When I was about 14, I read the Hitchhiker books and saw the BBC mini-series and was captivated. Now, decades later, I watch "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" and wonder exactly what I saw in it. Yes, I suppose it IS vaguely entertaining and occasionally funny, but it was not nearly as wonderful as I remembered. And, I am not sure how much of this is because the movie was only okay and how much of it is because my tastes have changed. Regardless, I found THIS movie mildly diverting but nothing special. However, it was nice to finally see a film version whose special effects were up to the job--as the BBC series was amazingly bad (even for the 1981) when it came to replicating outer space--and especially Zaphod's extra head. Sorry to be a drip--I just didn't particularly enjoy this film and found it to be just a mildly interesting time-passer.

it's OK, but stick with the far better mini-series

[movieman_kev · 6/10 · 13 February 2006]

It's a tad hard to put my feelings about this version of the source material seeing as how I heard the radio play, read the books, saw the amazingly great mini-series, and even played the delightful text-based adventure game on my now ancient, then new computer. It's somewhat difficult to divorce my self from all of the aforementioned incarnations and just enjoy this film for what it was. Not to say that it was anything horrid, far from it. Some aspects of the adaption were pretty good. Martin Freeman (who was great in "The Office) made an enjoyable Arthur Dent, Mos Def came off far better than I would have even thought as Ford. Those are two things of the top of my head. I'm sure if I were hard pressed I could think of other aspects I enjoyed, it's just that all in all the movie fails sadly. It goes off on tangents trying to capture more of the books than can be fathomed in a film of 109 minutes and throws in it's own sub-plots that I wasn't quite fond of. My humble opinion ultimately would be to stick with the early 80's mini-series as that will likely be the definitive adaption that we'll likely see on either the big or small screen.

My Grade: C+

What has all the fuss been about?

[mjluk · 9/10 · 27 April 2005]

First, let me start by saying that this is a funny film.

Like many others, I suspect, I was worried by the MJ Simpson negative review, but having seen the film I can't really understand what all the fuss was about.

Personally, I am very happy that this version contains the new material. I don't want to sit in the cinema watching a line by line copy of the radio play, book, or TV series. Each of those stand by their own merit, and each were good largely because of the new material they contained.

I think the cast did an excellent job, and although Zaphod wasn't quite how I pictured him, Sam Rockwell brought a freshness to the part which largely works. His portrayal of Zaphod as a guy who "thinks he is cool", rather than "is cool" works pretty well, and once you get over the southern drawl, he soon settles as a character. Ford is beautifully played, as are all the major characters.

Admittedly, some of the criticisms that were voiced by Simpson have some justification, but most were simply overstated to support his general vitriolic attack on the "purity" of the film.

In summary, go to see this film and don't worry.

I'm looking forward to the DVD and I have all my fingers crossed for a sequel.

Martin

Moving Rapidly

[daveisit · 6/10 · 5 May 2005]

Having never read, heard or seen anything to do with the "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", I was prepared for this film to be anything. There has been a lot of talk about the movie resembling the Monty Python sense of humour and comedy. Whilst there were obvious similarities, I don't believe it was quite strong enough nor contain frequent enough laughs to totally warrant this comparison.

What I did like was the not too serious attempt to bring an almost impossible galaxy to the big screen. The lighthearted approach allowed the viewer to relax into the characters and imagine the possibilities of such a life and existence. The casting was pretty good, with Martin Freeman, Stephen Fry, John Malkovich and Alan Rickman spot on. Perhaps only Zooey Deschanel appeared to struggle a little with the role.

This movie is Mostly Harmless...

[Hitsuzen · 9/10 · 25 April 2005]

It's a known fact that the movie adaptation of Hitchhiker's has been up in the air for some years now. Passing from the hands of one director to the next (James Cameron, Spike Jonze and Jay Roach), it wasn't until the idea landed in front of Garth Jennings and Nick Goldsmith that things truly started to take shape.

Douglas Adams died from a heart attack in 2001, but after reading the books, watching the film and drawing a comparison, it's clear that Adams would've accepted this adaptation of the TV series of the computer game of the radio series wholeheartedly.

Martin Freeman is an inspired choice as the face of Arthur Dent. He's an everyman, his slightly vacant, permanently confused facial expression (which we've all come to recognise from his role in The Office), truly becoming from a man who's trying to make sense of what's Out There, which happens to be similar to, though on a slightly larger scale than what's Down Here. And stupider.

Admittedly, it would've been nice to see more English talent taking on the roles from Adams' well loved creation. Steven Fry is THE Guide, the quintessential voice of logic and good-humoured reasoning in the Universe. Bill Nighy makes a great Slartibartfast, coming across as the kindly, if a little absent minded, genius that I've always imagined. And Alan Rickman providing his nasal drones to Marvin the Paranoid Android worked to near perfection.

That's not to say that the American cast isn't great. Mos Def and Zooey Deschanel are excellent as Ford Prefect and Trillian, but it's obvious that it's Sam Rockwell who's having all the fun, relishing his role as the over-excitable, reminiscently hippie-rockstar Ex-President of the Galaxy, Zaphod Beeblebrox.

So all in all, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a great experience. Non-Adamites will love it, as will the die hard fans. It's such a shame that its creator had to bow out before his beloved creation came to life, but due to his input into the movie script (the character Humma Kavula, played by John Malkovich, was written by him especially for the movie), his enthusiasm still lives on.

Want to go to the Restaurant at the End of the Universe now, please.

Hitchhiker's Guide is born again!

[nick-467 · 9/10 · 22 April 2005]

Well, I'm not a film reviewer. I'm not really a fan of film reviewers as their job involves pretending that there is an objective standard that governs how much everyone will enjoy a film (well, some of them are smart enough not to dress their opinion as anything else). Everyone enjoys films in different ways and I like to use my own judgment to decide if a film is worth my time or not (well, that and the opinions of a few trusted individuals who's taste in films is very similar to my own).

So this isn't a review, it's just my honest reaction to the film and you may judge for yourselves if my opinion is likely to be similar to your own.

I loved it. There were a couple of small points that I wasn't happy with but there was so much that I really enjoyed that I left the cinema very happy indeed. It has a very frantic pace, especially when compared to the glacial pace of the TV series. But, in my opinion, it works.

I'll now talk about different aspects of the film.

The Cast. Each member of the cast has brought a new interpretation of their character to the film but they are still definitely the same characters. Martin Freeman is very funny but also very human. He's less of a caricature of Britishness than Simon Jones's interpretation.

Mos Def is an excellent laid back Ford who occasionally has slightly manic (David Dixon style) moments. I don't think everyone will like his delivery of some of the lines as he can be very dead-pan at times but I found him very watchable and likable.

Sam Rockwell's Zaphod is either lovable or irritating depending on your loony-tolerance. I found his over-the-top performance was just perfect for Zaphod, and frequently had me in stitches.

Zooey Deschanel. Mmmm....Zooey. She's the best Trillian ever! She's adorable, funny, charming, intelligent and finally has an emotional depth that was missing from all other incarnations. She works well with both Zaphod and Arthur and their interactions were believable.

Bill Nighy gave a performance that managed to be nothing like Richard Vernon's yet at the same time definitely Slartibartfast. Very funny. Very human.

Stephen Fry is someone who I new would be good. He has the intelligence needed to get the delivery right and a mysterious gentle voice (like God has popped round for a cup of tea).

The Effects, sets and puppets. Wonderful. I loved the Vogon puppets, it made them seem much more real than any CG character (yes, even Gollum). The sets looked great and there is one nice tracking shot down a Vogon corridor that shows just how huge the set was. Every set is packed with detail, I cannot wait for the DVD. The Magrathea 'factory floor' is breathtaking - especially on the big-screen. Zaphod's second head isn't brilliantly executed but it didn't bother me much.

The Guide entries. I'm a big Shynola fan. I was extremely excited when I learned that they would be doing the guide entries. I wasn't disappointed - the guide entries look great and are packed with the inventive wit that characterises Shynola's work. The way they visually interpret the words of the guide entries is very clever and matches the wit of the original animations in the TV series but with a more modern approach.

The Music. The Dolphin song at the start was wonderful. Call me a softy but a couple of the lines nearly brought a tear to my eye. The music for the guide entries fit really well. The new orchestrated version of Journey of the Sorcerer is great. I was too wrapped up in the experience to really notice the music, I'll have to see it again (or buy the soundtrack)! Editing. The film flies along at an incredible pace but for me it never suffered from the 'why are we here now?' problem that some film (The Phantom Menace) suffer from. I really couldn't tell you how someone new to Hitchhiker's Guide might react. The destruction of the Earth is particularly well handled, managing to be both funny and moving.

Stuff I didn't like. Not much really. Part of me craves for the inclusion of things that other parts of me recognise will make the film less effective. One thing that I felt was a shame is that certain added plot elements make the story less bleak. These plot elements actually come from later books in the series so they weren't un-Hitchhiker-y but they contributed to a more optimistic story than I am familiar with from other versions. But this is a minor quibble and it didn't spoil my enjoyment of the film. Though I really liked Zaphod, I didn't really like the second head. It didn't work as well as it might have. Still, it was preferable to a shoulder-mounted permanent extra head - which would have been wrong for many reasons.

Conclusion. It is The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy reborn with a new energy. It is lighter than previous incarnations but still retains most of what I love about the story. It also adds a brilliant level of visual inventiveness that matches the aural inventiveness of the original radio series. People expecting the TV series but with better effects will be disappointed. This is a new beginning. The Hitchhiker's Guide is alive again, it is an enormous shame on a galactic scale that Douglas isn't here to enjoy it. The huge applause after the film showed I wasn't alone in having a good time.

Also, the film contains my favourite line. It previously only occurs in the second radio series (as far as I know) and is moved to a different occasion but I was dead chuffed when I heard it!

What movie are all these people watching?

[Hanover · 30 April 2005]

I've read this series at least a half-a-dozen times.

Mos Def was HORRIBLE. I certainly don't remember the part where Ford Prefect gets a labotomy and mumbles throughout the book. In fact, Ford had no presence in this movie whatsoever! In the book he's witty, charming, mischievous. In the movie, he's a zombie. The scene where he's scarfing down beer at the beginning isn't even explained! It makes no sense without explaining that he's trying to minimize the effects of hitchhiking.

Zooey feels like she's reciting her lines.

Arthur is just some guy in this story who makes funny faces once in awhile.

Slartibartfast obviously had the same acting coach as Mos Def since they were basically the same character (mumbling, weird pauses..).

Kudos to Sam Rockwell as I kinda liked his Zaphod, but even that character fell apart at the end.

The ending. Whoah boy! Talk about dumbing the movie down for mass consumption and completely screwing up the events in the books. So I guess there's not going to be a prehistoric earth in the second movie because SURPRISE Earth was completely restored and everyone lived happily ever after.

Blech.

I keep hearing "True to the spirit of Douglas Adams!" Maybe the guide, the heart of gold and the parts that didn't have actors in it.

Try the BBC version. Sure, it didn't have the special effects budget, but it retained the story and the "spirit of Douglas Adams" much better.

Messy But Fun

[wisemantonofski · 6/10 · 8 May 2019]

While it suffers from choppy pacing and sporadic decisions on world-building (or perhaps universe-building) it remains to me to be a delightfully quirky little romp through the galaxy, with enjoyable characters and a scattering of absurdist humour. It flirts with the deeper concepts of theology and philosophy, highlighted in the cleverly conceived animated moments and the narration of Stephen Fry, but more often it prefers to play to the strengths of its comedic cast in place of becoming a 'deep-thought' piece on life, the universe and everything.

Entertaining

[abdouli-98884 · 7/10 · 11 June 2019]

For someone who never read the novel, I can say that I mildly enjoyed it. The visuals were appealing. Good CGI with really astonishing scenes.

The main issue is that I didn't like how the story was handled. It felt loke it was ridiculously dumped down. I like SciFi, but I'm more into realistic ones that trick you into thinking you're part of that world. This movie didn't do that, it did the actual opposite. It just had too much comedy, and not the good kind. No character development. It made me feel nothing towards the characters. They were just there, part of the scenes, and nothing more. It had great potential but it decided to be casual and not pursue it.

So, in short, it's a cool movie. And I suggest it, even though I didn't like it that much, but it's enjoyable, and I'll keep you focused.

Don't Panic

[mandcharles · 8/10 · 19 April 2005]

It is wonderfully refreshing to see an intelligent adaptation of a well-loved book which manages to be innovative and highly entertaining. I saw the film last week, and after having seen the television adaptation as a child I did not have my fond memories shattered. The eccentricity of the story and characters have remained intact, and the Monty Pythonesque humour has been enhanced with even more surreal flights of fancy. Although funded by the US, this is a very British film and those who are fans of the new Dr Who, League of Gentleman and Little Britain are well catered for here. The film will not appeal to everyone, but those who love the book and intelligent, original comedy will have a fantastic time.

This is a good and faithful recreation of Hitchhikers

[amachalepis · 8/10 · 22 April 2005]

This is a good and faithful recreation of Adams' brilliantly sketchy radio series. Not surprising as Adams wrote the screenplay and was on the verge of having his dream realised when he suffered a fatal heart attack. A fitting credit at the end of the film "For Douglas" serves as a gentle reminder of the genius we have all lost. As for the film, many of the original and wonderful lines thankfully remain and the plot is largely unchanged. There's a new character or two written in for the film by Adams himself and they add to the overall story. John Malkovich is great albeit very briefly as religious leader Humma Kavula. Sam Rockwell, Mos Def and Martin Freeman all carry off their characters with wit and style whilst I felt Zooey Deschanel looked a little out of her depth. At times her dialogue seemed to get lost and her character seemed weaker than Sandra Dickinson's interpretation in the radio and TV series. Bill Nighy marries his own idiosyncrasies into the character of Slartibartfast seamlessly. Simon Jones makes a welcome cameo appearance as a holographic warning system. Stephen Fry steps well into the shoes vacated by Peter Jones as the "Guides" voice and you feel as if you are in safe hands. The "Guides" animated sequences are wonderfully reminiscent of Saul Bellow and though simple they are hilarious. For a feature directorial debut Garth Jennings does a grand job. I was half expecting the pop video influence to be apparent, but thankfully it wasn't. Lastly but not leastly a special mention has to go out to Jim Henson's creature workshop, this is probably the best work they have ever done in a feature, and that's saying a lot, given their success.

A good film. But not the right film.

[Mwongozi · 6/10 · 28 April 2005]

In the beginning, a radio play was written, then some books. After a long time, a movie was made.

This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Funnily enough (I'm glad something is) it's not a bad movie. In fact, from the perspective of Hollywood, it's quite a good movie. It's got action, romance, suspense, and some cracking special effects. It's even got a few jokes in it.

And that, of course, is the worst part. It's got *a few* jokes in it. The 75%-full cinema I watched it in chuckled out loud a few times. But that was it.

The film is packed full of references that will make you smirk if you've read the book. But if you haven't - they're just background noise and you won't even notice. A lot is assumed and very little is explained. Instead the time is spent flitting from scene to scene as fast as possible.

And if you've seen the trailer, you've had a good chunk of the best jokes ruined for you. You won't know until you start watching the film, but all of a sudden you'll see several jokes coming in advance, having seen the punchline in the trailer without having seen the joke first. Annoying.

It's a good film. But it's not the right film.

A great cast and great source material, what went wrong?

[TheLittleSongbird · 3/10 · 12 April 2011]

The BBC mini-series may have had a low budget, but overall it was excellent and captured the essence of the story wonderfully, which this film doesn't. The source material is so good, and deserves a much better movie and adaptation than this misfire.

The only redeeming merits are some of the effects, costume and set design(apart from the villains which were too grotesque and the Vogons look silly) and the performance of Martin Freeman. Joby Talbot's music is both good and disappointing, good in the sense of how well it is composed, disappointing in how it fitted with the film's moods.

My biggest beef of the film is how much the cast is wasted. This is a great cast. Helen Mirren? Alan Rickman? Bill Nighhy? Anna Chancellor? Sam Rockwell? Sterling actors, but wasted by quite a number of components, Rockwell especially is made to go over-the-top and it doesn't work at all.

So what was wrong with this movie? A lot of things is the correct answer. The book is so good, but impossible to compress into a 2-hour movie. I try not to be a purist, but this adaptation is far too condensed and pivotal elements are lost of their meaning and some especially the romance are shoe-horned and feel superfluous.

Other flaws are the confused storytelling, the tedious pacing, the embarrassing dialogue, characters that are devoid of any complexity and turned into walking clichés and less-than-mediocre direction.

All in all, a sad mess. 3/10 Bethany Cox

brilliant... for most

[krankcolc · 9/10 · 23 April 2005]

For those whom have read the book(s), you will love this movie. Not because it's just like the book, but because it is just as entertaining and insane and outrageous. And it's probably not anything that you would have expected or pictured when reading the book. It's better.

Amazingly, it was not defiled by Hollywood like most great books are. It's crammed into 110 minutes, but it is probably the most odd, random and ridiculously funny 110 minutes of the year.

The cast is almost perfect. Mos Def is a better choice than i would of expected, Sam Rockwell is great (as usual), and I can't see anyone else better to play Arthur than Martin Freeman now that I have seen the film. Oh yeah, the 3 second cameo from Jason Schwartzman is superb.

I wasn't sure if folks whom haven't read the book would enjoy it as much, but I'm sure they did from the amount of uncontrolled laughter they emitted frequently at the screening.

Well done chaps.

Good movie, but not up to potential.

[phlipping · 6/10 · 29 April 2005]

Good movie, but not up to potential. Mainly because they tried to cram so much of the story into such a short space of time, not to mention all the new additions to the story. Either a longer movie or a series like LoTR would have been much more appropriate.

A lot of the good jokes from the books were gone, and the plot was rather rushed. Anyone who's heard the shows and read the books many times (like me) will often be waiting for a funny bit they remember, and find it's not there. And most (I say most, there are a few notable exceptions) of the new jokes aren't up to par. Except Marvin, he's really good, as is Stephen Fry as the book/narrator.

Graphically it's very pretty, the CG sequences are rather well done, but I'm one of those weird people who think this doesn't make up for a rushed plot and fewer jokes.

Luckily, while it has obviously been Americanised a bit (addition of a token Big Bad Evil Guy and a romantic subplot) the Hollywood "style" hasn't infected it too badly.

For someone new to the H2G2 universe it'll be a good movie, and will probably introduce a lot of people to the books. For me, I'll stick to the radio shows as the superior form of the story.

By appealing to masses, it fails.

[jgrayson_au · 4/10 · 8 May 2009]

I can see what they did.--- They wanted to make a movie that was still H2G2 in a sense. "Wacky, zany, bizarre" etc. But then they wanted it to appeal to the masses. Trillian and Arthur end up in a love story, Zaphod's turned into a prick, the plot is changed a bit, and the inclusion of slapstick humour. Even some new characters where made by DNA for the movie.

You need to remember that H2G2 in every version has contradicted itself. Each form is a different entity, so this movie should be regarded in that sense. I can see what they did.---

I personally don't like the movie much. I am a dyed in the wool fan of the books. To be fair, there are some things I do like in this. I think Zoe was exceptional as Trillian. I thought some of the visuals of the movie were brilliant. It is these parts, and the 20year slog, that gets me to a 4/10

There were moments of greatness, and it's in that that I am most upset. The greatness shows what COULD have been. A H2G2 movie could have been brilliant, but with the changes to the source; for fans of the original, it's average.

The movie I feel was tailored to a new audience. The humour feels closer to American humour than British. I'm not sure if this was intended or not. The changes where made to make it a stand alone 2hr movie with enough 'normal points' to keep non-fans happy. I don't know if it worked. I don't know if new audiences, that had never read the books (or played the game, listened to the radio, or watched the TV series), will enjoy the humour.

What really worries me is that people will see the movie, think it's terrible and than write off every other format. That would be the ultimate disgrace to DNA.

Fans will find this from average to terrible. Everyone else I only pray they seek the source.

For Douglas? I rather doubt it

[mheuermann · 26 June 2006]

This movie isn't so much bad but rather pointless. Just before the credits roll in an ominous white 'for Douglas' fades in out of the black. I seriously hope that the director doesn't refer to the late Douglas Adams, author of the highly successful Hitchhikers 'Triology' cause frankly Douglas will be turning in his grave, seeing what has become of his utterly enjoyable books. Let me tell you about the high points, few that there are. The most funny bits are actually when Stephen Fry reads from the original book and the pictures are merely illustrations. Which just makes you wanna go back to the books and read them all again rather than watch another minute of this half baked adaptation. The marketing strategy is only to obvious. The Hitchhikers guide has sold more than 16 million copies, so we try to cash in on that popularity by making a film with the same name regardless of the fact that it is rather tricky to adapt for the screen. I am a big fan of the books and I thought the trailer to this movie was quite funny, but unfortunately the movie isn't. Naturally, you are bound to be disappointed when you finally go to see a movie version of books that you love so dearly but was that charmless white robot really the best they could do for the highly likable character of Marvin the depressed. To name just one of the major let downs. One of the books outstanding features is Adams' sheer inventiveness and shameless exaggeration. Condensed into a 100 minute movie the many ideas suddenly appear utterly random and arbitrary. I think it would be rather tricky to follow the plot of the film without having read the books and nearly impossible to understand what is so extraordinary about the books on the evidence of this film. I won't even bemoan the fact that so many of my favourite bits never made it into the film script, but the parts that actually now make up the story don't seem particularly funny, nor imaginative, nor clever. And a bit predictable at that. Halfway through you just don't care anymore and all you want is for this mediocre movie to be over and done with.

Almost, but not entirely, unlike a bad movie.

[wxid · 7/10 · 3 May 2005]

Douglas Adams must be sitting up in heaven, feet hanging over the edge of a cloud somewhere, harp slung happily over his should, sipping at a beer, generally happy with how those left behind completed his movie. Or not. After all, Adams was an atheist, so maybe he's not even looking. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy has finally hit the big screen and for the most part it's worthy of the name.

First off, however, the obligatory disclaimers. Yes, I read the books, or at least the original (actual) trilogy. Yes, I own the BBC TV series on DVD - dodgy effects and all. But no, I've never really tracked down the radio series - I'm not that big of a fan.

The movie starts off in largely familiar territory. After a slightly repositioned Guide entry about dolphins, and an astoundingly catchy tune, we have Arthur Dent (Freeman) finding his home about to be demolished for a motorway bypass. Ford (Mos Def) arrives with beer and peanuts, rather successfully, if temporarily, deflecting the workmen from the task. Ford of course is an alien researcher for the Guide, stuck on Earth for many years. Sadly, the update from "Harmless" to "Mostly Harmless" is cut from the movie, leaving us with no payoff from Ford's research.

In fact, quite a lot of dialogue, much of it the wonderfully colourful and often tangential nature that made Adams' work so enthralling, is gone. Familiar exchanges have been sliced, and Guide entries have been shortened. This kind of editing is sustained throughout the movie, leaving fans – even casual ones like myself - feeling as if somebody really didn't quite get the point.

Not only Arthur's home is scheduled for demolition, but the entire planet discovers they too are about to lose their homes as a Vogon fleet arrives to do the job. These creations from the Jim Henson workshops are quite remarkable. They fill a role that would have been ruined by use of pure CGI Vogons, and do it admirably in an 80s BBC production sense - if that BBC production had been able to utilise about ten times the budget. Simply put, they work and they work extremely well for the rest of the movie. These Vogons are not callous or evil, but they are the epitome of bureaucracy and paper-shuffling - the exact kind of people Adams' had it in for in the first place.

Hitching a ride, of course, on the Vogon space craft, Ford and Arthur are soon discovered and subjected to the torture of Vogon poetry. More disappointment here in that the Guide entry for Vogon poetry is restricted to a pure voice-over during the reading. The Guide shines when it is on screen, such as the entries about, well, the Guide itself, and Vogons. The updated, yet deliberately understated style is wonderful without being twee, and Fry does great service as the voice.

Visually, the film is a treat. The effects are good, and often subtle, in a way George Lucas simply doesn't comprehend. There are little prizes for the fans buried throughout the movie, from the old Marvin having a cameo of his own through to the appearance of Douglas Adams' head itself in tribute to the man who made it all possible. I've seen much criticism of the new Marvin, but frankly Marvin works. The idea of this Marvin being a psychologically flawed attempt at a "plastic pal who's fun to be with" is easily swallowed.

Among the most glaring of flaws is Zaphod's second head, which is given a hideously awful incarnation and subsequently sidelined for most of the movie. Clearly even the makers knew just how bad their method of dealing with the head really was.

Acting wise, the cast do perfectly acceptable jobs with their allotted characters. Freeman works Arthur's new development path well. Mos Def is a surprisingly decent Ford, even with many of his best lines excised. Rockwell is fine, though the Zaphod he is given to work with is rather too much Homer Simpson. No longer cool and froody, Zaphod spends much of the movie being stupid. Deschanel as the love interest is perfect, though she spends too little time on screen.

As for the plot, I've seen it described as a mess. It isn't. It is, however, full of contrivance. The entire Humma Kavula sub-plot seems unnecessary and put in place purely to achieve two things - the removal of Zaphod's second head (which the writers and effects people seemed incapable of dealing with) and the set up for a funny, but hugely contrived, sequence regarding a certain gun. There are other changes to the original, as there should be, but largely the movie is recognisable as Hitchhikers, and carries with it Adams' unmistakable stamp. While he may not have approved every detail it seems certain that this, mainly, is the movie he wanted to make - mistakes and all.

There is, however, one completely unforgivable scene. Right at the end of the Magrathean plot, just before our heroes board the Heart of Gold, there's a sequence which is truly hideous. It's the "happy ending" in all its glory. It's an atrociously sickening concept seemingly aimed at making things "better". Yet it's a robotic, shallow, and creepy concept if you think about it. Either way, it should never have been. Of all the changes, of all the cuts, this was the one part of the film where I was left stunned, thinking why, why, why?

However overall, Hitchhikers is not the books. It is not the TV series (though it does have the same haunting opening score - that brought a strange shivering to my skin). It could certainly have been better, but thankfully it could also have been much, much worse. It is Adams - albeit watered down for the international audience. It is funny. And it is almost entirely unlike a bad movie. Almost.

A noble effort, but ultimately flawed

[SammyK · 7/10 · 4 May 2005]

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.

a credit to the originality of the book

[SnoopyStyle · 8/10 · 14 September 2013]

From the oddly compelling Douglas Adams book of the same name, this is about the end of the Earth. Well at least they start with blowing up the Earth. Arthur Dent (Martin Freeman) is an everyman loser. He never gets the girl. He loves a spot of tea. He's the last to know anything. And when the Earth is blown up by aliens, he's lucky his friend Ford Prefect (Mos Def) is unbeknownst to him an alien. With nothing but a towel, they hitchhike to the rest of the universe. Zaphod Beeblebrox (Sam Rockwell) is the powerless President of the Universe. Trillian (Zooey Deschanel) is the only other human to have survived. Marvin (voice Alan Rickman) is a chronically depressed robot.

To say this is unique is missing the point. And missing the point is definitely possible if you haven't read the book. There is a sarcastic sense of humor, and underlying sense of the absurd that the film is trying to transfer from the book. Sam Rockwell rocks as the manic craze idiotic President. Zooey Deschanel is cute and wonderful. Martin Freeman is the perfect everyman. They are able to inject much of the wild imaginings into the film.

Fantastisch

[Bopvilla · 7/10 · 2 May 2005]

If faced by a group of hardcore Douglas Adamites, Michael Winner would probably say something along the lines of 'Calm down dear, it's only the big-screen adaptation of a well-loved book and pop-culture sensation'. In return they would politely tell Mr Winner where he could stick both his car insurance and film opinion whilst attempting to explain why The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is so much more; it's a culture, a way of life. Fans should fear not however because Adams' authentic voice - the spirit of his work - remains alive and his quirky space opera is in the safe hands of the music-video innovator and first-time director Garth Jennings. Sit back, relax and prepare yourself for this long-awaited big-screen transmogrification.

This massively epic feature hurls the audience on a wonderfully improbable trip through a near infinity of physical changes with visits to other spaceships and planets. Arthur Dent (Martin Freeman aka Tim from The Office), the quintessentially reserved and rumpled Englishman, and Ford (played with graceful comic timing by hip-hop artist/actor Mos Def) learn that an interplanetary construction crew is about to demolish Earth in order to build a hyperspace expressway and then embark upon a trip on which they encounter a multitude of eccentric characters, including the daft, two-headed, three-armed president of the galaxy, Zaphod Beeblebrox (Sam Rockwell - suitably annoying and over the top); the eternally depressed robot Marvin (voiced by a hilariously misanthropic Alan Rickman); an extremely bizarre quasi-spiritual leader named Humma Kavula (a camp cameo by a miscast John Malkovich); and a planet construction engineer known as Slartibartfast (Bill Nighy – a gem once more in his minor but exquisite performance)

Purists of the original book/series may be somewhat disappointed. It has been tweaked and adjusted, with a romance included here and a new character whacked down there - as if the screenplay itself had been put through the Infinite Improbability Drive - but the film remains scattershot and episodic in a manner similar to Adams' novels. These can only be minor quibbles and are not so radical that they felt un-Hitchhiker-y (a technical term I can assure you). In fact, it is its adherence to the original work that proves to be its finest feature whilst also being its greatest fault. Like in Adams' book there is no central, clearly defined plot but, instead, just a succession of tasks to set up the jokes. Clarity and purpose occasionally becomes obscured.

The limitations in budget are undeniably obvious, but, instead of being a flaw, Jennings creatively blends the best of modern CGI with old school FX and Jim Henson's Creature Shop so that the low-tech imagery enhance the film's charming fairy-tale quality and creates a visual inventiveness that is admirable. The Vogon puppets (representing a race of grouchy alien bureaucrats) seem real, more so than any computer generated character (yes, LOTR fans, even Gollum) and watch out especially for an impressive backwards zoom out from the earth's surface.

Overall an impressive achievement; funny, unique and visually sumptuous. It blasts from one topic to another at a machine-gun pace, maintaining its narrative by the very thinnest of threads while unleashing a hurricane of stream-of-consciousness observations.

Think Monty Python but in space!

Just be wary of any dolphins flying into outer space whilst singing, "So long, and thanks for all the fish." __________________

The answer

[nestaanneinon · 10/10 · 14 December 2020]

Best film ever!!!! I honestly don't see how it offends people, it is extremely similar to the book and tv series, with perfect casting and hilarious acting choices. I mean sam Rockwell as zaphod, Amazing!!