Check Out This Fantastic Story On IGN FILMFORCE!!!

Hey folks, Harry here - I'm tired - working very long hours here trying to keep stories up to date, as well as keep the other life's duties at full steam - but last night I made my way out to see HITCHHIKER'S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY - the film is definitely an alternative dimensional take on Douglas Adams' brilliantly hilarious classic - The character I was most concerned about in advance "Ford" turned out to oddly be my favorite performance in the film. I love the old school Henson shop coolness. And I'm gaga for Zooey Deschanel - after ELF she owns... "But baby it's cold outside..." heh. I need to see it again before giving a proper run at a review - just because - I saw it on fumes... literally I had been awake for about 29 hours when I saw it. However, really really enjoyed it - I just want to see it again when I'm at a high energy point myself. I'll be on CNN later today to talk further about it, till then here's some alternative takes on the latest from the mind of Douglas Adams by way of Hammer & Tongs...

Hello Harry and friends,

You've received plenty of reviews of "Hitchhiker's Guide," so I won't bother you with another. I would like, however, to offer my thoughts on how this film brilliantly captures the heart and convictions of these stories, and of Adams himself. (There are mild spoilers below.)

First, my credentials. I own the original BBC radio plays; have read all five Hitchhiker's books several times over; have seen the 1981 "movie"; and have read several other of Adams's books, including the Dirk Gently series. I think Adams was one of the best three or four comic writers of the last century, on par with Wodehouse and Thurber.

Like all great comic writers, there is much hidden depth and heart in Adams. I was confident that these latest filmmakers would be able to translate many of his best jokes, but I didn't expect them to understandmuch of his substance. But they did, and brilliantly. Let me offer some examples.

There is, first, Adams's fervent love of life, or what we call "the environment." The film not only gets this across, but does so passionately. The film places front and center Adams's idea that humans are the third most intelligent species on Earth, thus turning our anthropocentrism on its head. We see it in the hilarious dolphin musical number, the central role of the mice, and the dolphins' return. It would have been easy to turn this into a throwaway joke; the film makes it its central theme.

Perhaps most strikingly, in this environmentalist vein, was Arthur’s tour of Earth Mark II. Again, the filmmakers didn't gloss this over: they presented it with its appropriate weight. We not only see but feel (thanks partly to Joby Talbot's score) the sheer beauty and power of the Earth. This is something most of ustake for granted. By destroying the Earth and then putting it together again, the film reminds us that we are living in a fairly miraculous place.

One last point on this reverence for life: Arthur’s "torture" scene at the hands of the mice. As best I recall, this was not in the books, or at least not precisely. By having the mice strap Arthur down and threaten him with a totally pointless and ridiculously cruel procedure, the film makes a not-so-subtle point: this is what we do to mice (and other animals) everyday. Usually, it makes just as little sense. Why, then, should we continue doing it?

Now for a few other points. The film expands the role of the Vogons and in the process demonstrates a keen understanding of what they represent. The Vogons, quite simply, are bureaucracy embodied. They represent all the pettiness, stupidity, and fear that characterize “civilized” humans. It is only fitting that they are finally laid low by civilized man’s other great characteristic: despair.

The film also does a relatively good job with Arthur's struggle to overcome his paralyzing fear and cautiousness. Adams is at pains throughout the Hitchhiker's stories to expose modern humans for what they are, and to show what they might become if they could somehow escape the debilitating trappings of civilization. This is what Trillian longs to do, and what Arthur learns to do. The film understands this, and this understanding is at the heart of the much-criticized romance.

In summary, I am very pleasantly surprised. Much of the film's success is due, no doubt, to the role Adams played in its creation. But the filmmakers, had they not understood the subtlety and depth in these stories, could easily have botched it. My only hope now is that they'll give us a sequel.

(If you use this, please just call me Andrew.)

And this one...

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy was originally concieved by Douglas Adams while he was lying drunk in a field in the 1970s. Since that time it was a Radio Series, a Book, a Television Show and a Computer Game. The one thing it hasn't been up until now, is a major motion picture.

After some 20 years the much anticipated big screen adaption has arrived. So how is it? Let's break it down.

First off I give the new set of actors credit, they've done a good job. There isn't a bad casting in the bunch. The voice acting by Stephen Fry (The Book) and Alan Rickman (Marvin) couldn't have been better. The rest of the cast is solid, but they're in an almost impossible situation. For instance the character of Arthur Dent was specifically written by Douglas Adams to be played by Simon Jones. Thus, it's not going to be quite the same with anyone else. But Martin Freeman does a very good Arthur, and while he's not perfect, he's close. This echos throughout the cast with possibly one exception - Zaphod. Sam Rockwell does an excellent job with Zaphod. He nails the ego and the well, overall stupidity to a T. Rounding out the cast is Mos Def as Ford and Zooey Deschanel as Trillian. Both do a solid job, no real complaints.

There are some good choices in the supporting cast as well. Although we don't really get to delve too much into his character Jon Malkovich is his normal creepy self and I thought Bill Nighy did a good job with Slartibartfast.

As far as the script, it's faithful - very faithful. One thing to keep in mind though, this is a movie and not a 6 part TV show or 3 hour radio drama. Many famous bits are cut short or slightly modified, but that has to be expected. What remains is the core of that Adams wit and the strange and wonderful world of Hitchhikers. The first 15 minutes or so is almost verbatim (albeit truncated) from the Book. This is actually good and bad. It may be a bit hard for Hitchhiker's vetrans to get into the film at first. The lines are so familiar it just doesn't seem right coming from these new actors.. but give it a chance, it does gel.

Fans of the books and the original productions will get plenty of nods and injokes. There are cameos (in 3-D even!) and all sorts of small bits that only Hitchhiker fans are likely to pick up on. For instance the Heart of Gold has a Teacup motif which I thought was very cool.

The plot does stray from the familiar, especially with the Jon Malkovich sub-plot. But this isn't bad. Adams himself penned some of this and don't forget almost every version of the guide has differed slightly. The Vogons get more to do including a trip to the Vogon home world where everything is run like a government office. There is a new romance angle between Arthur and Trillian, and although this is maybe out of left field it does work and isn't too distracting or sappy. My only real complaint plot wise is the absolute very end, but even then its minor overall.

The production values are top notch. The special effects (with the odd exception) are spot on and quite striking. It's interesting to note that some of the effects do mirror those now-archaic ones from the 1981 TV Series, just shows how creative they were back then.

The music is mostly harmless, although some of the background music is a bit cheesy. Special props for using the Eagles 'Journey of the Sorcerer' though.

So overall I liked it. It may not be the 'best' version of Hitchhikers out there, but its a solid entry into what has always been a prolific series. The door is left wide open for Restaurant, so lets hope it does enough business for a sequel (or two).

- lankey nibbs

And now for a short and sweet...

Hey Harry,

As I am sure you will be getting tons of these e-mails tonight as the screening took place at the Century City AMC here in Ca, I will keep mine short and sweet.

THIS MOVIE ROCKED!!! I have to admit that I have never read any of the books or seen/heard any of the BBC version, but my gf and I loved this movie. From the opening song from the dolphins all the way up to them talking about the resturant at the end of the galaxy it was great. Again as someone who only has a passing knowledge of the number 42, I enjoyed everything as so did it seem most of the large crowd.

All of the cast was great, but Rickmen as Marvin was a show stealer. Never before have I heard a whole theater almost shead a tear from the "sight" of a robot death (don't worry he is not dead). I also enjoyed greatly that while it was a HUGE budget film they still made it seem as through it was a story about a boy and a girl...and his towel.

J

P.S.--for any of the old BBC fans you may want to keep an eye out for the old Marvin as my firend has passed along to me.

*END OF LINE*

And now for someone who had a really bad time

Harry, I saw a preview screening of Hitchhiker's Guide tonight. I'm a reporter for the University of New Mexico and this is a spoiler-free review of the film and if you need this by all means enjoy.

Call me Lobo Louie

Blame it on “Lord of the Rings” for taking a book with a ravenous cult following and successfully translating it into a film. If it wasn’t for the fact that that “Lord of the Rings” director Peter Jackson made such good films then other directors wouldn’t think that they could do it too.

So, when a handful of Douglas Adams friends got together and decided to make a movie out of his extraordinarily amazing book, “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” they all felt pretty confident that they could translate it onto the big screen, assured that they could bring Adams’ vision to life and please his fans.

They failed.

“Hitchhiker’s Guide” is one of the funniest books ever written. Adams’ dry sense of humor, brilliant storyline and ingenious ideas have been delighting fans since the late ‘70’s with the stories various incarnations as a radio series and then books, which hail themselves as a “trilogy of five”.

Adams was the kind of writer that defied conventions, brought up new ideas and put it all into a fantasy world that blew away most anyone who read his books.

The story is fascinating, placing ordinary man Arthur Dent (Martin Freeman) into an extraordinary situation involving the answer to the meaning of life, the total destruction of the earth and the third worst poetry in the galaxy. However, it is Adams distinctive style that not only has it all make sense, but makes it funny.

I will give credit to the movie for trying to be as true to Adams humor as possible. However, without Adams to fully craft the film (tragically, he died in 2001) it comes off as a pale imitation of his work. Things that make sense in the book appear difficult to have been executed in the movie and visually aren’t nearly as funny as they are when read.

One of the most glaring weaknesses of the film is the character of Marvin, the chronically depressed robot who serves as the comic relief in the book. In the film he’s turned into an adorable sidekick who occasionally spouts pithy remarks in Alan Rickman’s voice.

Another major hurdle that the filmmakers failed to leap was to make this film accessible to people who aren’t familiar with the book. This proved to be even harder than trying to please the fans. The movie has some funny parts, but mostly it’s just confusing. “Hitchhiker’s Guide” is notoriously difficult to explain, but to try to visually show the ideas of the book (such as the concept of an Improbability Drive) to someone who’s unfamiliar with it falls flat.

“Hitchhiker’s Guide” is an amazing book and a terrible film. All the delight, excitement, and humor in the book are gone from the film. What the film does show, however, is just how truly brilliant Douglas Adams was and how impossible it is to recreate his work.

Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy: D+