Asylum Forums Pages (2): [1] 2 »
Show all 37 posts from this thread on one page

Asylum Forums (http://asylumnation.com/asylum/index.php)
- Sensory Overload (http://asylumnation.com/asylum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=6)
-- The Hitchiker's Guide To The Galaxy (http://asylumnation.com/asylum/showthread.php?threadid=41156)


Posted by tack on 04-29-2005 07:30 AM:

The Hitchiker's Guide To The Galaxy

sucked in movie form.


Posted by buddha's penis on 04-29-2005 07:38 AM:

the review hawley posted + the commercial i saw today lead me to assume as much. i'm not a huge fan, so i doubt i'll see it now.


Posted by CHiPsJr on 05-01-2005 01:39 AM:

I AM a huge fan. I can't entirely disagree.

I ended up enjoying the movie, although I can't say it was a "good" film. The things that made it work for me were the pitch-perfect casting and some of the "moments"...I defy anyone to tell me they didn't find the Magrathean Factory Floor to be awe-inspiring, and I thought the bit with Marvin and the gun was pretty effective. Also the mice. And the Guide itself worked.

The problems are numerous and obvious. The savage online review is correct in that the editing kills a lot of the jokes, and the plot is an absolute hash. And the romantic subplot...good God, what the FUCK were they thinking? That ALONE is enough to practically unhinge the whole production. Can they possibly have thought that it would serve as a hook for newcomers, given how slapdash and unpersuasive it was?

Three stars and a mild recc for fans. One-and-a-half stars and a recommendation to avoid for those who don't love the books. The sad thing is, nobody who watches the movie first is gonna be inclined to read them.


Posted by SocialParasite on 05-01-2005 01:43 AM:

Shit, reading in general doesn't happen anymore.

My senior year of high school we got the first novel as a reading assignment for one of our literary classes and 99% of the students just didn't get it.

Words make teh funnay? Make brain hurt.

__________________


Posted by Azrael on 05-01-2005 01:38 PM:

I dont know watching the movie reminded me of the perceptive social comentary that DA was laying out for us. Oh sure I remembered parts of the story from years ago but some stuff goes over your head when you're a kid.


Posted by Smug Git on 05-01-2005 01:48 PM:

I saw the movie yesterday and some of the original series last night.

The movie was fine; not outstanding, but good enough.

__________________

I want to live and I want to love
I want to catch something that I might be ashamed of


Posted by Hawley Griffin on 05-01-2005 02:34 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by SocialParasite
Shit, reading in general doesn't happen anymore.


__________________

"too many people have opinions on things they know nothting about. and the more ignorant they are, the more opinions they have."
-euphorbia


Posted by Dacarlo on 05-01-2005 03:54 PM:

I enjoyed the movie. Good stuff.

__________________

https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Moderator


Posted by mmmtravis on 05-02-2005 09:40 AM:

Eh, two stars. Some parts were really funny, Mos Def was great. Alan Rickman and Sam Rockwell were horribly, I actually liked them both much better in Galaxy Quest.

I feel like I would've given it a better rating had I not constantly been plagued by the knowledge that they were mediocrizing a fantastic book.

__________________

picture unrelated


Posted by Smug Git on 05-02-2005 01:12 PM:

Maybe they should have made a film of one of the later books, which were, themselves, mediocre?

__________________

I want to live and I want to love
I want to catch something that I might be ashamed of


Posted by Weasel Spoor on 05-02-2005 07:13 PM:

I don't really want to see the movie unless I really have nothing to do of a Sunday afternoon. What I can recommend to everyone is the 3rd series (or the 'tertiary phase' as they have monikered it) of the radio show featuring all the original cast (aside from Peter Jones, the original voice of the book who is Resting I.P.) and indeed the voice of Douglas Adams (who is also interred, but obviously able to project from beyond the grave rather better). It was really good, and much like the previous two series, was a lot more amusing than the books, and certainly better than the rather dire TV series.

The orignal radio shows were rather good, and differ considerably from the plots of both the books and the TV series.

The TV series, and I suspect the film, as mediums rather do not work with the premise of HGTTG - in that basically the galaxy is as tedious and as wrapped up in beaurocracy as our own lives down here.

Am still amused by several scenes from HHGTTG even now; namely:

- The Vogon guard who chucks Arthur and Ford into the airlock
- Zaphod going into the Total Perspective Vortex and realising he ego is so colossally huge that he does, in fact, believe he is the most important person in the universe.
- The spaceliner delayed for 900 years awaiting lemon soaked refreshing towels
- Agragarj - the creature that Arthur has managed to kill 15 times
- The shoe event horizon
- The revelation that humans are descended from a group of telephone sanitizers, ad executives, movie producers and media flunkeys
- That the game of cricket is a racial memory of the most horrendous galactic war in history, and the rest of the universe thinks it is in rather poor taste.
- The creature that is bred to be delighted to want to be eaten and Arthur can't stand to eat because he thinks it's weird (very human reaction that)
- That someone got an award for designing Norway with 'crinkly edges'

Smug I reccomend the third radio series to yourself - it is rather better than the book it is based on - and has Henry Blofeld and Fred Trueman in 2 edpisodes.

But yes - if I review the above favourite moments, none of them seem to appear from the fourth book. Which is appalling.


Posted by Hawley Griffin on 05-02-2005 07:28 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Weasel Spoor

- The spaceliner delayed for 900 years awaiting lemon soaked refreshing towels



lemon soaked paper NAPKINS, MOTHER FUCKER, NAPKINS!!!
__________________

"too many people have opinions on things they know nothting about. and the more ignorant they are, the more opinions they have."
-euphorbia


Posted by Paint CHiPs on 05-04-2005 12:56 AM:

I actually largely agree with Travis and Jr. With Travis in that the casting decisions that worked best were NOT the slam dunks. Alan Rickman was totally wrong for the voice of Marvin after all, and Sam Rockwell managed to completely make a mess of Zaphod by NOT playing it straight, ironically enough. He, I guess, got it in his head that adding a George W. Bush element to him would be funny, but it wasn't. Characters like Zaphod can either be really hard to play by somebody who makes it look easy, or really easy to play by somebody that makes it look hard. Rockwell went for the latter, and it didn't work. My own personal pick for worst casting choice, however, goes to Helen Mirren for the voice of Deep Thought. It was obviously something that the filmmakers thought to be an inspired choice, but I can't imagine why. They managed to totally fuck that whole thing up, and that's the one sequence that pretty much every other production has managed to pull off easily and to great effect.

Mos Def, on the other hand, looked born to play Ford Prefect, Zooey Draschael (who I like a lot anyway) fit like a glove, Stephen Fry was seamless, Martin Freeman was fine, and a couple other straightmen were all great. And, I thought the out of nowhere slam dunk casting choice went to Bill Nighy. Perfect.

But yeah, I share in the befuddlement. It probably didn't help that I, that week, by I'm not even kidding sheer coincidence, reread the book and watched the TV series for the first time. It wasn't TERRIBLE, but what good moments it had was weighed against the more numerous moments when I just couldn't figure out what anybody was thinking, i.e. why they thought such and such would be funny, why they'd play a scene in such and such a way, or what inspired them to take that direction, or what the hell John Malkovich was doing in the movie, etc. And I'm not one to give much a shit about faithfulness to source material, but if you're going to diverge from the source material, it should be because what you're choosing to do instead ADDS something. The fleshed out second act with all the totally new bits, the whole Trillian-Dent angle, all that.....I don't object to it because it was divergent to the source material, but because it was POINTLESSLY divergent. It would almost be nice if we could blame that on someone other than Adams, but all the new stuff was apparantly his.

And finally, the movie had the feel about it of one that went to the editors one to many times. There was this weird stop-go pace to it that really fucked up the comedy I thought.

Also: MORE GUIDE.

But anyway, all that said, it wasn't terrible, and was a decent enough way to spend two hours I guess. It was slick and the fiddly bits were interesting, oftentimes enough so to get me past the frustrating parts. I'd give it two and a half stars, on the thumbs up side.


Posted by CRSR on 05-04-2005 04:52 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Weasel Spoor


Am still amused by several scenes from HHGTTG even now; namely:
*snip*



BISTROMATICS!


Posted by bad-moj0 on 05-04-2005 07:15 PM:

please.... stop ....critiquing,..... films....dfggv NO ONE CARES (except the few of you who think typing out these elaborate movie reviews matter)

but again, NO ONE CARES. Either get paid for doing it or SHUT UP

__________________


Posted by CHiPsJr on 05-04-2005 07:26 PM:

I'm always interested in reading intelligent people's reaction to films, whether they're paid for it or not.


Posted by bad-moj0 on 05-04-2005 08:21 PM:

Maybe I just don't look into films as 'deep' as other's might. Either it's not very good, or it is. I can't go farther than that pretty much. Maybe I don't find a film very entertaining because the dialogue sucks, the production design sucks, etc.. But when I watch a film I don't think like that, I just think, "Wow, this movie is boring."

__________________


Posted by CRSR on 05-04-2005 09:12 PM:

Half the fun about movies is talking about them afterwards


Posted by CHiPsJr on 05-04-2005 09:16 PM:

In some cases ALL the fun is talking about them afterwards.


Posted by Hawley Griffin on 05-05-2005 01:35 AM:

christ, the movie was terrible in every possible sense of the word. its like the director/screenwriter had never even read the damn book.

avoid it like the plague

__________________

"too many people have opinions on things they know nothting about. and the more ignorant they are, the more opinions they have."
-euphorbia


Posted by ignatz mouse on 05-05-2005 01:50 AM:

The love subplot was painful.


Posted by SimpleSimon on 05-06-2005 10:56 PM:

I despised the book - thought it was painfully trite and horrifyingly unoriginal. I went to the movie today at SLH's request, and was frankly underwhelmed. It very nearly put me to sleep.

Don't bother.


Posted by Tray on 05-07-2005 12:02 AM:

I haven't read the books.

I enjoyed the movie.

I thought the BBC series was better.

__________________

Doesn't mean that much to me, to mean that much to you.


Posted by SocialParasite on 05-07-2005 12:04 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by SimpleSimon
I despised the book - thought it was painfully trite and horrifyingly unoriginal. I went to the movie today at SLH's request, and was frankly underwhelmed. It very nearly put me to sleep.

Don't bother.



Which should be a raving review in favor of going to see it for the rest of us.
__________________


Posted by absolut on 05-07-2005 01:47 PM:

Jeez. I liked it.
I felt it was in the spirit of the texts.
Loved the Vogons.


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:43 PM. Pages (2): [1] 2 »
Show all 37 posts from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.2.8
Copyright © Jelsoft Enterprises Limited 2000 - 2002.
Copyright © 2014- Imaginet Inc.
[Legal Notice] | [Privacy Policy] | [Site Index]