A few years back, I bought Douglas Adams' novel, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy." I'd heard a lotta good things about it, and I like quirky humor, so I decided to give it a try. Unfortunately, I couldn't get into it. I kept trying, practically forcing myself to enjoy it, but nothing was working. Eventually, I gave up. Still, when I heard about the movie, I was interested in seeing it, because even though I couldn't get into the book, I had a feeling that the movie would be more to my liking. Don't get me wrong, I'm the first to say that a movie based on a book is usually inferior to the novel. "The Godfather" is my favorite (or second favorite, depending on when you ask me) movie of all-time, but I still say the book is better. But sometimes, what doesn't work for me as a book DOES work for me as a movie. A good example of that is "Interview with the Vampire." I figured that's how it would be with "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy," and I was right. I enjoyed the film. I didn't go nuts for it or anything, but it was entertaining and it made me smile.
I think that this is a movie that just about anyone can enjoy, but fans of the book will probably find it more rewarding since there seems to be a whole lotta references that only die hard fans would pick up on. Also, it felt like there were things left unexplained that only fans of the novel (or novels) would figure out. To be honest with you, I have no problem with that, it happens all the time with comic book movies. However, I'm a comic book geek, and I usually catch all those references. It kinda sucks to be one of those in the crowd who's outta the loop.
Whether a fan of the novel or not, I think everyone will come away from the movie thinking that the special effects are amazing. I'm not just talking about the usual stuff, which we take for granted at this point, but I'm also talking about the cleverness of the effects. Perhaps they're all just visual representations of what Douglas Adams wrote in the novel and/or the screenplay, but either way, it's all very creative.
The movie is very witty, and the special effects are awesome, but to me, there are times when the movie drags a bit. Also, the movie seems very messy. Maybe I'm wrong, but I remember watching it thinking that it was a little bit scattershot. Maybe it's because of the difficulty in adapting the novel into a film. Or maybe it's because the adaptation was written mainly by Douglas Adams himself, and he felt the need to add things, which he did, by the way. Douglas Adams added a lot that won't be found in the novel.
Speaking of that, there's been some controversy about how much has been changed from the novel, but people should remember that Douglas Adams wrote the screenplay, and all of the changes were changes that he chose to make. Doesn't that make it more acceptable? Besides, before "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" was a novel, it was a radio series, and the novel isn't a literal translation of the radio show. Oh, by the way, there was another writer involved with the film, Karey Kirkpatrick, who helped write "Chicken Run," "James and the Giant Peach," and "The Rescuers Down Under." Supposedly, Kirkpatrick did little more than tighten up the script and make it more coherent, so Douglas Adams fans shouldn't be too nervous about that.
The director of the film is credited to Garth Jennings, but I'm not sure if he worked alone. This is the feature film directorial debut for Jennings, but prior to this, he directed commercials and music videos with Nick Goldsmith, and together they are the team "Hammer & Tongs." In the opening credits, I saw the words "A Hammer & Tongs Production" on the screen, so that has me thinking that it was really the both of them directing the film. If that was the case, the reason Garth Jennings would be the only one credited is because the DGA (Director's Guild of America) allows only one person to get a director credit for each movie. There are exceptions, such as if two people join together as a team, like with the Wachowski Brothers, but I don't think Hammer & Tongs did. I'm merely speculating, I could be totally wrong, perhaps Garth Jennings really was the only director. Either way, I think that the director(s) did a fantastic job, especially since this is NOT an easy movie to debut with.
I think a lotta people were surprised with the cast for the movie, but I think that they all did a fantastic job. The biggest controversy had to do with the casting of Mos Def as "Ford Prefect." I first saw Mos Def in a Visa commercial with Deion Sanders, but the first movie I saw him act in was "Bamboozled," and I thought he was excellent in it. He was also really good in "The Italian Job" and "Monster's Ball." In his acting career, Mos Def has shown a lot of range, especially for a rapper (though I think he was acting before he had his first CD out). I don't think that it was stunt casting in this movie, I think he was selected because he brought something interesting to the character, and that's how I felt watching him in this movie. Martin Freeman, whose previous work I'm unfamiliar with, was really good as "Arthur Dent," though he was the least interesting character. I don't think that's the fault of the actor or even the story, though. He's the everyman, the person in the film we're supposed to relate to, so being ordinary is part of the job. Sam Rockwell ("Confessions of a Dangerous Mind," "Charlie's Angels," "The Green Mile") is great as "Zaphod Beeblebrox," and I must say, Rockwell plays him with gusto. It's a high-energy performance, and he seems to be having a great time in the role. Then there's Zooey Deschanel ("Elf," "All the Real Girls," "Big Trouble," "The Good Girl," "Almost Famous") as "Trillian." Zooey Deschanel is an actress I really like. She's cute, quirky, and talented, and I like seeing her in movies.
Probably my favorite character in the film is "Marvin," a depressed little robot who I would have loved to see more of. The voice is provided by Alan Rickman, and he's perfectly cast. Warwick Davis is the one in the "Marvin" suit, and even though the acting is minimal, he does really good work with the body language that you might see in a depressed robot.
As someone who couldn't get through the book, and who knew almost nothing about it before seeing the movie, I think it's a pretty cool flick. It drags a little, it's messy, and the ending is kinda weak, but I still liked it. The acting is really good, the special effects are incredible, and the movie really is quite clever. I don't know how Douglas Adams fans feel about it, but I liked it. In fact, it makes me wanna go and try to read the novel one more time. Perhaps having a visual frame of reference will help.
Scale of 1-10: 7