JamesPicard
Since: Jun, 2012
06/27/2014 00:00:00
To be fair, Douglas Adams was (at least one of) the writers, so it's pretty fair to say thaw the had as much to do with it as Hollywood.
I'm a geek.
Roo
Since: Sep, 2009
06/28/2014 00:00:00
Doesn't really matter who wrote it, or what ideas were Adams's; the fact remains that the movie panders to very American sensibilities, while keeping a lot of the very British humor, and this is what causes the uneven tone.
JamesPicard
Since: Jun, 2012
06/30/2014 00:00:00
I will agree with that. H2G2 is not for the LCD, and trying to make it so doesn't work.
I'm a geek.
JamesPicard
Since: Jun, 2012
06/30/2014 00:00:00
Whoops, wrong acronym for the book.
I'm a geek.Leave a Comment:
Film: A very American adaptation of a very British story
After having viewed the movie several times, as well as listened to the radio dramas (the original ones as well as the ones adapting the three later books), and skimmed through the books themselves, I think that the main problem with the movie can be summed up thusly:
It's a very American adaptation of a very British story.
The original Hitchhiker's story was a very black, ultimately pessimistic but extremely sharp and often subtle "people are a problem" satire by the very British Douglas Adams. In the movie the satire, while still present, is underminded and often contradicted by a much more American/Hollywood attitude — which is broad, blatant and much more optimistic: Here you have a world where only the villains are truly bad, the good guys may be flawed but come around and change for the better in the end, and in true Hollywood fashion, the "dorky average guy" that the audience is meant to identify with saves the day, becomes braver and cooler, and of course gets the hot girl.
And so we have two very different philosophies struggling for attention here, and this makes for a very uneven tone and feel all around. Are we supposed to root for these people, or shake our heads at their folly, or both, or neither? When Trillian gets all hurt and disappointed that Arthur doesn't want to quit his job and go to Madagascar with a girl he's known less than twenty minutes, are we meant to side with him or with her? The moviemakers don't seem to know either.
That's not to say the movie is without its merits. It looks gorgeous; the Vogons in particular look awesome, and the scenery is often breathtaking. Most of the actors do good jobs, particularly Martin Freeman, Alan Rickman and Bill Nighy. There are also several good ideas here, like the POV gun and Humma Kavula — and the Guide segments are brilliant; I know people have chastised the movie for dumbing down the orignal material, but when I first saw it I was pleasantly surprised how much of the original wit and humor had actually been preserved here, especially when the Guide was involved.
In the end, I'd say the movie's worth at least a watch for its strong points, long as you accept that it is a Hollywood movie trying to adapt a very non-Hollywood story... with all that entails.