ROTTEN TOMATOES: Critical Consensus: Long Awaited "Hitchhiker's Guide" Gets Mixed Reaction Comments

Critical Consensus: Long Awaited "Hitchhiker's Guide" Gets Mixed Reaction

by Senh Duong | April 28, 2005

Summary

This weekend, two big-budget, special effects extravaganzas will battle for the love of the Tomatometer. In one corner, opening in over 3000 theaters, is a film adaptation of Douglas Adams' beloved novel "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy." In the other corner, opening in over 3300 theaters, is "XXX: State of the Union," the sequel to the 2002 Vin Diesel hit "XXX." Which one will win the battle of the Tomatometer? Back to Article

(1-44 of 44 posts) | Reply

ieatfood54491 writes:
on Apr 28 2005 05:48 PM

hitchhikers better win

(Reply to this)

VML writes:
on Apr 28 2005 05:53 PM

I'm not sure if Hitchhiker's Guide is confusing to people who are new to the series. I've read the book but I haven't seen the movie yet.

(Reply to this)

the_game writes:
on Apr 28 2005 07:44 PM

5th Element was a top movie, I've never read Hitchhikers either so probably won't bother with the movie either

(Reply to this)

Ophiuchus writes:
on Apr 28 2005 07:49 PM

I liked 5th Element too. It's one of my all-time faves, in fact. I can't understand why people say it's lousy- sure it's cliched and whatnot, but it doesn't take itself very seriously so it's very funny in places. As for Hitchhiker's Guide... haven't seen it yet, but I'm determined to like it and ignore what crabby critics say.

(Reply to this)

VML writes:
on Apr 29 2005 07:38 AM

In reply to this comment (#821721)
Same thing with me.

I love the 5th Element! Its one of my favorite movies!

(Reply to this)

Now it's dark writes:
on Apr 29 2005 08:41 AM

I liked Fifth Element too, but I think this is a Disney movie. It's G rated in Canada. Least I can take my kid to it, but my expectations are low.

(Reply to this)

The Senhman writes:
on Apr 29 2005 11:57 AM

It's getting really close to 60%...

(Reply to this)

puablo writes:
on Apr 29 2005 01:14 PM

[b]Fifth Element - good analogy[/b]
I like the Fifth Element analogy. Most critics panned it, but some adored it, and there's definitely a love/hate schism about it in the movie-going community (one of my all time favorites).

I am not at all surprised that H2G2 is getting the reviews that it is getting, even having not seen it yet. For one, there are unusual people out there that don't think the book is funny. So in turn, there will be a lot more people who see the movie and don't get it at all. But what I like is the majority of "rotten" reviews say the movie is exactly what we fans want it to be, and they complain it doesn't "conform" to a normal movie story. And those that say fans will be disappointed claim it "conforms too much". Please. If it's even 50% like the book, I'll be a happy happy man. My only worry is that without making a lot of money, there won't be any sequels. And I want sequels, darn it!

(Reply to this)

amamamy writes:
on Apr 29 2005 02:37 PM

In reply to this comment (#821725)
[b]Huh?[/b]
Sorry...I mean no offense, but where did you get the abbreviation H2G2?

(Reply to this)

The Senhman writes:
on Apr 29 2005 02:57 PM

In reply to this comment (#821726)
Good catch, I think it's:

Hitch
Hiker's
Guide (to the)
Galaxy

(Reply to this)

Ophiuchus writes:
on Apr 29 2005 03:13 PM

In reply to this comment (#821725)
It *is* pretty silly that some people are saying it conforms too much and some saying it doesn't conform enough. I mean, it should be one or the other, shouldn't it?

(Reply to this)

ChickenWing89 writes:
on Apr 29 2005 06:23 PM

Its at 63 percent now. Fresh 8-).

(Reply to this)

jeremyd4 writes:
on Apr 29 2005 10:16 PM

Hitchhiker's Guide was fantastic - I hadn't read the book yet but am certainly considering picking it up now.
One of the reviews said, "...anyone truly interested in Arthur and Ford and the gang -- anyone who wants to laugh a lot, anyway -- needs to migrate back to the books."
........is there more than one book?

(Reply to this)

Questy writes:
on Apr 29 2005 11:10 PM

In reply to this comment (#821726)
[b]RE: >> where did you get the abbreviation H2G2?[/b]
It's what the BBC calls it -->> http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/

(Reply to this)

Count_Vertigo writes:
on Apr 30 2005 02:46 AM

In reply to this comment (#821730)
Actually, there are quite a few. The best advice I could give would be to pick up the collected novels in "The Ultimate Hitchhiker's Guide." Much better (and cheaper) than buying each individual novel.

(Reply to this)

Ophiuchus writes:
on Apr 30 2005 04:47 AM

Okay, *now* I've watched the movie and can happily report that it's screamingly funny, visually spectacular, fast-paced and perfectly casted. The additions to the plot worked well and stopped me getting bored- always a hazard when the viewer (that is, me) can recite about 3/4 of the original radio series off by heart. If it'd slavishly followed the exact plot of the novels and radio play, I would've spent the whole thing patiently waiting for the next line lifted verbatim from the original. As it was, I didn't know what to expect. That kept it fresh.
I did think some of the new stuff was a little too sentimental and playing up the romance may have been a bad idea- one of Adams' features was that he was a very cynical and unsentimental person who, when he wrote romance, wrote it rather unconvincingly, as if he didn't quite believe what he was writing.
But I still loved the movie very much, and if I were Douglas Adams I would be in tears from sheer pride. My only regret about the movie is that our beloved Douglas didn't live to see it. It's a cruel thing, life.
Oh, and one other thing... I could've sworn those mice were really rats. Well, rats are easier to train.

(Reply to this)

t-joint writes:
on Apr 30 2005 03:03 PM

[b]Consensus? What Consensus?!?!?[/b]
A consensus strongly implies (if not downright screams) agreement, and, as we can all see, there IS no general consensus in this film...at least regarding the critics. The fans seem to all love it.

Lemme tell you something, I've read all the books, I've seen the TV mini-series, I've even listened to the BBC radio broadcast. And, lastly, I've seen the film.

The 38% negative reviewers are wrong, just dead wrong. Simple as that.

There is nothing to NOT like about this film. It's wonderfully clever and funny, the plot makes more sense than certain more rambling parts of the book, and the acting is excellent, with several very likeable characters. Also, HELLLLLOOOOO!!!!, the changes from the book were written by Mr. Adams, himself! Anyone claiming deviation from the books is going against the will of the ORIGINAL FREAKIN' AUTHOR! Don't EVEN use that as an excuse.

(Reply to this)

ieatfood54491 writes:
on Apr 30 2005 04:55 PM

DONT SEE THIS MOVIE, i was counting down for it and it came up way short. it cut out many hillarious parts. Dont waste your money, go buy the book, U CANT BEAT DOUGLAS ADAMS, not possiable. They added a whole new story line which appsalotly killed the whole thing, there was no love story line in the novel, no retarted gun and no guy who doesnt have legs, god they killed The Guide

(Reply to this)

Now it's dark writes:
on Apr 30 2005 06:44 PM

I saw the movie today, which is G rated here in Canada. I see a lot of movies, and this is the worst I've seen in a long time. The worst I've seen in the theatre in years. People were walking out. Lucky people.

I couldn't believe how flat the characters were. And they all love eachother for some reason, even though the only words they ever speak to eachother are to move the plot(?!) along. Zero character developement = zero drama. Was that robot supposed to be funny? The audience was silent, except for a couple lame sight gags. It seemed almost like Americans trying to do British humour. It came off so smug. I haven't read the books, and they might be good, but this was a truly typical Disney movie.

(Reply to this)

Ophiuchus writes:
on Apr 30 2005 09:00 PM

In reply to this comment (#821736)
Really? That wasn't the response over here in Australia. No-one walked out, and everyone laughed. Of course, everyone has different ideas about what's funny. I wrote a humorous fantasy book and tried to sell it to publishers- everyone agreed it was hilarious, but an American agent whom my agent showed the book to came back and said 'I'm sorry but this book just isn't funny. I didn't laugh once.'
My agent and I were nonplussed. So it just goes to show humour is subjective. But I wouldn't slag this movie off out of hand if I were you. You might be at a disadvantage if you haven't read the books- it is a tad obscure and hard to follow for non-readers, which excludes a lot of people, but it sure as hell seems to have pleased most of the fans I know. And that includes me.
As for changing Trillian's character, I have it on good authority (Douglas Adams') that she was never a very well-developed character. He used to say he could never quite get a handle on how to write her- she never quite 'came to life' for him, which is why he dropped her character for the second radio series. So in all fairness to the filmmakers, they had to give her a more well-rounded character. Maybe some people didn't like it, but it had to be done.

(Reply to this)

Ophiuchus writes:
on Apr 30 2005 10:36 PM

Oh... and, for the record, this movie wasn't an American production. The directors were both British, and most of the script was written by the author himself, who was (surprise, surprise), British. So this movie *isn't* 'Americans trying to do British humour'. It's British people trying to do British humour.

(Reply to this)

Now it's dark writes:
on May 01 2005 12:54 AM

In reply to this comment (#821738)
I figured so, that's why I said it seemed American. Plus the emphasis on special effects over character and plot. This movie might be more fun if one has read the book, but I would hope it could stand up on it's own. I think a lot of simple pleasures must have been lost that probably wouldn't work on the big screen.

(Reply to this)

Ophiuchus writes:
on May 01 2005 01:39 AM

In reply to this comment (#821739)
Oh, I see. Sorry. My mistake. I certainly disliked some of the things they added to the movie, but other things I thought worked very well indeed. It's definitely one of the most visually overblown movies I've ever seen... the books are definitely a lot drier and more sedate, but I don't think Adams would've disapproved of this adaptation, since it's already been through several adaptations, all of which were widly different from each other.
So, Now it's dark (nice name, btw), even if you didn't like the movie I suggest you read the book because you'll probably like it. I certainly did. The movie is still enjoyable (to me, anyway), but in a different way.

(Reply to this)

loudharley writes:
on May 01 2005 01:40 AM

I walked out on this movie today,and i hate to waist money.After about a hour and a half of watching this movie i just felt like i couldnt take anymore,i got so restless just waiting for the end that i just couldnt take it anymore,i had to leave.The last movie i walked out on was batman and robin.Hitchhiker was nothing more than a thrown togather mess of a movie(which probably wasnt a good story to begin with)that should have never seen the light of day.

(Reply to this)

t-joint writes:
on May 01 2005 01:43 AM

In reply to this comment (#821739)
[b]Also...[/b]
Also for the record, like I said, the infamous "they" who "killed" (read: changed, for the more open-minded) this movie WAS Douglas Adams himself! All the script changes, character designs, and other revisions. So, which is it? "YOU CAN'T BEAT DOUGLAS ADAMS", or "DOUGLAS ADAMS 'KILLED' THIS MOVIE"? Should we then assume that your review is similarly flawed?

Also, for Mr. In The Dark, regarding your obvious distaste and scorn for anything wholesome and decent (so much for my opinion of Canadians), you don't need every other word in a movie to be "f**k" for it to be entertaining, or if you do, I feel really sorry for you. The original books are written in the exact same mild tone. And as far as character developement, the characters get fleshed out over the course of the series. You, uh, DO know it was a series of books Adams had planned, and developed characterizations throughout, um... right? Actually, come to think of it, Arthur showed more character developement in the film than he did in the first four books combined. As far as the people walking out, you sure they didn't walk back in with sodas and popcorn... or maybe a little LESS soda and/or popcorn?

(Reply to this)

Mr. Positive writes:
on May 01 2005 01:46 AM

In reply to this comment (#821741)
[b]I'm shocked![/b]
At how bad this movie was.......If you've read the books and actually werent sleeping while doing so this will never live up and most likely make you cry. The characters are so poorly casted I almost laughed at that which would have been something since I laughed maybe once during the whole movie. They make zaphod a retard which is completely unlike the book where he is more along the lines of brilliant and has a master plan. Trillian is also cast as a googly eyed love child which again is far from the book (she's a genius chemist) where she actually likes zaphod far more than Dent, at least in the first three books. At worst, I was unimpressed with the robot who developed bad timing and basically said the same thing the whole movie. Yikes was I disappointed.......Oh yeah and I also went with 6 people and only one thought it was decent. Guess I'll look forward to the star wars movie which is getting awesome reviews..... so who knows.

(Reply to this)

loudharley writes:
on May 01 2005 02:09 AM

I walked out and went to the parking lot,and no i didnt return with popcorn .The movie had already made me sick to my stomach and i really didnt need any greasy popcorn to make it worse.

(Reply to this)

loudharley writes:
on May 01 2005 02:11 AM

If i were a spychic i would probably get a vision of this movie sitting in the 5.00 dvd bin at walmart very soon.

(Reply to this)

t-joint writes:
on May 01 2005 02:58 AM

In reply to this comment (#821743)
[b]Cynisism pissing contest?[/b]
No, I'M shocked! I'm shocked at the absolute and pure (and in my opinion, unnecessarily exaggerated) VEHEMENCE exhibited by some viewers! I'm completely dumbfounded, perplexed, and bewildered! Are there just so many people out there who expected something else entirely? Did this movie kick their dog? Knock over their motorcycle? Dump trash on their lawn? WHAT?!?!?Why are people treating this so personal? Couldn't they simply say "this film wasn't to my taste" and move on to "XXX: State Of The Union", or whatever they can more easily comprehend? Or would't that be sufficiently rebellious and indignantly cool enough? Maybe the problem is that so many viewers aren't familiar with the source material, or Mr. Adams very eccentric writing style, I dunno. All I know is, considering I was in a theatre of about 300 people who went nuts over this film, some of the garbage I'm reading seems wildly excessive and purposefully mean-spirited, as if they're in some kind of cynicism pissing contest. Weird, just weird.

(Reply to this)

loudharley writes:
on May 01 2005 03:30 AM

Ive never read the book,nor do i want to.I just went to a movie that i thought was gonna be a fun movie,and ended up watching something that was,in my opinion very boring and very not necessary.No i will not watch xxx 2 because the first one was god awful and im sure that state of the union will have the same corny,fake,ignorant story line.

(Reply to this)

Mr. Positive writes:
on May 01 2005 04:04 AM

[b]Vehemence???[/b]
Uh, well if you want vehemence read the reviews on alone in the dark. This is far from that and actually I did like a few parts. It's the piece as a whole that bothers me. Bad casting but good acting just doesnt work for me. Big deal....like I said one person in our group liked it. I wanted to like this movie so bad.....trust me I really did and still do but I wont give it high marks because I wanted it to be great, which I believe many are doing. This is no fifth element in comedy, characters, or storyline in my opinion. I also sat in a packed house of around 300 and people looked disgruntled, befuddled, and almost annoyed. Maybe it's just where you live and what you consider quality I guess. It just goes without saying that no two people will ever agree on a movie (for instance, I truly enjoyed Kung Fu Hustle, however, my friend who I usually agree with on movies, considered it worthless of the film it was scanned on.....go figure). Oh and by the way I've read the book several times and I instruct on english literature. As well, it's interesting that everyone is screaming but Douglass Adams penned it. Whether that is the case or not do remember that Adams had writers block the final 10 to 15 years of his life and had trouble writing anything with enough substance or imagination to be published. So why would you think this screenplay would be brilliant even if he did pen it in his final years?
Lastly, if any fan of the books in the world can honestly tell me that they imagined the robot to look all cute and cuddly with little eyes and a big head, then I'll concede that this was a masterpiece of cinematic exploration and a tour de force of epical proportions..........which is exactly what I would say about the books.

(Reply to this)

t-joint writes:
on May 01 2005 04:46 AM

In reply to this comment (#821748)
What a coincidence. I READ English literature!

Yeah, vehemence. Perhaps it's what one reviewer called "a sense of betrayal" or perhaps general unfamiliarity with the source material, but when people write that this movie "killed Hitchhiker's", was "lame and smug", and "made them sick to their stomachs", that seems pretty darned vehement to me. There's more, but it was making me mad.

I never said the screenplay was brilliant, but Adams DID partake in the writing of it, and made most of the changes himself. I had similar serious problems with Sin City, but you can't be too upset when it's the creator himself who's dictating what does and does not go into the film. I know what the Star Wars geeks go through with George Lucas, but, hey, it's his to mess with as he so chooses. Such is rights ownership and creative license. I'd think more people would, if not like that fact, at least have respect for it.

Now, as far as the casting, was it the actual actors you had a problem with, or their characterizations? Zaphod as a complete clueless retard? Trillian as a doe-eyed, love-struck ingenue? Arthur as a more "take-charge" sort? Sure, they weren't exactly the characters from the book, but, frankly, I thought the casting was, yes, brilliant. And even a rather pleasant, surprisingly likeable performance from Mos Def. For me this film far surpassed the rather low expectations I had several months ago and completely satisfied me as a fan of Mr. Adams. If in nothing else, in that aspect it was successful.

By the way, no, I never saw Marvin as how he- it- was designed, but if Jessica Alba's "no nudity" clause didn't ruin Sin City for me, I sure wasn't gonna let Marvin's design bother me. And, also, I thought Kung Fu Hustle was pretty good, but far from Chow's best.

(Reply to this)

Mr. Positive writes:
on May 01 2005 04:50 AM

In reply to this comment (#821749)
[b]Hmmm[/b]
There ya go......you said it yourself, you had low expectations. I on the other hand had high expectations after seeing what they can do these days with adaptations ala Lord of the Rings. Therefore, maybe we meet in the middle for a smooth 60% rating. Alas we are friends. I'm sorry but Zooey Deschanel will never win best actress, and this was the wrong individual for ford prefect and I loved Mos Def in Italian Job. I thought Arthur was well cast and alan rickman's voice is suited for the role but the script, oh the script. Following, the movie I sat with my friends and really felt we could author something better. Maybe the books are so interweaved that it's just impossible to do at a high level. Oh well, I give up. :)

(Reply to this)

t-joint writes:
on May 01 2005 05:09 AM

In reply to this comment (#821750)
Sure, throw out the English literature professor thing. Make a guy self-conscious about his spelling, why don'tcha?

I gotta say, Mos Def was one of the reasons for my low expectations, like they cast him to be the movie's Will Smith or something typically Hollywood pandery (yeah, I know it's not a word, but it appropriately expresses how I fell on the subject). What can I say? He won me over. And speaking of Hollywood, my low expectations were augmented from years of watching Hollywood "idea" men in action, changing adapted material until it became completely unrecognizeable. That, Mos, and not knowing how they would handle Adams' eclectic material all conspired to make me extraordinarily nervous. Similar to my low expectations of the upcoming Watchmen, which I've lost all hope for.

(Reply to this)

Ophiuchus writes:
on May 01 2005 07:56 AM

In reply to this comment (#821751)
I'm with you, t-joint (that is one of *the* weirdest online names I've seen, btw). I went in with high expectations unlike you, because I read some early reviews and they sounded promising.
And I liked it a lot! Read my other posts- I already explained why. What I'm using this post to say is that I too am shocked by how vehemently some people dislike this film. I didn't expect everyone to go crazy over it, but I never expected some people to say things like 'simply put, this is a really, really bad film' (that's from a critic I respect a great deal, too). I mean, sure it wasn't perfect, but it was funny and there was lots to like about it... right? I guess not everyone sees it that way.

(Reply to this)

Now it's dark writes:
on May 01 2005 08:42 AM

It felt like I was watching a Disney movie. So I checked at imdb.com under company credits, and sure enough, Walt Disney Pictures is listed. Oh well, it's #1 at the box office anyway, so prepare for more wacky adventure. Glad some liked it. Loved that trailer for Herby!

(Reply to this)

loudharley writes:
on May 02 2005 02:46 AM

I never read the books like most of u have,i just went to see a movie that looked cool in the ads.Also, i loved the fifth element and would have rather seen a sequal to that movie rather than set threw 5 minutes of hitchhiker.

(Reply to this)

t-joint writes:
on May 02 2005 03:23 AM

In reply to this comment (#821754)
My sister and brother-in-law just came back from seeing it in a packed house in San Francisco and said it was one of the best movies they've ever seen and the whole theatre was really into it. Roger Ebert said it was "conceited", whatever the Hell that means. See, now my theory is that I GOTTA think there's two VERY different versions of this film floating around out there. The one I saw, and, apparently, the Michael Bay version.

(Reply to this)

Ophiuchus writes:
on May 02 2005 06:30 AM

Heh heh. It sounds like a plausible theory, t-joint. It would explain a lot.
...on a side note, how can a movie be 'conceited'? I'm not being sarcastic; I really am genuinely confused about that. Then again, I once heard a wine described as 'cheeky', and I didn't get that, either.

(Reply to this)

wildseid writes:
on May 02 2005 10:36 AM

Firstly, IMHO if you ever truly want to enjoy a movie(especially a funny one), watch it in a packed theatre.

OK, so if anyone expected this movie to be anywhere near the classic book, then they were expecting too much to start with. The movie wasnt the greatest but it certainly had its moments...

I dont think the FX were overblown at all...

The Trillian-Dent love stuff wasn't required but thank god it wasn't sappy and gooey.

Zaphod's character was changed, but I think Sam Rockwell is just an awesome actor! I went with a bunch of people who hadn't read the book and they all loved him the most in the movie.

Ford Prefect was definately the worst casting choice by far...Marvin said the same thing 50 times in the movie.

The Vogons were terrific!!! As was the guide stuff...my only wish , that they had more of the voiceover guide info because that is the true Douglas Adams in this movie...

Overall - watch it...its good, and at the least more unusual from usual hollywood crap.

my 2c.

(Reply to this)

donna542004 writes:
on May 04 2005 08:11 AM

In reply to this comment (#821742)
Hi TJ!!
Where have you been?
I am looking forward in seeing this one. I just remember the BBC TV one. So I will most likely go in with a fresh mind.
Donna A.

(Reply to this)

Jaka Tavers writes:
on May 04 2005 09:28 PM

People liked this? My friend dragged me to it, and we both left half way through. The movie was so full of itself. What genius to juxtapose the scientific with the outlandish! Boy, and a depressed robot to boot! How cleverly ironic! Retards.

(Reply to this)

ESotSM writes:
on May 05 2005 12:06 PM

In reply to this comment (#821755)
OK, I'm not going to take the opinion of your relatives or friends because my adult cousin (who, before you ask, is NOT retarded) thinks that "Big Daddy" is a work of great cinema. But I digress.

I felt left out in this movie. It was nice-looking, but the constant references to "The Guide" distracted and detracted from the actual story, which was filled with holes anyway. Now, I didn't like this movie but that doesn't mean that I'm going to run out and see "XXX: State of the Union", I'm a guy who appreciates good film and this one just wasn't. It was lukewarm at best. Adams had a point-of-view and an interesting one, but I don't think it translated well in this adaptation. The humor was good for a while but it started to wear thin towards the end.

And to all the people who are taking other people's dislike of the movie so personally....uh....stop. It just didn't float my boat, it doesn't mean you have to get all up in arms saying "we didn't get it" or whatever. Just because you liked it and we didn't doesn't mean you're any better or worse than us. It wasn't a very well-made film. And to say that the 38% of critics who didn't like it were "wrong" is absolutely ridiculous. How can someone's opinion about a film, about anything, be wrong?

Totally not looking forward to the sequels.....

(Reply to this)

t-joint writes:
on May 05 2005 05:53 PM

In reply to this comment (#821760)
For Adam Sandler, "Big Daddy" WAS a work of great cinema.

As for "Hitchhiker's", yeah, I guess the book really IS required reading, but don't expect anything to make any more sense, or the Guide's little asides from being any more "distracting". That's just Adams' style. I tell ya, that man could run a sentance on like nobody else!

Also, "It just didn't float my boat" is the most level-headed, rational response I've heard yet (something I would expect from anyone flashing your particular screen mane) from some one who didn't appreciate it. That's what I meant by being "wrong". I'd like to hear more "this film wasn't for me"s instead of those slamming an inanimate object for not conforming to their personal tastes. Now, you gotta admit, THAT'S pretty retarded!

(Reply to this)

Related Links

XXX: State of the Union

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links