The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

[John Q. Mayhem]

Heh...when I looked at the IMDb page, I thought it had Morgan Freeman casted for Dent, rather than Martin Freeman

 

[Altalazar]

Heh...when I looked at the IMDb page, I thought it had Morgan Freeman casted for Dent, rather than Martin Freeman

Yes, and a somewhat different role than what he did in Love Actually...

I have high hopes for this film, though really, I will go in with a blank slate and see what it fills it with...

 

[Olive]

Well reviews are a bit mixed right now.

This one liked it a lot, but this one, which has been slashdotted and can't be read hated it completely. THere's a slashdot discussion I couldn't be bothered reading here.

Anyone got a link to a mirror or cache of the one that hated it?

 

[driver8]

What no Aint it Cool News review? Theyre usually slobbering over movies 2 weeks in advance.

 

[Olive]

I don't know if there's one or not. I never go there cos I pretty much always read good reviews for genre movies there regardless of whether or not the actual movie is any good or not.

But just for you I looked... and couldn't see one.

 

[Zappo]

I've read the one on planetmagrathea.com and while I'm usually very diffident of completely negative reviews, this one is giving me a very bad feeling. Most of the times, a raging-hatred review of something is a rant full of very subjective feelings, with one or two clear points and a lot of effort to avoid finding something redeemable. I read lots of them and think, "this is just a rant; it doesn't really tell why the movie sucks". For example, several Episode I reviews portrayed it as something worse than Highlander 2, while the movie was "just" subpar.

That HHGTTG review, however, is not just a rant. It describes the movie in depth and explains exactly what is wrong with it in clear terms. In short, it is a painfully plausible review. Hell, it quotes several of my favorite jokes from the books and says that they aren't in the movie, then it reminds me of some of my favorite dialogues and says that they've been cut, then it briefly explains a few of the book's core themes and says that they are absent. It is ao accurate, it really gives me a bad feeling.

 

[EricNoah]

I don't anticipate it being very good. I just don't see how it can be. But maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised.

 

[Morrus]

That HHGTTG review, however, is not just a rant. It describes the movie in depth and explains exactly what is wrong with it in clear terms. In short, it is a painfully plausible review. Hell, it quotes several of my favorite jokes from the books and says that they aren't in the movie, then it reminds me of some of my favorite dialogues and says that they've been cut, then it briefly explains a few of the book's core themes and says that they are absent. It is ao accurate, it really gives me a bad feeling.

I found the review ridiculous. It basically criticised the movie every time it used even a different word to the books (literally - there are several places where he slams it on the basis of a single word).

I've no idea whether the movie is good or not, but that review only told me that the reviewer was far to anally retentive for me to take his opinion seriously.

 

[EricNoah]

I will say the review that ended in "it made me weep [because it was so bad]" does sound like an overreaction. Kind of reminded me of the LOTR purists who thought Peter Jackson had [insert bodily function here] on Tolkein's grave or whathaveyou with his films.

 

[Morrus]

Yeah, exactly. Plenty of people slammed the LotR movies because things were changed, but the result was a trilogy of very good movies. Something being different to the book is not - in itself - a valid criticism as far as I'm concerned.

Maybe it'll not be a good movie, maybe it will. But I won't be judging it on its adherence to the source.