I posted this as I started watching 2005's Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
And while the panto silliness I feared didn't surface, what did surface was a series of set and character pieces, not a movie. I feel bad for folks unfamilir with the book who came into this film hoping to finally see what the fuss is about. Because they likely left saying "Huh. Still don't get it."
All the while the more rabid fans of the film are screaming WAT DO YOU MEAN YOU DON'T GET IT IT'S ALL THERE!
No, it's not. It's a series of set and character pieces, not a coherent story. And, I've got to admit, not all that funny.
Casting, well, they did a great job. I can't see anyone other than Sam Rockwell doing Zaphod Beeblebrox. Martin Freeman was excellent as the fuddled Arthur Dent. But as for the rest, well, could have put anyone in those roles and gotten the same thing out of the film.
It was the one thing a film based on these books should not have been: Boring.
What isn't helping is our crap home internet, which only let me watch in three-minute spurts before pausing to buffer. Until the ultimate pause, shows here, which is where I gave up on the film for good:
I know Adams' schtick is that every time he approached the story it changed. And it's been a long time since I read the books. But they seemed a lot more coherent than this mess of a film.
And the narration. Anytime you have to stick narration into a film, beware. That contributed to the set piece feel, totally messing up the story. They needed to take a long, hard look at their choices before setting anything to celluloid, but they didn't take the time to do it.
No comments:
Post a Comment