| Overall Grade: |
D+ |
|
| Story: |
D |
|
|
| Acting: |
C- |
|
|
| Direction: |
D- |
|
|
| Visuals: |
B+ |
|
|
Alas poor Zaphod, I knew him well...
by Phillip (movies profile)
Feb 21, 2008
24
of
25 people found this review helpful
...and this is not the Zaphod I knew. After following the trials and tribulations of the production that is, and was, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, I am sorely disappointed by this adaptation. It's a shame that Douglas Adams passed away before the production of this film. Had he been alive, there might have been hope.
First I must preface this by stating that in order to even remotely enjoy this movie, you move have read at least the opening trilogy of the series: "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", "The Restaurant at the End of the Universe", and "Life, the Universe, and Everything". I say this because nearly each and every comicical tidbit the script and directing plugs into the movie has absolutely no backstory to it, meaning the average viewer won't understand why "you should always know where your towel is". Now I'll start with character analysis.
Arthur Dent: Arthur is your everyman, pretty much clueless to what exactly is going around him and becomes easily distressed when all his ducks are lined up in a row. When things break from the norm, he becomes lost and tends to have no concept of sense and panics rather easily. As the books progress and he learns more about the universe, he begins to develop a hero's mentality and starts to actually take charge of situations. However, at this stage, he's a monkey on the backs of the characters that know what's going on. He suffers from a lack of confidence and suffers as your stereotypical "loser". The movie's portrayal however is the direct opposite. He's confindent, aware, proactive, and a leader of sorts. They say you sound aim at the moon, because if you miss you'll be among the stars; with this character they missed everything and shot themselves in the foot.
Trisha McMillan(Trillian): Sexy brainy astrophysicist Trillian left earth with a strange spaceman, simply because she was rather bored with the earth and an adventure on a spaceship seemed like a good idea at the time. While being rather unemotional over the destruction of the Earth, she's also strong willed and extremely independant. On most occasions, she's the voice of reason and order while the others are going off on the tangents they generally belong on. Level-headed and precise, she's everything you'd expect from a strong female protagonist. Strike two. The movie gets it ALL wrong. She's your typical female sub-character in a male dominated film. Quirky, over-emotional, and completely lacking the intellect she should, she marvels over showing Arthur the wonders of a toasting bread knife and cries over the destruction of the earth. There's also a carbon copy "damsel in distress" sequence that further displays the errors in Arthur Dent's character and defends Trillians stance in the movie as a weak needy female support.
Ford Prefect: Not only was this part poorly cast, but it's also the biggest discrepency in the film. Mos Def succeeded in butchering this role more than any actor I possibly could have plugged into the spot. Ford Prefect is cunning, sly, and extremely resourceful. He's also quite intelligent, and unfortunately rather encouragable. A distant cousin to Zaphod, Ford is a researcher for the Guide, as well as a Hitchhiker. well versed in all that the universe possesses, Ford is probably the single person most anyone would want to have by their side while galavanting across the far reaches of known space. Witty and biting with his tongue, Ford makes friends wherever he goes and could sell ice to an eskimo. Now, where to begin with the movie's adaptation. Let's sum it up....The movie portrays Ford as a weak, sniveling, whiney, cowardly lump who's only purpose is to provide an introduction to the Guide. His usefulness in the movie after the introduction is non-exsistant which is extremely disturbing. Ford is probably the most important character behing Dent, and a slight nod above Zaphod, in the entire series. His importance as the series progresses slowly fades as Arthur and Zaphod step to the forefront but throughout the first book he is a mentor and teacher to Arthur, as well as the brains behind a number of their escapes. The couldn't have gotten this any more wrong in the movie.
Zaphod Beeblebrox: Cunning, sharp, witty, and aggresively brave - Zaphod is to HHGTTG as Han Solo is to Star Wars. Or Mel Gibson is to LEathal Weapon, or Cmd Riker is to Star Trek: TNG, or even Indiana Jones is to..well...Indiana Jones. With a Blaster at his side, Zaphod's always ready to charge head first into anything that comes his way and he's usually right about doing it. He's the guy we all wish he could be; great with the ladies, luck always with him, and more cool in his third arm then the Fonz had in his whole body. Half of his charm was the witty banter he had with his second head, providing a dialogue in and of himself. Strike, what are we up to, seventeen? The movie's portayal of Zaphod as a stupid, crazy, self-absorbed(ok, he's supposed ot be self-absorbed), careless jerk-off was so far left of the true character, that if it kept going it's come up on it's right. The removal of his second head(new plot twist) leaving him a blithering idiot who needed to rely on a thinking cap powered by squeezed lemons was a lame and totally pointless addition to the story. He has a genuine fondness for Trillian that is completely absent, as well as the confident demenor that says "Ok fine, I'm no leader, but dammit I'm gonna be anyway" that are both lost in the movie's adaptation. Zaphod has some of the best lines in the book, especially while bantering with Ford, and none of that ever comes out. In fact, of all the characters, his lines are the most forgettable which is sad because one of my favorite lines were kept in the film and that still didn't help - "If there's anything on this ship more important than my ego, I want it found and shot immediately".
Marvin - They got this right, but then again they just took all his lines right from the book, save for a small handful of others "I have a million ideas - however all of them end in certain death." Alan Rickman was a perfect casting for Marvin and he was the only believable character in the lot. I didn't entirely agree with the visual depiction of Marvin, but I was happy to see the BBC TV version make a very brief cameo. In a field of rubbish, this one is a small gem.
Humma Kavula - Him and his entire sneeze cult were added to this film. Now those who have read Douglas Adams' books as well as have heard the radio broadcasts and seen the TV shows will notice there are small addistions and subtractions that change the expereince ever so slightly, however this new character was the basis for completely rewriting the story. Karey Kirkpatrick and Garth Jennings should both be banned from ever touching another script. While I don't doubt that Adams did include this character in some minor way, I don't think at all his intentions were to completely derail the storyline with it. Not only is there no background to the character, but there's no foreshadow towards the character's point of view or purpose whatsoever. So what we have is a character introduced during the introductional movie (part one of a proposed trilogy) that recieves no further development throughout the entire film and completes takes a story and forces an entire rewrite leaving new viewers confused and knowledgable viewers distanced and pushed away.
One I finish this, I plan on picking up HHGTTG and begin rereading (for about the 20th time) to just readjust myself to what a good story is and to further support my position that there are but a small handful of movies that prevent this one from getting an "F" from me. An "F" is reserved for the worst of the worst, utter tripe that poisons the very film it's printed on. And while this movie is dreadful, the visual graphics are actually quite good, and there are a small handfuls of humor that actually made me smile that save this movie from reaching the abyss that is a "coaster" of a film. Do I recomend this film? Yes and no. I can't recommend this film in anyway to be viewed in a theatre. However, if you can wait until it comes out on video, and trust me you'll see it by the end of the summer there, wait till then to spend three bucks to watch it in the comfort of your own home. I do believe that almost every movie is worth a rental at least one time. At least this way when you get fed up with the movie about 30 minutes in, you can turn it off and do something more constructive with your time - like learning how to fly, for instance. |
My Public Profile 
