Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Any mega descriptors on the history of the HGG I throw out here would simply be me copying Joe's blog style, so I'll skip the bread, mayo, and veggies and get straight to the meat of this sammich. The movie rocked. Plain and simple. Good acting, solid special effects, the HGG itself was represented well in the flick, good stuff all around.
But.
It's pure British humor, so if you don't get that, you'll prolly not dig the flick. On top of that, if you didn't like the book(s) or the radio program, don't bother. Douglas Adams had a hand in the screen play, so it's really damn close to the book. ALSO, it's up in the air whether it's a good film if you have no experience with the books or radio program. A couple of teenagers reviewed it, didn't understand the plot, and gave negative reviews, but Cactus Joe loved the film sans bookage.
The most common review I've seen is that the love interest feels tacked on. To this, I say fye. Many fans look at HGG as a form of social commentary, and it is that. But below that, it's a story of a dude with no balls and a completely normal existance that has everyone of his strongly held beliefs challenge by the destruction of his planet. It's a story of an ordinary dude changing through extraordinary circumstances. That's the story that gets told in the flick, cause realistically, that's the formula that modern big budget cinema has been marginalized to. Hithhiker's is a story that's tough to tell in 103 minutes, so it's gotta be broken down into its base form. It's easy to read over certain aspects of Arthur in the book, because as the reader you're constantly bombarded with new and exciting, be it aliens, locations, concepts, whatever. That's a lot to internalize, and the changes in someone as second stage as Arthur Dent are a miniscule thing.
At least, that's how I see it.
But.
It's pure British humor, so if you don't get that, you'll prolly not dig the flick. On top of that, if you didn't like the book(s) or the radio program, don't bother. Douglas Adams had a hand in the screen play, so it's really damn close to the book. ALSO, it's up in the air whether it's a good film if you have no experience with the books or radio program. A couple of teenagers reviewed it, didn't understand the plot, and gave negative reviews, but Cactus Joe loved the film sans bookage.
The most common review I've seen is that the love interest feels tacked on. To this, I say fye. Many fans look at HGG as a form of social commentary, and it is that. But below that, it's a story of a dude with no balls and a completely normal existance that has everyone of his strongly held beliefs challenge by the destruction of his planet. It's a story of an ordinary dude changing through extraordinary circumstances. That's the story that gets told in the flick, cause realistically, that's the formula that modern big budget cinema has been marginalized to. Hithhiker's is a story that's tough to tell in 103 minutes, so it's gotta be broken down into its base form. It's easy to read over certain aspects of Arthur in the book, because as the reader you're constantly bombarded with new and exciting, be it aliens, locations, concepts, whatever. That's a lot to internalize, and the changes in someone as second stage as Arthur Dent are a miniscule thing.
At least, that's how I see it.
posted by Amazing Shafeman at 7:22 AM
1 Comments:
Good points, as usual, amigo. Still, it's hard to sell a decent love interest in film nowadays, and all the more so with a flick like "Hitchhikers" where you more drawn along by the plot and less by character. Course, on the old BBC series, the chick had virtually no interest in our boy Dent, which may have colored my view. Still, the guy from the Office was way more likeable, which helped to sell the love interest a wee bit.
Post a Comment
<< Home