h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

In the first para:

"The story rally begins with the response to an earlier film that really cemented Lecter in the hearts of a very bloodthirsty audience - The Silence of the Lambs."

The "rally" should be "really". However, that would leave two reallys in the sentence. One, if not both, of them is certainly redundant.


"But not before she'd been force-fed a few pieces of Lecter's culinary masterpiece - the final meal being the one part of the book that - despite a change in tone - remained intact for the movie."

It may have been in at this stage of development, but I'm almost certain it doesn't appear in the final film (watched the DVD last night and was disappointed that it didn't).



"By May 2001, just three months later, its domestic box-office of $165 million has already outstripped Silence of the Lambs ...."

Either this has been languishing in peer review for a while, or that tense needs to be changed ("has"/"had").


"As she puts together the events of the operation, she begins to suspect that someone is working against her, someone within the FBI."

This isn't the case in the film. Someone starts working against her in the aftermath, but the implication is that the failure is orchestrated to make her look bad. It has no direct relationship to the drug case.


"Working to bring about his arrest, the detective instead becomes Lecter's latest victim."

The first part of that sentence simply isn't true (neither in book nor film).

Cheers for your comments, Manolan. We've made the typo corrections. I should warn anyone reading that to answer some of your other queries will necessitate spoilers, so stop reading now if you don't want the film ruined for you


>> "But not before she'd been force-fed a few pieces of Lecter's culinary masterpiece - the final meal being the one part of the book that - despite a change in tone - remained intact for the movie."

It may have been in at this stage of development, but I'm almost certain it doesn't appear in the final film (watched the DVD last night and was disappointed that it didn't).<<

The 'final meal' reference is talking about the fate of Paul Krendler - a scene which certainly survives to the film. Of course, it's not the final meal in the book...


>> "As she puts together the events of the operation, she begins to suspect that someone is working against her, someone within the FBI."

This isn't the case in the film. Someone starts working against her in the aftermath, but the implication is that the failure is orchestrated to make her look bad. It has no direct relationship to the drug case.<<


I think you're misreading what I've written there - it's during the aftermath of the investigation that she discovers there's someone (ie, Paul Krendler) who's working against her. I'm not suggesting that the interference is responsible for the drugs bust disaster, just that that's the order of events.


>> "Working to bring about his arrest, the detective instead becomes Lecter's latest victim."

The first part of that sentence simply isn't true (neither in book nor film).<<

Perhaps the word 'capture' would be more accurate than 'arrest'. Again, trying not to give absolutely everything away...

Thanks again for the comments

Jimster

With regard to the manolan's second point, I think the correction relates to the fact that Clarice doesn't actually consume any of the... gastronomic delights served up by Lecter in the film.

Exactly. Krendler does, Clarice doesn't.