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

It seems you can tell when you read a guide entery on a film that the writer is a big fan. Personal i beleive whilst this is the better of the three films, having only seen the films, it is still by far a poor film. Theres nothing much original stylistically that makes it distinct from the other two other then a slight change in setting and costume

Interesting take. However, I can't see why you would write a review if you weren't a big fan!
SBE

PS The pedant in me can't resist telling you that you use the comparative 'better' when dealing with two things. Three or more requires the use of the superlative 'best'.
SBE

Not necessarily. If Asmodai dark, for example, wanted to not imply that any of the films deserves the label of "best," s/he would be forced to use that unfelicitous phrase . Or, if Asmodai dark sees no. 1 and 2 as having exactly the same quality... ok, I am gonna shut up.

Y.

I thought that the film was a huge improvment on the first two, similarly I thought the book was as well.

It was IMHO only with Azkaban that the books took off.... lets hope "Goblet of Fire" is in a similar vein, heck it needs to be a bit dark dagnamit....

I agree - superb direction and setting; the scene on the Knight Bus is the best bit of any HP film yet.

And Emma Watson is stunningly good. If - given my profession - I was allowed to say I was in love with teenagers, then I'd be in love with her, in a very nice starstruck way. The best actress to appear on screen in years - she has made Hermione her own. She more than makes up for Rupert Grint being generally abysmal (what HAS he got stuck in his cheek?) I suspect that JKR didn't intend Hermione to be quite so good looking, though.

I wasn't too keen on Gambon as Dumbledore - a bit too suspicious-old-man for my liking, but Rickman, Coltrane and let's not forget Richard Griffiths were superb as usual.

B

I can't say I liked it very much.
Yes, Cuaron was using his vision of Hogwarts and giving it a new feel, etc etc, but I can't help being a bit miffed that he re-arranged the plot, added stuff, and took more out. C'mon! Harry didn't get his Firebolt till the end of the film!! And what about Pigwidgeon?
Maybe it's just me, but I would have told the story a lot differently and stayed truer to the book. I don't think Cuaron did.
Still, it was cool to see the students in "Muggle attire", LOL!

Hi

I think the huge problem faced by any movie director when converting a book to film is what to leave out, what to change etc.

given that the movie is already 2 and a half hours I think enough of the plot line was left in to make it make sense to anyone who hasn't read to book.

I've read all five books and seen all three movies and move them all, regardless of what's been left out or changed. you can't directly compare a book version to film version as you are appealing to a totally difference set of brain functions, if you see what I mean.

Darren

Yes but having a star studed cast doesnt automatically make the film. Yes its an improvement on the last ones but its not really saying much.

I see what you mean as a comparison darren, which is why im egger to point out i have little care to read the books. The films havent made a good enough impression on me to make the effort.

As for costume, well again its better - along with some of the setting, but this isnt what makes it the best film. Because its not.

Off the top of my head Heavenly Creatures (true story), Nightmare Before Christmas, and Trainspotting (also a book) have all been better directed then HP and the rip-off of Alcatraz

Personally I dont hold much truck with the idea that films of books should be a direct and literal translation. They should be the director/screenwriters interpretation of the film.

In fact IMHO I would advance the idea that a direct and literal port will always be disappointing, mainly because a film cannot contain everything in even the shortest books (think about it you spen a good couple of days reading them, the most a film can feasably last is 2 1/2- 3 hours).

Whereas with an interpretation lots of what you have read is there and some other stuff. I submit as a case im point the recent film "I Robot".

Having read almost all of Asimovs robot book I feel IMO that they simply would not have worked as a film, but the film did work (it was rather good I felt) and this has got to be the approach taken to the next two HP books. Particularly as soooooo much stuff happens in the Goblet of Fire and OOTP.

Further examples, of course, being the Bond films, which are very very different to the books, and in some cases better.

B

I agree. With trainspotting, it was originally a short story from a collection that was developed (Cant remember exact details). However in some cases detail is really a requirement (The Handmaids Tale - such a costume screw up)

To argue against containing everything, i point to Conan the Barbarian. It contains The Thing in the Crypt nearly word for word (The mummy attack was left out i believe because of budget), as well as nods towards most of the other short stories by Robert E Howard.

Whats OOTP? Personally i reckon it will make absolutely no difference as to who directs it, or the quality of either the direction or the script writer. Theres such a horde now that its a mini gold mine.

Think about it. Theres at least 4 more films, possibly double if you split the books/replace the younger actors (maybe)/increase production/Rowling writes more books. Now all you do is change the director et al if the movie gets bad reveiws and sell it as a brand new direction. Everyone buys it, they go see it. If its good, great, if not you splash out on a big director, allowing you to repeat the process later.

It's interesting to hear this from the point of view of someone who has seen the films but not read the books.

In many ways, the books are a lot more subtle and adult-friendly. The films are aimed at the mass-youth market, so any in-depth film-buff analysis is largely pointless.

B

Its brilliantly marketed to the perfect audience. I mean, it will be impossible to have a harry potter film flop no matter how bad it is. Superb cross marketing from AOL Time Warner

That could be construed as a somewhat cynical point of view, given that the books more or less marketed themselves before the films were even thought of.

B

Not really. AOL Time Warner had no money due to losing the broadband race and other factors. New Line were working on LOTR at the same time as someone else (warner bros if i remember correctly) were working on HP. Now is it a coincidence that the first two films of each franchise were basically put against one another in direct competition?

Seems like warring companys but is actually a lovely way of increasing revenue. And it worked wonderfully.