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

mmm, think you've just caught my exact feelings on the matter here. I'm still waiting to see the final ten minutes as when went to see it the film snapped, did have options of going back later but haven't had the time.

Well I quite enjoyed it. I suppose most of your criticisms are fair enough (though I didn't find the trip to the forbidden forest dull - not as good as it could have been, perhaps). My main complaint, which you haven't mentioned, was that the film lacks many of the good lines and hence the wit of the book, the main exception being Oliver Wood's attempt to cheer Harry up before the match.

By the was, it's interesting to note that many critics cited the Quidditch match as the high-point of the film, yet so many of the public thought it disappointing.

I felt the whole film was rushed - it could and should have taken a lot longer to make. It's as though each scene was completed in one take - a trait enhanced by the decidedly dodgy editing.

Maybe they could have extended some of the scenes, and deleted even more of the twenty minutes already excluded from the final cut (although Rik Mayall probably did a good job...)

However, the story was told in an interesting way, and the characters were very strong - Harry's character was overshadowed a bit by Ron, but nonetheless - the kids did a good job (well, as long as they don't keep saying 'whoa!' in every b***dy scene in the next film).

The second film should probably be quite good, given that the actors will have a more secure idea of their characters next time around.

The problem was that this film was made because someone wanted to adapt a novel, and not because someone wanted to make a film...


h

Dont forget its a childrens film, and I feel it is a little unfair to criticise it with an adults eyes - it wasnt done for adults!

All kids care about is a world of wizards, with bubbling potions and a world where magic can occur. They dont really care if the editing isnt any good, or if the scenery isnt quite as good as it could possibly have been. All they want is suspension of reality, and the presence of fantasy for a while, and I think the film provides that for children.

I do think the book and film were for adults and children both--some of the humor in the book was definitely rfor adults too... I loved the novels.

I was very excited to see the film, but was a bit dissapointed. It just seemed to drag in parts. The sets were great, but I wanted to see more character development. Overall I enjoyed it, but did not go to see it again as it was so long.

Excellent entry. It summed up my sentiments exactly. I went to see the film with an audience comprising mainly teenagers, plus a few babes in arms. Judging from the lack of attention and gossip throughout, the film came no way near matching the hype surrounding it. Once you saw 'Lord of the Rings,' the Harry Potter movie paled into insignificance. Now that was really an original!!

My husband and I both enjoyed a wonderful (childrens) film, as did the entire group of children that accompanied us. It is such a shame that members of our society can find nothing more deserving of our criticism than something that brings such pleasure to so many.

Oh thought I was quite nice and I enjoyed the books and the film and sure many other people did, I know my parents did even though they haven't read the books. I think the trouble was it was hyped so much that the reality was just a little bit of a dissapointment.

I enjoyed the film very much!

If you watched it with very critical eyes you could find many details to be criticized. However, I completely agree with Caprice and Fashion Cat, here!

Maybe I got things wrong, Zaphod, but I prefer the Harry Potter movie to that Lord of the Rings one. My feeling is that, despite of being of predictable economical value for their makers, Harry Potter was made with love, while LOTR was mainly (too) bombastic.

HP
»--.

Think of my criticism as being retrospective.

I really enjoyed the film- it was fun, it had the right feel to it too - it was just like the books' descriptions. It just could have been so much more.

I know the kids enjoyed it - but when a book like that is immensely popular among the adult population (myself included) then why not make something there for the adults who are going to see it too?

Maybe I just think that too many directors no longer consider quality to be an important factor in film making. They just seem to want the two-comma pay cheque at the end of the shoot.

h

Interesting comments people. A few pats on the back and a few bricks aimed at the head

I guess it all comes down to the fact we are all different and therefore have different tastes and expectations.

I agree, it does depend on peoples point of veiw!

ouch. 'spose I deserved it.
Still haven't seen LOTR - but then I'm still trying to find it somewhere in English, being not in an English-speaking country.

Bootleg DVDs, anyone?



h

I still need to go see it as wanted to read the book first so didn't see it when my friends did. Going to see Monsters Inc. this weekend

I'm still ploughing through lotr...

No, I'm not going to say what I think of it

Yet.

As usual, I agree 100% with Looney's viewpoint here. The film's main problem was that it was *too* true to the books, which in turn are rather formulaic, unimaginative tracts. The central Manichean struggle between light and darkness leaves little room for portraying a world of more subtle textures.
If you want to read a kid's fantasy book which you can really get your teeth into, try Philip Pullman's 'His Dark Materials'. Then go back and read Rowling, if you can bear it.

The FM

one has to remember that while the book were
originally written for adults, the movie was made
especially for children. this is probably the
central reason why many people who ejoyed the
book did not like the movei so much.
if you have only seen the movie and not read
the book it is highly reccommended that you do so.
as the latter is much better than the former

What makes you think the book was written for adults? It certainly appealed to adults, but I think it was aimed squarely at the kids. There were no little nuggets of more grown-up humour in there that I noticed.

j.k.rowling wrote the book as adult fiction but could only get it
widely published as a childrens book. there have been small runs of
it as adult fiction but it was mass marketed as a childrens book

I rather enjoyed the movie, and have been meaning to read the books, as I am told that they are worth it. The bit that REALLY irritated me is that in the american versions (book and film) it is titled "Sorcerors Stone." I can NOT imagine why they did this, but it gets to me.