Pretty big skeptic going in, so maybe I enjoyed it more because my expectations were so low, but it was about as faithful film adaptation as I could have hoped for. Much more was included than I thought there would be. John Malkovitch was great. Something about Ford seemed a bit off, and Zaphod was a little too "surfer dude" for me or something, but I was pretty suprised. One of the better book to movie translations I've seen.

I fell asleep about halfway through it.

Cool.

Todd just posted a review for Hitchhiker's and I was disappointed in his assesment - only because it differs from mine and when is the world gonna realize I'm in charge!

Ahem.

I just can't believe he gave Sahara, National Treasure and Chronicles of Riddick more cook-ays! I think it may be in attitude and perception (what isn't?). I felt similar to Todd in the first 5 minutes - I was grimacing and criticizing - "That's not what happens/what he says!". But I was able to let go of my preconceptions and let the movie stand on it's own, and I had fun - actually laughing out loud a number of times.

It's actually not that Sahara is necessarily better. To drop below 2 cookies it needs to evoke some sort of bad feeling in me about it. It's not really a likeability thing because Sahara certainly sucked. But when it triggers a negative emotional reaction it qualifies...

Alright Todd - I'll save my precious 8 bucks and instead buy a cheap DVD of 'Paycheck' or something (yea - I like that movie - wanna fight about it?)

However - when 'The Legend of Zorro' comes out in October, you had damn well better not give it more than 3 cookays (since I JUST saw the new trailer and it looks ridiculous!)

From what you said in your last post it sounds like you had your "C" in the wrong spot.

reaCtive vs. Creative

Everyone needs to realize that the screenplay was written by Douglas Adams and he had quite a bit to do with the movie. I think the problem is in underdeveloped themes and ideas that needed to be developed, and over developed themes/ideas that didn't need it.

Production companies tend to not just let things go as written. The aside about the Babble fish was funny, but where was that same aside for the towel? Having a towel seemed strange in the movie, but they never went into the real importance nor did anyone say "that guy knows where his towel is". These types of things are quite important, no one cares how Zaphod got elected president but the producers wanted to make sure that was clear to us.

I have to agree with J. Also, from what I've heard, maybe this version was based on the screenplay and not so much on the book. I have to admit, I got kinda pouty when they didn't cover certain things the same way as I'd remembered from the book or the 1981 video version.

Anyone here familiar with the original radio version?

If J is who i think it is then don't pay attention to a word he says. He's a terrible person and I think he kicks small animals on a regular basis.

I have this on Vinyl.

I had no firggin clue that the hitchhiker's book ever existed before the movie trailers, and i did not bother to read it before seeing the movie either. And overall, I think i enjoyed the movie more than those who are loyal to the books( Although some references were vague, like the towels). I found myself enjoying the comedy presented by many of the characters, although i was not very fond of the lead actor .If I were to review this movie, as a person who has not read the book, it would probably earn 3 cook-ays. I recomemd it for rental to those have not read the book, but from what i hear from readers of the book, dont bother if you have.