|
I saw the movie last night. I have read the books and read into the man behind them, so I came into the movie as a fan. I couldn't care less whether lines were cut or lines were added- obviously you're not going to get every piece of dialogue from a book into a movie. I think the script underneath the movie was at least above decent, but the main problem was with direction and characterization. This was the directors' first actual film (before they did music videos) and the ameteurness shows. For some reason the dry British wit and wordplay took a backseat to madcap zaniness, I often lost myself in the ADD-ity and lame sight gags. The film takes this in stride, being very energetic even when the jokes it is telling are lame. You start to feel bad for it, like a 7 year old child trying to be funny and failing. Zaphod Beeblebrox is probably the most prominent character in the film and has the best lines, despite the fact that for most of it he is just bumbling around speaking incoherently for no apparent reason at all. Instead of having two heads at once, he can switches to his second head- an alter ego that doesn't seem to have much of a personality besides screaming incoherently instead of bumbling incoherently. His second head doesn't matter much since about 10 minutes after introducing it the film goes "Eh, don't feel like messing around with that anymore" and goes ahead and gets rid of it in a subplot that is never resolved There are tons of pacing and structure issues that seem to come about from trying to cram an entire book into a 110 minute movie. The destruction of the Earth that kicks the whole movie off seems hurried so as to get it out of the way as soon as possible. Very little explaination is given to why the characters want to go to Magrathea seeing as how the "Zaphod's brain" suplot from the books was cut. Gags go completely unexplained so as to not waste precious time (I can only imagine someone who hasn't read the books wondering why the hell Ford is so obsessed with towels) which begs the question who is this movie for? Is it for the fans who already know all the old jokes and will undoubtedly hate the new ones, or for the newcomers who won't even understand either? The worst bit of the film are the Hollywood-ized bits, most of which are a romance between Arthur and Trillian. It would be ignorable if not stacked on top of the movie's already high pile of problems, but since it is, that only means more cringing. There is one part at the very end where Arthur cries that the real question of life the universe and everything has nothing to do with 42 but with whether or not Trillian loves him like he loves her. loving groan. Arthur also has a newfound 'coming of age' subplot where he learns to curb his fears and become more adventurous- it ends in a similar groan-worthy manner. The parts of the movie that are done well are done very well, however. The art design is very well done, as are the special effects and puppetry. The bits of guide narration are without a doubt the best bits of the film. Most are lifted straight from the book, but there is one Guide description of the "Point of View Gun" that is brand new and just as good as the old ones. Think of the movie as a large blanket covering Douglas Adams, and the Guide narration is where pure Douglas Adams peaks through with nobody around to muck with it. All in all this movie is a mess with small bouts of brilliance. You're much better off reading the book instead.
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2005 18:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 1, 2024 10:05 |
|