The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

They have been true to a classic source, using Adams' language and finding just the right actors, sets and costumes to flesh out his vision. Only the most persnickety cultist won't appreciate the effort.

Go with the whimsical flow that includes a hilariously morose robot named Marvin, voiced by the great Alan Rickman with the weight of the galaxy resonating in every bored, cynical syllable. Adams would be pleased.

The problem is not that the film debases the book but that movies themselves are too capacious a home for such comedy, with its tea-steeped English musings and its love of bitty, tangential gags.

More smile-inducing than laugh-aloud funny.

Visually playful and often good fun, it never settles on a convincing narrative shape.

Although "Hitchhiker" starts out a total gas, it doesn't have enough fuel to sustain the ride, ultimately amounting to little more than some amusing gags strung together in search of a story.

Amiably bland actors can be fun to watch, as Tom Hanks has proved. Freeman is no Hanks, though, and The Hitchhiker's Guide won't boost anyone's career into hyperspace. Or give your mind a workout.

From the wonderful book by the forever remembered Douglas Adams, this movie complied an amazing cast of character actors that just about complete my book of superb actors of the 20th century. The humor (is you have a sense of such) is riotous, The scene in which they must not think or get bonked by a shovel is so bizarre and weird it transgresses funny and takes you to another dimension of humor. If you didn't like this movie, I suggest you go rent Napoleon Dynamite and have a good time watching the worst movie in history.

Let's be honest, the Hitchhiker's Guide books are about as close to unfilmable as it gets. Between the vast array of budget-busting concepts, characters and settings, the niche-settled sense of humor (granted, it's a rather large niche, but a niche all the same) and Douglas Adams's inimitably flirty, hilarious knack for description, it's a wonder this one ever saw the screen because it seems so perfectly suited to a non-visual medium. But it's a popular title and Hollywood's long since run out of fresh, moneymaking ideas, so after two-plus decades in development hell, somebody finally gave it a green light. And, god bless it, the thing actually performs admirably in a number of unexpected ways. For starters, the visual design is a raging success. A creative wet dream, it teems with expertly-realized concepts. The dozens of alien races look magnificent, the competing spacecraft are wildly varied and thoroughly interesting, the guide itself is a note-perfect modernization of an aged concept, and the infamous planet factory on Magrathea is jaw-dropping. The casting is deeply inspired, too, with Alan Rickman, Sam Rockford, Martin Freeman and Zooey Deschanel seemingly born to play their roles as Marvin, Zaphod, Arthur and Trillian, respectively. The only snag lies in the story, which is half-baked at best, cripplingly over-ambitious at worst and even occasionally, inexcusably, dull. Too often it stretches itself too thin, striving to please everyone and instead gratifying none. The bare threads of Adams's original story are still here, plain as day, and they still work very well. But they're back-seated by far too many indulgent side treks and wink-nod-grins. It's a commendable effort that does an awful lot right - far more than I was prepared to accept - but can't quite get over the hump to reach its ultimate potential. Updated thoughts after a 2020 re-watch: An energetic, well-intentioned adaptation of Douglas Adams's inherently cerebral, virtually unfilmable series of novels and radio programs. Despite such steep qualifications, it does manage to get a whole lot right. Far more, in fact, than even the most optimistic fans might have expected. For one, the casting is absolutely spot-on: The Office and Sherlock grad Martin Freeman as weary burnout Arthur Dent; Mos Def as his eccentric, unflappable pal Ford; Sam Rockwell as the unhinged, easily-distracted galactic president Zaphod; Zooey Deschanel as the cute, spaced-out damsel Trillian; Alan Rickman doing voice work as an eternally-depressed android; I could go on like this for a while. The creature effects and creative direction are on the money, too, with the physical Hitchhiker's Guide efficiently adapting and improving many of the printed book's frequent, essential asides as a marvelous visual storytelling device. Alas, the plot suffers from several unnecessary additions and the light-hearted humor drains fast as the story begins to wobble under the added weight. Did we need to force-feed that romantic subplot? Was that extra rescue mission on the Vogon homeworld necessary? What did John Malkovich really add to the fabric? I suppose a well-paid story consultant deemed such fresh errands crucial, but they don't fit the tight, witty, contemplative nature of the source material and, in fact, actively harm the larger narrative. A close call, but a missed shot all the same. Long-term fans of the franchise will find plenty to celebrate and enjoy, but I can't see it recruiting any new admirers.

I think that both the critics and fans of the movie have a point. On one hand it is a really faithful adaptation as they tried to get as much of the book content into the movie. On the other hand the humor, wordplay, satire and irony are far weaker than in the book. However I admit that they used a lot of care for the sets, look of special effects and costumes. I read the book a few times and it is one of the all time classics but I have not read it in years. So I am not the ultimate authority in judging it adaptation-wise. However there are tons of things I recognize. They added a few things and that is O.K. Even Douglas Adams made different alterations for different medias. I think they failed at delivering the humor. With better writing and timing it would be a masterpiece. The actors are well chosen for me and I will praise Sam Rockwell for his portrait of Zaphod Beeblebrox, Mos Def as Ford Perfect and Zoey Deschanel as Trillian. I think that there was no bad acting in this movie. In my circle of friends we discussed a lot about this and came to the conclusion that it is a hit and miss movie. Even I would have rated it higher after watching it but then after some though my ratings declined. Overall it is watchable and entertaining but nowhere near as funny and ironic or iconic as the book. I would recommend the BBC production instead. It is really good and has critical and fan acclaim.

Many things make no sense. I didnt laugh at all, as if coolness was forced. Story is childish.

Some books shouldn't be made into a movie, and maybe this is one of them. Some humorous quotes I read brought me to this movie recently. And, as I watched this movie, either I didn't not hear them or were not funny. This movie was not funny to me at all. Seemed like humor children would find funny. Goofy jokes, or results or characters.........