Don't Panic? Hmm...
I saw the cinematic adaptation of one of the greatest books ever written on Sunday. The film was, of course, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
It's only fair to give you, dear reader, a spoiler warning in case you've not already seen the film. So:
SPOILER WARNING
I thought the film was very well done but there were a couple of things that grated. First of all, some of the casting was a bit shaky. Sam Rockwell (Zaphod Beeblebrox) did nothing but annoy the hell out of me. I'm aware that Zaphod isn't exactly the sanest character in the Douglas Adams universe but the film version of Zaphod clashed horribly with the mental image of the character the books conjured up. I think the whole 'Zaphod-getting-his-second-head-removed' plot line was just a feeble attempt to cover up the fact that Rockwell didn't fit the character at all. Interestingly enough, Zaphod didn't seem all that far removed from 'Wild Bill' in The Green Mile, who I thought Rockwell did a good job of playing. Perhaps he can only play one character.
I don't really have a lot to say on the subject of Marvin, apart from that casting Alan Rickman was a true stroke of genius. I also thought Bill Nighy did a great job of playing the quirky Slartibartfast, even if I did imagine him to be slightly older in the book. Martin Freeman was brilliant as Arthur Dent, though he did seem eerily like Tim from The Office. Bill Bailey's surprise cameo was a moment of pure comedy, and one of the funniest moments in the film.
The whole plot line involving Humma Kavula's character and Trillian's capture felt very strange and disjointed. I admit this is probably because it was a new part to the story, but there was just something that didn't fit quite right and it seemed to drag on longer than it needed to. They'd have done better to spend more screen time actually making the movie funny, rather than stripping out and sanitising some of Adams' quirky British jokes.
I didn't like the sub-plot of romance between Arthur and Trillian at all. Admittedly it's been a while since I read the book but I don't recall any love interest between those two, and if there was any it certainly wasn't done in such an overt 'Hollywoodised' manner. The kiss they shared at the end of the film was just a ridiculous attempt to give the story a romantic ending, because let's face it, you simply can't make a worthwhile film if two of the characters don't fall in love and live happily ever after. I guess the plot line did give rise to a gratuitous scene of Zooey Deschanel in the shower so it's not all bad.
The ending of the film was rather strange, and seemed to contradict the story in order to give a Happy Ending(TM). Like I said previously, it's been a while since I read the book but it struck me as odd that the characters returned to Arthur's newly-rebuilt house even though the new Earth was apparently in exactly the same state as when he left. Does the first part of the film not show Arthur's house being demolished just before he leaves, and before the Vogon Constructor Fleet arrives? Again, I think this is Hollywoodization creeping in.
Of course, it's impossible to expect the film to be an exact retelling of the book, and Douglas Adams himself said that no two versions of the story would ever be the same, but it seems to me like the Hollywood machine tamed the admittedly obscure (but brilliantly so) British humour and gave the story a nice sugar coating.
Having said all of this, I'll be buying the DVD and anxiously awaiting confirmation of the next part.