The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy Movie
| Resolution | Size | Download | ||
|
1920x800 | 8138.15 MiB | 1080p | |
|
720x296 | 1096.04 MiB | hidivx | |
|
608x248 | 591.38 MiB | divx | |
|
320x132 | 221.41 MiB | ipod | |
|
320x132 | 233.23 MiB | hpc | |
Storyline
TAGLINES
Don't Panic
Don't leave Earth without it.
The most astonishing adventure in the universe begins when the world ends.
Everything you need to know about out there, is in here.
The answers to what's out there are in here.
Losing your planet isn't the end of the world.
Arthur Dent is a British everyman. When he finally meets his perfect woman he balks at her request to go some place and she is then stolen away from him by a man claiming to have his own spaceship arrives at the party. Arthur next finds that his home is to be demolished for a bypass. He thinks it is only his house, but later realizes, with the help of Ford Prefect, that his galactic home, Earth, is going to be destroyed as well. Ford and Arthur then catch a ride on a spaceship and are Arthur finds himself on the adventure of a lifetime. He also finds the woman stolen away from him and the man who pilfered her. If Earth can be restored will Arthur want to ease back into his boring life?
| Mos Def | Ford Prefect |
| Martin Freeman | Arthur Dent |
| John Malkovich | Humma Kavula |
| Warwick Davis | Marvin |
| Simon Jones | Ghostly Image |
| Anna Chancellor | Questular Rontok |
| Zooey Deschanel | Trillian |
| Bill Bailey | The Whale |
| Stephen Fry | Narrator/The Guide |
| Su Elliot | Pub Customer |
| Richard Griffiths | Jeltz |
| Dominique Jackson | Fook |
| Thomas Lennon | Eddie the Computer |
| Mark Longhurst | Bulldozer Driver |
| Kelly Macdonald | Reporter |
| Garth Jennings |
6.70 out of 10 (22119 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Quirky Fun
posted on 29 Aug 2009I have never read HHGTG, how is this possible coming from a sci-fi fan?, haven't gotten around to it. That said this movie is quirky goodness for fans of sci-fi. The cast is great, the Jim Hensen Company's Creature Shop does a fabulous job with the aliens (thank you for limited CGI!), who doesn't love Alan Rickman and Bill Nighy?
Martin Freeman is wholy believeable as the everyman trying to make his way with a clueless President of the Universe (terrific Sam Rockwell), depressed robot (hello Alan Rickman), fellow Earth survior (Zooey Deschanel) and laidback cool alien bud (Mos Def) looking for the question to the ultimate answer to life, the universe and everything.
Do yourself a favor, don't be put off by the scathing reviews of book fans. The film makers clearly had fun and the audience is invited along, just remember your towel.
Haven't read the book but enjoyed the movie, nonetheless
posted on 28 Aug 2009I have not read the book but if it is anything like the movie, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is not science fiction in the vintage that has Asimov's impeccable logical reasoning, Bradbury's sensitive feeling or Heinlein's soaring imagination. And I'm not going to panic – just click away with your "not useful", Douglas Adams fans.Professional film critics have warned that people who have not read the book may not enjoy the movie. I enjoyed it. I read into it allegory that may not have been intended by the book or the movie. The "viewpoint gun" makes you think about human nature. Earth re-constructed or reborn will undoubtedly tickle the philosopher's bone in you. If that doesn't, the final question to (or is it from?) Deep Thought the ultimate computer (sounds like Asimov's baby "Multivac") certainly will.You may find the story line far-fetched but you'll soon get used to it. If you have taken the trouble to buy a ticket to get into the cinema, you are not totally beyond redemption. In fact, towards the end, there is even a pretty cosy love story. There is also British sense of humour which in this movie is, even if not subtle, gentle rather than brutal. The jab at bureaucracy (trying to fill out "release papers") was quite enjoyed. And don't forget that just the visuals are worth your admission price.While the decidedly capable main cast (Martin Freeman, Mos Def, Zooey Deschanel, Sam Rockwell) is carrying on with its business, I find myself in silent, exciting expectation of four other bigger names, in supportive roles. These expectations were satisfied to a certain degree. John Malkovich does have a not-too-brief appearance as the eccentric (to say the least) Humma Kavula. Bill Nighy did not appear until close to the end (I nearly shouted out my joy when he lifted his hood to reveal his face), but has a not too shoddy role of one of the engineers in re-constructing Earth. I didn't recognize Helen Mirren's voice the first time, but did later, as Deep Thought. Even with just her voice, Mirren shows what a great artist she is. Finally, I had given up Alan Rickman for a lost, before I realized that he and little Warwick Davis teamed up to play the voice and body, respectively, of the adorable melancholy robot Marvin. Come to think of it, with Rickman, Nighy and Freeman, there's a little reunion of Love Actually.
cute
posted on 27 Aug 2009This was a cute version, and a very, very loose version of Adam's famed books. And I liked watching it. But...
I am very biased, as I am a big fan not only of the books, but also of the BBC series that came out all those years ago.
But this version, while containing many of the elements of the books, and several hidden references (who spotted the original Marvin robot in the line?), still failed to be true to the books message. The romance between Dent and Trillian seemed forced, and the added story about the political conflict was useless.
Still, it was a joy to see Adam's work in such a mainstream media, and I certainly won't be giving up my copy.
a hitch-hiking review
posted on 25 Aug 2009I waited and waited for this to come out on DVD and wish now i had seen on the BIG SCREEN, My fears were would it be as good as its predecessors - could it be done, Could this last bastion of britishness be transferred to the big screen without all the messing around Hollywood loves, YES of course it could be, Zaphod, Ford & Trillian have foreign accents - well the universe is Big Really BIG, we cant expect oxford english everywhere, It kept me watching and smiling with all the little things that Dear old MR adams would I think have wanted, The Magrathea building site was wonderful, even the original Arthur appears as does Marvin Mk1, the little things you have to look for make this movie, Martin freeman made Arthur his own whilst paying homage to the past. Zaphod was well Zaphod - I think all of us would want to be Zaphod beeblebrox for at least one day, one month, at least one life in our lives - he was really froody, in fact the whole cast and team who built this movie who have in their credit Hitchhikers blood in them in the fact they are all fans read the book listened to it watched it didnt want it ruined and for that I thank them for that - Now if god exists and i hope now he does I now hope and pray we get to see the next instalment get the big screen treatment - because travelling with arthur, trill, ford , zaphod & Marvin without a visit to milliways didnt give me the BIG BANG of an end
anyway the ultimate question is - would douglas adams be happy with it - the answer to this ultimate question is 42 - YES
Kooky, kooky,kooky
posted on 22 Aug 2009This movie is probably the kookiest one I have ever seen. I'm not complaining though, it is very funny (and a heck of a lot better than those Scary Movies!). Well, actually, I do have a couple complaints: their spaceship looked pretty stupid and the aliens were some of the fakest I have ever seen. But the plot is pretty good, and the characters were pretty funny, especially Zaphod. It's actually quite ironic once you think about it, I mean, everyone has bad days. For Arthur Dent, this is probably the worst. He finds out that his friend is an alien, his home planet gets blown up, he winds up traveling through space with some strange characters, and he never gets his tea! I have not read the book, but this movie was so good, I suspect the book wasn't anything less. However wrote it must have had a pretty wild imagination. I enjoyed the movie a lot.
fans of the book should be disappointed
posted on 20 Aug 2009I know that this version of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy has some defenders who claim that people who don't like it wanted it to slavishly follow the book, but the deviation from the book is not my only complaint.1) They completely missed the tone of the book, something the BBC mini-series nailed. This is often a problem with films; they can mimic a book's plot, but often can't capture the narrative voice (that's why there hasn't been a great film version of Huck Finn; they can follow the plot, but they can't replicate Twain's narrative voice). The tone of the novel is frivolous, while the characters are completely serious; in the movie, the filmmakers are serious about making a movie, but the characters are being silly. An example of this is the cameo of Simon Jones (who starred in the BBC version) who plays a holographic salesman; there are quick cuts of him making funny faces, which the character wouldn't do if he were serious but the film makers must have thought was hilarious.2) The deviations from the novel's plot and characters don't enhance anything and undermine the work's theme. In the book, it is obvious that Zaphod Beeblebrox had two heads and three arms; it defined his character as a little odd. The BBC miniseries attempts to capture this were pretty pathetic given the technology at the time, but you'd think by now it would be possible. But no, Zaphod's second "head" is actually in his neck (?) and is not visible most of the time, and his third arm only pops out twice. A bigger problem is the development of a romantic relationship between Tricia McMillan and Arthur Dent, when in the book he was smitten with her but she wasn't really interested in him. The whole point of the books is that the universe doesn't care about Arthur Dent, he just happens to be the person in the universe we happen to be following, so the romance is definitely a product of Hollywood (I've read it was Douglas Adams' idea; if so, it was not a good one).3) The casting is mixed, but mostly worse than the BBC version. Zooey Daschenel makes a better Trillian than in the BBC version, but Mos Def is simple not odd enough to be Ford Prefect. Sam Rockwell has Zaphod trying too hard to be wacky, when the actor in the BBC version just sat back and channeled goofy. Bill Nighy, a good actor, is also too normal and low key as Slartibartfast. The original Marvin the Paranoid Android (who makes a cameo) looked much sadder than the round-headed counterpart in this version (they took the line "brain the size of a small planet" too literally). The actor playing Arthur was suitably bland, but lacks Simon Jones' ability to express frustration at the universe not quite making sense. Stephen Fry is perfectly cast as The Voice of the Book.4) Incredibly, the special effects were better in the BBC version. Okay, I suppose not really, but the graphic depiction of the Book was better realized, and they had to hand animate the Book's display. With modern computers the Book should have looked great, but the displays were a major disappointment.My advice to the film makers: Nice try, guys; the secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
A major disappointment
posted on 18 Aug 2009Bah, there I was sitting in the cinema watching the incredible opening sequence of hitchhikers guide thinking 'my goodness, they've pulled it off'.But they haven't. Visually it's stunning, but they've tried to fit far too much in, they've thrown idea after idea at the screen in the hope something sticks- it's totally scattershot (example- Malkovich's character is made to seem important but he's in it for about 2 minutes before the film moves on to something else). They should have kept more of the source material, slowed the pace down and let the humour breathe. The acting is good although Freeman pales next to Simon Jones (dent in the TV series), and is not helped when the latter turns up for a cameo. And the improbability drive has been reduced to a useful button to press to get rid of plot holes.I feel bad about not liking this given it's this sort of thing that's going to have to save the movies from the likes of XXX 2, but it's difficult to see who this will appeal to. Die hards won't like the changes (worst crime- the guides 'mostly harmless' description of earth is omitted) and I suspect it's going to go over most other folk's heads. A major disappointment.5/10.Gawd, that was sooooo depressing to write, as marvin would no doubt say.
It's FINALLY here, and...it's OK.
posted on 17 Aug 2009There is a perfect target audience for this film. It is not the completely uninitiated, who have never heard of the Hitchhiker's Guide in any of its previous forms. And neither is it the die-hard, towel-toting devotee (the group I belong in...except I never got around to buying the towel.) The first group will be very confused and possibly bored silly, while "my" group will be disappointed in the absence of some of Douglas Adams' best bits and in the inferiroity and occasional inappropriateness of the new material. But there is a group in between: those who have heard of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and have maybe seen the BBC TV series and read one or two of the books but just hasn't jumped into Adams' fanciful, funny universe with both feet. These folks will likely find this new film version quite enjoyable. The film moves at a fast pace, but it is reasonably engaging and easy to follow for a sci-fi film. I could see the potential appeal to thsi group so clearly that it almost made me wish I hadn't read all five books and most of the comics, seen the BBC series 20 times, played the text adventure game until memorizing it, bought the original radio series and record albums by special order, etc. etc. etc.
Anyway, here's what I liked about it: The set design and special effects are nicely done; they have found a good balance between high tech and goofy-funny. I like Marvin; I have no idea why they decided to make him a dwarf robot, but Alan Rickman does his droning, drudging voice perfectly. Martin Freeman is no Simon Jones, but he handles the role of ordinary Arthur Dent well. And speaking of Mr. Jones, it was nice to see his face as the holographic message from Magrathea. And there was a bit of dialogue at the end of his scene that was not in any of the previous versions but was nonetheless absolutely hilarious. It was interesting to see what the planet Viltvodle VI looked like; until now it only existed in the text of the Guide. I loved the appearances of the jeweled crabs of Vogsphere; they, along with a Vogon "chair" made of a dead deer creature, will provide a rare laugh for the die-hard fans. And I was glad to hear "Journey of the Sorcerer" during the close-up shot of the Guide's cover, although I would have greatly preferred it if it had been the opening theme, like it was for the radio, TV, and album versions. And I though it was kind of neat that the "Welcome to Lunch" reunion scene on Magrathea took place in Arthur's house on Earth MK II. And finally, I thought the Vogons were very funny-looking.
Now, as for what I didn't dig so much: Mos Def falls flat as Ford Prefect. He was one of the most interesting characters from the original story, but he barely seems a significant part of this film at all. It's hard to tell if the actor just didn't understand his character or if it just wasn't written and/or developed very well. But the right actor can lend his own personality to a weak character and sort of bring it to life, and I am convinced that a better actor could have and should have been found to play Ford. Sam Rockwell is totally over the top as Zaphod Beeblebrox, and while he has some funny moments, he is just too frantic and all over the place. The whole sequence with rescuing Trillian from the Vogons seems out of place and forced. Oh yeah, and the opening song with the dolphins was completely silly and not one bit funny.
Most fans say that if Douglas Adams had lived to see this film through, it would have been better. But those who really know about this author know how small the chances are that this film would EVER have gotten finished if its writing remained in his procrastination-prone hands. All in all, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (in its long-awaited film format) is a hit-and-miss exercise with a few more hits than misses. It could have been better, but it could have been a LOT worse.
I'll wait for the book
posted on 16 Aug 2009Interesting effort to film the unfilmable, a book which provides its greatest enjoyment in its use of language. Still, a very watchable movie. Some amazing CGI scenes, especially involving the Magrathean planetary construction firm. Enjoyable performances by Sam Rockwell as Zaphod Beeblebrox, the galactic president as played by George-W.-on-acid, and Alan Rickman as the voice of Marvin, the extremely depressed robot. Martin Freeman is basically a cypher as Arthur Dent, and Mos Def and Zooey Duchamel don't do much with their roles, either. However, this is a movie where the stars are the various animals and machines are both smarter, and more screwed up, than the humans, anyway.
Don't Panic - more like Don't bother
posted on 14 Aug 2009Poorest rendition I've ever seen. Fans of the books and TV series will be bitterly disappointed with this film. The cast must have had a free week to shoot this film. Poor casting and typically too much info crammed into a 90min (ish). 45 min into the film and people were talking and looking at their watches as the film felt like it had been on for hours. I would wait for this to be shown on TV. Save your cash or spend it on a pizza but DO NOT go and waist your time with this film. Only thing that kept me sat were the effects that we're a marginal improvement on the original TV series. Don't Panic - it's a shame but don't bother.
Where do i start ?
posted on 14 Aug 2009As much as i anticipated seeing this movie, i fell asleep twice during it. Pouring gas into an open wound would have been less painful than watching this. No wonder it flopped after the first weekend. The only thing that could have made it worse would have been an appearance by Paris Hilton. I mean every time i thought it might get better, it didn't. I guess i was thinking it would be humorous in a sort of "Monty Pythons Holy Grail" sort of way, but it ended up being awful in a "Ishtar" sort of way. I don't know what kind of money they squandered on this Turkey but it's got to have at least a few of the financial backers looking out their windows wondering if there really is a perfect time to exit through a window.
Sugar frosted version of the cult classic, devoid of substance but will entertain many nonetheless
posted on 12 Aug 2009When major cult characters are transferred to the big screen there can be inevitable problems. What works on TV, radio or paperback may not quite come off when it 'goes big', with vast amounts of money thrown at it and the critical attention of the millions of fans who have got to know it in a homely and lovable way – not to mention the cinema going hordes who see it for the first time and form a fast judgement.Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is based on a story by the late Douglas Adams' (who also helped with the screenplay). It follows the haphazard adventures of earth-geek Arthur Dent and his crony Ford Prefect. Ford Prefect soon turns out to be not altogether human, but an alien who is researching a new edition of the galaxy's best selling book (from which the title of our story is taken). The two become closer buddies by circumstances – especially being thrown together as the earth is demolished to make way for an intergalactic highway.The film is less sci-fi than oddball comedy. It has more in common with 3rd Rock from the Sun (or even Monty Python) than mainstream spaceship stories. The zany characters – Trillian, Zaphod Beeblebrox, Vogons, Slartibartfast – appear in rapid succession with even zanier gadgets and situations like flying dolphins, a chronically depressed robot, and the Infinite Improbability Drive.Most of the audience will love it or hate it with very little in between. For many fans, it's a chance to touch base with many lovable characters, quite well acted for the most part, and have a 'Hitchhiker Fix' that will work, alone or in company of other addicts, and even for repeat viewings. Newcomers may just revel in almost two hours of utter silliness. For others, it will be a travesty of the original, a mindless money-making exercise that disembowels a unique creation and serves up dross. There is no pause for reflection, very little character or context building, nothing that can be called mind-provoking. The Disney 'plot-police' have served up the mere empty husks of genius, forced too much material into the time available to make any of it digestible, and given us a movie that provokes subdued chuckles rather than gut wrenching laughter. Where Adams' original pulled you in to explore ideas from a totally different perspective, the current movie has less intellectual appeal than Mickey Mouse. With the book you had to stop and wipe the tears of laughter from your ears, but with the film you simply sit there as a panoply of seemingly pointlessly wacky names, gadgets and situations are trotted out in fast succession. Were it not for the legacy of previous incarnations of Hitchhiker's Guide, this offering might be almost dead in the water or straight to video, but with modern market manipulation (ie $$$) and its impeccable provenance, it will pack cinemas and many will go along with the flow and smile enthusiastically.When I first read The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy I remember to this day how I literally fell off my bed with laughter – and it was the only time this has ever happened to me. When I watched the movie, I smiled – but I could equally have fallen asleep.
The Hitchhiker's Guide to a BIG NOTHING!!!!
posted on 12 Aug 2009Terrible terrible terrible movie! The story supposedly takes place somewhere out in space and that's where this film should stay as none of its elements come through with any gravity whatsoever. I say that this movie should be re-named the Hitchhikers Guide to a Big NOTHING because it has absolutely no decipherable plot, no interesting characters, no good acting, no interesting dialog, no action, no jokes, no message, no great special effects and just no sense of direction or just plain sense at all. It's as if they didn't even try with this film. I have never read the book but I can assure you that this movie is one big bore! It is the first time that I can remember leaving a theater with the strong desire to ask the film-makers to reimburse me not only for the ticket price but, more importantly, my time.
very good
posted on 08 Aug 2009It was a great movie and I regret not reading the books first because I am not the type of person who will read something just because the movie came out. But I am sure that there are a lot of jokes in the movie that unless I had read the book, I just wont get, plus I could hear people around me going on about how much they changed. But if you look at the movie and pretend there was no book, then it is an excellent movie. Talking to one of my friends about the books, it was obvious that instead of taking the time to just create a whole bunch of movies based on all of the books they just stuffed them into on long movie and I really cannot stand that kind of thing.
A great display
posted on 07 Aug 2009Way back when, the Hitchhiker books were an instant hit. Something about them plugged perfectly into the world's feeling that everything really would make sense some day, as long as you ignored all the big words in the explanations.
This movie puts on a grand display of the Hitchhiker series. It's filled with little in-jokes - doesn't Zaphod sound a lot like our Dubya, and isn't that robot in the waiting room just a bit familiar to BBC watchers? The Vogon fleet is impressive, in flight as well as on the ground. Maybe the whole "saving Trillian" thing was injected to bring the script into line woth movie standards, and the romantic mooning was pasted on rather ineptly. (Douglas Adams' idea of mooning would probably have been very different.)
A great display, as I said, but the book was never about great things. The movie is vaguely true to the increasingly-ill-named trilogy, but somehow lost all the little asides and throw-away lines that made the books sparkle. Even that BBC series, with its Dr. Who level of effects, did a better job with Adams' perpetual and literate sense that everything was almost, but not quite what it was supposed to be.
Did I say "literate"? I guess that was the problem. "Literate" doesn't sell, at least not here and now. It's OK, they fixed that problem.
Ignore my sniping. If you never saw the books, you'll love it. If you did see them, you'll love what it could have been. Let's hope for better in the sequel so obviously foretold in this movie's last moments.
//wiredweird
They did their best. . . Lovely
posted on 04 Aug 2009When I found out that Hitchhiker's would come out in the cinema's, I was ecstatic. When I saw the movie, I was not disappointed. Much.I have read the series, and became a die-hard fan. The movie did leave out parts that I thought were crucial to the plot, but apparently the makers deemed them unworthy.This movie had very dry humour, much like the book. I went to see this with my little cousin, and she couldn't get some of the humour. Little kids and complete dunderheads shouldn't see this movie. Although some of the humour is completely obvious because of the delivery.My favourite character would probably have to be Marvin the Paranoid Andriod. Alan Rickman voices the part brilliantly, and you could detect the depression mixed in with the sarcasm.I didn't like the fact that they didn't bother to mention that Trillian was an astrophysicist. Maybe they thought that it wouldn't matter much to the story, but my little cousin asked me this: "How can she know all about the ship if she is a normal Earth-girl?" My point exactly.Zaphod Beetlebrox was an annoying character of universal proportions, but I tolerated him, mainly for the fact that he was essential to the story.I didn't think that Ford Prefect should have been a black American in the movie, but all in all, the character was brilliant.The movie creators did their best to re-create the book, but I think they could have stuck to the story a bit more.Over all, this movie was extremely funny, the actors and actresses were perfect for their parts (mostly), and I thoroughly enjoyed it.8/10!
I agree with the last Comment... Mostly Harmless.
posted on 31 Jul 20096 outta 10 for style..... Saying that and the fact good IL' DA was heavily involved (screeplay and what not), I still have to say that I was a little let down. Don't get me wrong, I loved it, but still was a little disappointed. At only 2 hrs I felt it would have been pulled off better at 3 and would not have to have changed much of it. Another thing, I always picture Zaphod as sorta a footloose, go with the flow kina guy. Why would his agenda be to find out the ultimate question? Overall I still feel they stuck to the tradition of HHGG. I would have to say its a pretty Frood Flick....!! Now how do we get the Milliway's from here, and we better!!!!!!! Josh
Don't Panic, umm wait...okay DO PANIC
posted on 31 Aug 2009Arthur Dent is having a very bad day. Not only was his house demolished for a bypass, but the earth and 99.9% of the human race has been demolished for a hyperspace bypass. He was rescued at the last moment by his best friend Ford Prefect who turns out to be a researcher for the holy remarkable book "The Hitchhiker's Guide of the Galaxy" and not an out of worked actor from Gilford.
After a near death experience at the hands of the Vogons (these shmucks are so bureaucratic they make the United State Government look efficient) Ford and Arthur are rescue at the last second by a passing space ship that happen to be stolen by Ford's cousin and President of the Galaxy Zaphod Beebelbrox, and a nice young astrophysics that Arthur met at a party and Zaphod stole away, Along with Marvin the Manically Depressed Robot, our friends embark on adventure to find the meaning of Life, the Universal and Everything.
Is this the vision that Douglas had? Did he really make all these changes? Because this is the worse interpretation of Douglas Adam's signature story.
The character of Arthur dent is a complete incompetent coward who can't even tight his shoes, in the book he is constantly confused and literally has no idea what is going on Martin Freeman's portray of Dent is a man who is more sure of himself, that that Dent is not! Mos Def doesn't come off as a know-it all field researcher, he seen know just enough not to get himself killed, other then that he's just as clueless as Arthur.
Some of the other problems are lots of little thing, the Vogons have a bigger role, the spaceship Heart of Gold looks like a Volley Ball (it's described as a sleek running shoe in the book), the pacing of events, the execution of the dialog, the comedic timing was off, and two subplots that weren't in the book.