In looking at a few of the negative reviews, it strikes me that they all mention the "original" book, and how this movie diverges from it. What is apparently overlooked in that argument is that the book is NOT the original! The Hitchhiker's series started as a BBC radio show written by Douglas Adams. This movie, while unique in its own way, adheres more closely to the original radio show than to the book, even in details such as Marvin's voice. HHGTTG has always been an evolving product, going from radio show to book to TV show to movie, and at each stage Douglas Adams introduced changes, some quite radical. He never just left it alone. Adams was also quite involved in the screenwriting for the 2005 film, and originated new ideas such as the face slappers on Vogsphere that indirectly explain why Vogons are such unimaginative, bureaucratic creatures. It is therefore quite unfair to discount this movie as somehow not faithful to the "original", because Adams was entirely unfaithful to it himself. He unfortunately left us before he could see the finished product, but this movie is a worthy addition to the Hitchhiker's collection.

I have read the books, watched (and own) the 1981 3 hour miniseries (which covers books 1 and 2 - MORE then the 2005 movie does) and Now watched this movie (and the miniseries again right after to compare). The Mini series captures the humor and irreverence in the books that this movie does NOT. Even with the early 1980's effects, it is a better telling of the story, and for classic Dr. Who fans it has a bit of that flavor. The way the HHGTTG e-book itself is presented in the miniseries is truer to the books, and has more Hitchhiker's Guide entries shown and explained. The "new" Marvin robot is no comparison to the 1981 version, which was really well done. The new one is just not written or performed as well. My partner watched the movie first, and then the miniseries, and she agreed that the miniseries is funnier and does a much better job of covering the material in the way it was meant. The 1981 miniseries is true British humor, the movie is a mixed production that feels more like a Hollywood Americanized version that plays to a less humor-sophisticated audience, and panders to American "PC".

What do you do when an astoundingly bureaucratic star-faring race is about to destroy the Earth to put in a hyperspace bypass?

If you have friend who turns out to be an alien from Betelgeuse, you have only one choice: thumb a ride into the galaxy!

"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", movie version, is the latest incarnation of a story that the late, legendary Douglas Adams first put on the airwaves many years ago. The movie is shorter, sweeter, and altogether a fun romp. It's definitely British in tone and style, but with a welcome addition of charming American humor as well. Also, remember that Douglas Adams himself wrote the screenplay, so you're getting all the important stuff that was in the previous versions.

Some diehard Adams fans will complain that this isn't the full story as told in the book. They should remember, though, that the book was only the *second* incarnation; the first was a serial radioplay broadcast by the BBC. As I remember, the *third* incarnation was a serial teleplay, also shown by the BBC (it was my introduction to the book!). So Doug had at least four chances to tighten the story to his liking.

Of all the characters, Martin Freeman as Arthur Dent does the best job, with Zooey Deschanel close behind as Trillian. In the books, they were important characters, but here they dominate. Yasiin Bey as Ford Prefect is a bit disappointing, and Sam Rockwell as Zaphod Beeblebrox (*The* Zaphod Beeblebrox? *The* President of the Galaxy?) is entirely out of place. The rest of the cast do well, with the late Alan Rickman doing a superb job as the voice of Marvin the Paranoid Android.

I must give a big shout out to the Vogons, who have an expanded part in this version of the story. They're done in a very British style, and really help set the tone of the movie. However, as the "Guide" suggests, don't let them read poetry to you.

This movie is well worth watching if you can find it; you'll probably have to do as I did and buy a copy.

In summary, the answer is 42.

As a stand-alone film I rate it 3/5.
If one knows the background, has read the book, heard the radio series or seen the 1980 TV series it will make sense, but when going into it without the background knowledge this remake is too incoherent. I realise shortening the play time to a length an audience would be willing to endure was necessary, but it was too fast with too little explanation for a first-time viewer. I'm fine with adapting the storyline for a contemporary audience but it could have been done better.

I listened to the BBC radio production, then saw the BBC TV adaptation, then read the book. Each were different experiences and each fiddled about with the plot. But what they all had in common was the charm and wit of Douglas Adams. He was an absurdist where the humor was not overt but understated. This mess, in comparison, is slapstick. The fact that HHGG didn't have much of a plot was like complaining that Don Quixote doesn't have a plot - but because not a single main character is given a single line containing wit, they all look like they don't know what to do with themselves. I gave up after an hour - I was getting depressed as Marvin.

Here's just one example of a huge miss - one of countless misses. In the beginning, as he is arguing to prevent his house from being torn down and was told the plans were on display and should have filed an appeal earlier, Arthur Dent said "They were in the basement." What he wrote - and became a meme - was:

“But the plans were on display…”
“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
“That’s the display department.”
“With a flashlight.”
“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
“So had the stairs.”
“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”

This movie contains none of this wit.

While reading the original trilogy, Marvin was one of my favorite characters by a landslide. The movie's version with Alan Rickman voicing him is ideal, and the other actors portrayed their characters so well that I've added more favorites.

Zaphod is a whirlwind of manic, self-absorbed, egotistical energy, absolutely perfect. The Vote Zaphod theme song is a catchy earworm. Arthur's bewildered straight man is a great counterpoint to the worldliness (universalliness?) of Ford and the travel-longing Trillian.

The classic book themes are here: 42, the bowl of petunias, even a nod to the restaurant at the end of the universe. Different from the book? Yeah, but different doesn't always mean worse, it's still an entertaining ride that I've rewatched multiple times, certainly not for the last time.

One big spoiler at the end. I'll warn you right before.
Before his untimely death, Douglas Adams managed to personally create, often with collaborators, many, many, many versions of the hilarious Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. It was originally a radio serial, then it became a series of books, a television show, a video game, and also a screenplay. He was engaged for a long time with movie executives trying to get a movie made, but sadly it had to wait until after his death.
Every version was quite different from every other. Unlike, say, Star Trek, none can really be considered "canon." Each is equally as legitimate as the others, and all have many strengths.
The special effects here are awesome, and we get to visit parts of the Hitchhiker's universe which have only been alluded to before. The cast is amazing. My favorite was Bill Nighy as Slartibartfast—but, and this is my only gripe with the movie, they left out the best line. (HERE COMES THE SPOILER!)

They included the fact that he won an award for designing the coastlines of Norway. But he never says here that on the backup earth he was assigned the coastlines of Norway. In almost every other version he says, "Of course I did it with all fjords again. They said it wasn't equatorial enough. (scoffs) Equatorial."

To fully appreciate this movie, you must read the book. And to bring more life and flash to the book, you must read the movie. And to get further entangled in it all, you can also watch the TV show or listen to the radio show.

In other words, the Hitchhiker's universe is one where each and every iteration and adaptation stands out in unique ways; each bringing something special and delightful to the table. This movie is no exception.

It's commonly underrated, since several jokes fall flat, and it has been slightly "Americanized" so to speak, nor can an hour and a half movie manage to convey the depth and complexity of the novel. Yes, it departs drastically from the usual plot in the last half of the movie, adding a quest for the POV gun, Zaphod's head being held hostage, and a rescue mission, however, each of these has it's charm.

Visually, this is by far the most spectacular showing for the franchise, with big-budget effects and brilliant sight gags, (the toasting bread knife) and excellent animatronics. The acting is good. I love this iteration of Zaphod, and Martian Freeman was the perfect choice for Arthur Dent.

The pacing is a bit wonky, the loose ends seem to tie up rather too nicely, and it's missing some depth and cleverness, but it's still a fun adventure.