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.

First - I love nearly every actor in this film - and they do a great job. So why only two stars?

Yes, it's not faithful to the original 'trilogy', but that's only a small part of of my concerns. The biggest is the editing - seriously, they cut so much out that would have explained scenes far better. I've read the books multiple times, seen the BBC series and listened to the radio plays - and this was by far the most confusing thing ever.

Douglas Adams was brilliant in his comedic timing - (spoilers ahead) - he could set up seemingly unrelated situations and keep you wondering what was going on - only to bring it all together with humor and timing into an amazing 'A-Ha' moment. The editing in this film kills these brilliant moments.

When Arthur and Ford are in the Vogon hold, they are shown as couches. There is no explanation, one moment they're talking sofas, the next they're back to normal. The astoundingly impossible (improbable) coincidence of meeting Trillian is explained away long before the meeting, making Arthur's comment that he's met Zaphod not only not surprising, but really kind of a let-down.

Vogon poetry isn't mentioned until after they're already listening to it - there is no build-up, leaving some people wondering what the heck is happening.

Adams knew when to foreshadow, when to shock, when to just leave us hanging, knowing he'd circle round eventually and we'd all be satisfied by the end of the story arc.

This feels like someone overheard a conversation between fans and culling out the funniest parts, but leaving out what makes them funny. Imagine some of the greatest bits in comedic history without the setup? "Slowly I turned...", "Who's on first?", "What he was doing in my pajamas I have no idea..." If these make you laugh, you know the setup - if they don't, then you know how people who have never heard of HHGTTG must feel with so many of these punchlines without setup.

Sure, many people who are quick on the uptake will get the jokes, or figure out that they're funny - but it's like watching a 3d film in 2d - and without color - or sound.

Perhaps the editors were just too close to the source material, relying on fans to 'get it' - but without Douglas Adams' set up and timing, it's just a bunch of talented actors trapped by a shredded script and poor editing. But hey, without them and their amazing talent, this would have been a one-star rating - with a caveat that it's a negative number.

As anyone who's seen the theatrical release vs the 'love conquers all' version of 'Brazil' will know - it takes more than amazing actors to rise above terrible editing.

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."