 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
24.16.42.21
In Reply to: Review: Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy posted by jbmcb on April 3, 2005 at 22:54:12:
I remembered enjoying the book quite a bit... but I was a child then. Even the core jokes in the movie barely squeezed out a smile from me. The only thing that got a real chuckle was the infinite improbability drive ... and that was just a chuckle.So then the questions surface...
Was this ever really funny?
Is the humor of absurdity exceedingly time sensitive material?
Am I becoming an old fart?
Is it humor for children?
Was it the directing, actors, timing, script ...
Was it the random mix of quality special effects with strictly amateurish ones?Even high profile actors like John Malkovich seemed to give wretchedly uninvolving performances. The character of Zaphod Beeblebrox (Sam Rockwell) became incredibly irritating after perhaps the second encounter. The character of Arthur Dent (Martin Freeman) was intended to present himself as an everyday human being awakening to the vast absurdity of the universe. Instead, he literally faded into the background becoming a cinematic black hole sucking up film footage and giving back ...nothing. His love interest? Same ghost like performance.
From the very beginning of the film, I knew I was in for a rough ride. The first stab at absurdity with an interminable synchronized swimming dolphin musical segment had me thinking that the intro was already finished and that the film may be building up to some very strange beast indeed, a kind of musical farce ... but then suddenly, the cheesy enormous Hitchhiker's Guide book in space sequence was upon us, complete with low budget animation sequences, ostensibly from the content of the guide, narrated by a series of head shakingly trite wise cracks.
And so it went on, one after another, the plot taking an aggressive run at each theme found in the book, only to leave the viewer stranded in mid air, not having had the time to absorb the humor of the situation, then tumbling into the cold water of the next contrivance.
D- my friends ... rent this one to watch while you're cleaning the kitchen or doing the laundry.
Follow Ups:
> Was this ever really funny?Yep, the books are great. The movie managed to suck a lot of the humor out of the books. I think it was the bad directing mixed with poor editing, on top of huge chunks being removed and re-edited. The book is tightly written with a lot of stuff jammed into a small space. The movie didn't manage to capture Adams' *style* at all.
> Is the humor of absurdity exceedingly time sensitive material?
No, Monty Python is still funny. If you mean "timing" sensitive, then absolutely. Timing jokes is super-critical in absurdist comedy.
> Am I becoming an old fart?
No. It was disapointing compared to the books you remember as being hilarious.
> Is it humor for children?
Maybe children would think it was funnier. I don't know, my wife is going to take her young brother to see it this week, we'll see.
> Was it the directing, actors, timing, script ...
It was directing mixed with poor timing, and chaning the script *after* filming was done. I thought the acting was OK, Rockwell was way over the top in a grating sense. The bits where the acting seemed bad was more bad directing than bad acting.
> Was it the random mix of quality special effects with strictly amateurish ones?
No, that was also bad directing.
> And so it went on, one after another, the plot taking an aggressive run at each theme found in the book, only to leave the viewer stranded in mid air, not having had the time to absorb the humor of the situation, then tumbling into the cold water of the next contrivance.
It's supposed to be a fast paced, mad romp throught the cosmos type scifi comedy, but you're right that they didn't deliver the punchline most of the time.
/*Music is subjective. Sound is not.*/
My wife hated this movie with a passion, but she apparently didn't care much for Douglas Adam's work anyway. Ironically, she is tuned into British humor, but apparently there was something about the style of Adam's humor which didn't connect with her; I'm wondering if this might in some instances be more of a male/female thing than an adult/child thing humor wise.I recall finding the original British mini-series hilarious (i.e., I guess I ought to purchase the DVDs for comparison's sake); some of what made that funny did make it's way into the movie, but it felt like Adam's witty asides had been dropped in as an afterthought, too few and far between. Cleverness was abandoned in service to telling a more traditionally coherent story, but the Director's approach and the editing of this film lost most of the rapid-fire ironies inherent in Adam's work.
Also, the acting seemed VERY uneven to me, almost embarrassingly amateurish in places, but this may have been a Directorial problem as well. Note: In addition to the acting, the mixture of muppet costumes and SOTA visual FX was uneven; it was the visual equivallent to consuming a McDonald's cheeseburger along side gourmet cuisine. One or the other is fine, but you wouldn't order a Big Mac at a Four Star Restaurant any more than requesting escargo at a drive-through!
IMO, the only thing approaching Adam's level of ironic British wit are the televised episodes of the new Dr. Who, which are surprisingly more sophisticated in the use of witty tongue 'n cheek humor than prior versions; the new series also sports decent visual effects (i.e., occasionally cheesy, but sharp, not cottage-cheesy like the paper-mache FX of earlier incarnations).
AuPh
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
