(no subject)

[julesjones]

Oh dear.

I've just seen my first review of the Hitchhiker film, courtesy of a link on zarabee's LJ. Now, I don't always agree with Simo's opinions, but I do have some respect for them. If he says that the film is shockingly bad, then it almost certainly is. I think I'll wait for a few more comments on it from those who've seen it before spending money on it myself. This is... disappointing... news.

Comments

[hafren.livejournal.com]

This sounds truly dire. I read the long version and thought the planning dept incident summed it up - could they not see that rather than mangle the joke like that, it would have been better to leave it out? And why did they want to make a film that lives by witty dialogue, if they liked it so little they thought they could rewrite it better (which they obviously couldn't)?

I wasn't going to see it, because I knew I wouldn't be able to see anyone but the TV originals in the roles (I preferred the TV to the radio version, heretic that I am). But this has certainly reinforced my decision.

[julesjones]

I read the long review too, but thought I'd better link to the spoiler-free version.

The planning dept incident, or lack thereof, is what convinced me that I don't want to see this film. It only got worse from there. Tastes in humour vary (so I'm not going to shout at seawasp for not appreciating the original:-), but there's an awful lot of hard facts quoted in that review that make it clear DNA's work has been gutted.

Well...

[seawasp]

... I never particularly cared for Hitchhiker -- the first book was vaguely amusing but the rest were beating the same dead horse. However, it's clear that those producing the film didn't have any clues whatsoever, and probably steadfastly refused all attempts to give them any.

[communicator.livejournal.com]

I'm so disappointed. I hope against all odds that the reviews are wrong, and *closes eyes and puts fingers in ears* what bad reviews?