Today I watched "hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy". I was at the local blockbuster and I thought that I was in the mood for some Sci-fi. I then saw this movie and I thought I was in the mood for quirky Sci-fi. I now feel more depressed than I did before I watched the movie. You know sometimes Hollywood should just keep their hands off of books. Sometimes they do a great job of taking books to movies. I cite lord of the rings and the Harry potter movies as my evidence for that statement.
Other times they do a good job with the movie, but the movie fails to capture the magic of the book. I cite Hitchhiker as an example. The movie as a stand along piece was actually good. On a technical side of things, I could not find anything wrong at all. The fit and finish was good. They set was nice and the characters were fun. Though somehow this movie failed to capture even one percent of the greatness of the books. It could be that the book(s) took their time with the story. Or it could be the story in the books was better because it was spread over several books, which allowed for a better story. It could be that the magic of the book was just impossible to capture on film. I really don't know, but if you liked the books I doubt you will like the movie. If you have never read the books, I doubt that you will like the movie. You can't win with this movie, so don't even try.
cube
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
The magic of books is impossible to capture on film.
One may come close, one may even create magic, but the magic of books is impossible to capture on film. That's part of the magic.
Books are intrinsically hard to capture on film. The British TV series did much better with HHG2TG, even though it did run on a bit, they had much more time to work with.
I was wondering how the orginal series was. I am not much for british humor, it wears thin after awhile, but I am courious how it stacks up against the movie.
Post a Comment