The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Having read the book of the same name by Douglas Adams, I was curious about the film of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. My flatmate has said that the film doesn't match up to the book at all and I would agree with this. My last post was about The Da Vinci Code and I talk about how difficult it is to adapt a book into a film that genuinely matches up. The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy is another example of this.

It’s definitely not a bad film though. The book is very funny and keeps you captivated page by page. I think the focus with the film was to produce a visualisation of everything for the audience. In this respect the film does very well. I particularly liked Alan Rickman as Marvin the depressed robot. Alan Rickman has a voice that particularly lends itself towards the slightly depressed character. His manner in playing the character is absolutely spectacular and is completely how I imagined the character when reading the book.

Also, for me, Martin Freeman is perfectly cast in the role of Arthur Dent. It might just have been the fact that I knew it was Freeman who plays Dent when reading the book, but I could imagine him being completely comfortable as Arthur. His unique manner of acting lends him very favourably to this character. Martin Freeman has a way of delivering comedic lines which many people find entertaining and it is displayed very clearly in this film.

The other cast is very good too. I enjoyed Zooey Deschanel as Trillian. It’s is quite hard to tell the difference between an actor’s unique manner and them playing the same character in a lot of films. I thought there was nothing about Zooey Deschanel’s character that marked the performance out from anything else she’s done. I did like Mos Def as Ford, and there was a brilliant eccentricity about him in this film that perfectly captured the essence of Ford. I’m not sure what I made of Sam Rockwell as Zaphod though. It might just be because he played the character differently to how I imagined him, but I wasn’t convinced. He managed the zany character very well, but there was nothing that screamed ‘President of the Galaxy’ to me.

For me, it is the small parts that very successful actors and actresses have in this film that marks out how successful the book was. With Bill Nighy, Warwick Davis, Helen Mirren, Stephen Fry and John Malkovich all playing a role in the film it was obviously a big enough project to attract the big names. However, it was lacking something for me. While graphics are impressive for 2005 I felt a bit disappointed that the film added an extra scene at the end which wasn’t included in the book. I never like it when a film does this because the intention of the film is to adapt the book and by adding an extra scene at the end interprets the book in a way that the author may not have intended. It can also completely change the impact of the film. It is a shame that The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy does this, but ultimately I can get over it.

It’s never easy to adapt a book into a film, and especially with a science-fiction book there will always be people who don’t like it for one reason or another. Personally, although there’s no real problems with the acting or anything like that, I just don’t like that an extra scene was added. It doesn’t live up to the book at all and so I would read the book before you think about seeing the film. In all honesty, having read the book, I would avoid the film. 

The World's End

The World’s End is the third film in Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright’s ‘ice cream and blood’ series. There has been an awful lot of expectation for this film, largely because Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz were both so successful. I was looking forward to seeing it and yet when I came out of the cinema I felt a little bit disappointed. It wasn't as good as Shaun of the Dead or Hot Fuzz, and I didn't seem to enjoy it as much.

If you haven’t seen the trailer, The World’s End is about five friends who, one night in their teen years, attempted a pub crawl known as the golden mile. Years later they return to Newton Haven to complete the golden mile, but things are not quite as they seem. Everything seems to be the same, and yet completely different. They soon discover that the villagers have been taken and replaced by ‘robots’. The five guys try to complete the golden mile without arousing suspicion, but they soon come across an alien network intending to ‘civilise’ humankind for the benefit of the universe.

Now I did enjoy the film, but not as much as they other two. It was a funny film which made me laugh out loud several times, and this was genuine laughter too. The comedy was original in that it wasn’t entirely recycled from the previous films. I thought that this was important because otherwise The World’s End would just be an extension of Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz. However, it followed a very different template. I hope this makes sense, but Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz both seem to have a prescribed pattern where certain jokes are repeated for comedic effect. The World’s End doesn’t feel like a film of the same mould. However, this isn’t a bad thing as it makes it much more unique. The laughs aren’t manufactured either and feel perfectly natural in the context of the film

I particularly liked the message behind the film. Edgar Wright is quoted as saying that he wanted to focus on the “Wetherspooning” effect with the “strange homogenous branding that becomes like a virus” (http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/entertainment/articles/2013-07/17/edgar-wright-interview-the-worlds-end). Much like all of the pubs seen in the film are essentially the same, the humans are being slowly replaced with a branded identical copy of each other.

Simon Pegg is spectacular in this film, which seems to go unnoticed because his character is really dislikable. His mannerisms and commitment to his character is perfect. Nick Frost is also, and unsurprisingly, brilliantly funny as the teetotal Andy. I thought The World’s End was particularly entertaining in that Pegg and Frost seem to have swapped roles somewhat. Whereas Frost was the silly one and Pegg was the more serious one, in The World’s End Frost plays the serious character who is unwilling to get involved with childish scenarios. This reversal of their chemistry works perfectly throughout the film, which is as much a credit to each actor’s skill as it is to the scriptwriting.

The supporting cast is equally fantastic and complete the ‘friendship’ theme which has characterised all three of the ‘ice cream and blood’ films. Martin Freeman, Eddie Marsan and Paddy Considine all work perfectly in their roles, and none of them ever feel like they’re playing second fiddle to Frost and Pegg. Each of them is there as their own character and are an equal part of the cast. Rosamund Pike is also very amusing as Sam Chamberlain, and the scenes with her in are particularly amusing. There are a number of cameo appearances which are also very entertaining, such as Mark Heap, whose manner is a source of laughter in every role he plays.

Overall I think The World’s End is a very good film. It will suffer a little bit though from being part of the same series as Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz. I didn't find it as entertaining as the other two, but still entertaining. I enjoyed watching it and genuinely laughed a few times. The plot was particularly interesting and felt relatively fresh and while some parts felt a little bit forced and manufactured, it was an entertaining and enjoyable watch. It’s not a bad film and if you enjoy comedies then you will like The World’s End. Complete with a message about trying to relive the past, Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright have produced a fitting finale for the ‘ice cream and blood’ trilogy. 

You may also like:

Other films by Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg:

Shaun of the Dead - http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/shaun-of-dead.html

Hot Fuzz - http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/hot-fuzz.html

Other films starring Simon Pegg and Nick Frost:

Paul - http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/paul.html

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

I was quite excited to see this film. I loved the Lord of the Rings films, and always thought that they should make a film of the Hobbit too. On a recent trip to Alnwick I decided that re-familiarising myself with the book would be a good idea, and I remembered how much I loved that too. So I was expecting quite a lot from the movie.

I wasn’t disappointed. The first instalment of the Hobbit series was entertaining, exciting, fast-paced and enjoyable. I was a bit sceptical at first about splitting it into three parts, but having seen the first part, I think it could work. It was a faithful translation of the book, with some bits added from Tolkien’s other works. The first part of the film tells of how Bilbo got involved with the Dwarf plans, and the first part of their journey, up to the point where the eagles save them from the goblin attacks.

There are several appearances from other Lord of the Rings characters. Ian Holm makes a welcome appearance as the old Bilbo, with Elijah Wood popping up as Frodo. Obviously, Gandalf and Elrond are involved in the story and so must re-appear, but both Galadriel and Saruman show in the movie. I really liked the way that the beginning of The Fellowship of the Ring ties in with the storytelling nature of The Hobbit, and was very pleased to see Frodo appear again. However, when I first saw Saruman and Galadriel I was convinced that they were there to boost the cast a bit. However, after watching the scenes involving Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel, and Saruman I thought they had the potential to be really useful in providing a bit more background to the Lord of the Rings films.

Martin Freeman plays Bilbo Baggins in this film, and I loved him in this role. I thought he was brilliant, and perfectly managed to portray Bilbo’s lack of enthusiasm for the adventure. I especially liked the scene where the dwarves take over his house. His bustling captured Bilbo’s homeliness delightfully in my opinion. I am very much looking forward to seeing more of Martin Freeman as the films progress. I think it’s quite clear that Peter Jackson has an eye for casting, as Freeman is excellent in this role, and in an interview with NME magazine (http://www.nme.com/filmandtv/news/peter-jackson-martin-freeman-was-the-only-person/292825) Peter Jackson says that “Martin was the only person that we wanted for that role...before we met Martin”. I think he made a good choice.

In my blogs on Lord of the Rings (The Return of the King I think), I talk about how Andy Serkis surpassed himself in playing Gollum. Just when I thought he couldn’t get any better in the role The Hobbit comes out and just blows me away. Here we see a Gollum who is not driven to madness at having lost the Ring, but is happy and content knowing he is the only one who knows about it. Andy Serkis is supreme at conveying a more sociable Gollum, and once again, excels at performing the conflicts between his two personalities.

The way that the dwarves come across in The Hobbit is exactly how I pictured them as well. Richard Armitage is majestic as Thorin Oakenshield, and I predict big things for him in the future. He is able to convey passion, ferocity, drive and emotion with seeming ease. It was also good to see the dwarves Gloin and Balin, who are mentioned in the Lord of the Rings films. Gloin is the father of Gimli, and I liked the strong resemblance that they bear to each other. Balin is the dwarf who is buried in Moria, and it is easy to see from this film (and the book) why he is given such a special burial. His character is wonderfully played by Ken Stott, and I look forward to seeing more of him in the next films. A tip of the hat must also go to James Nesbitt, who pops up as Bofur.

Now before The Hobbit was released there was a lot of talk about the way Peter Jackson had filmed it. It used a higher frame rate than other films have used, and this was meant to affect the way it was perceived. I’m not sure whether it was because I saw the film in 3D but there were aspects of it that seemed really graphically poor. Fire, for example, always seemed really contrived, and there were parts of the motion sequences that seemed unnaturally sped up or like they were lifted from a PlayStation game (thanks to Tom Newbold for that little analogy).

Overall, The Hobbit is a good film. It has nothing on the Lord of the Rings movies, but it is still an enjoyable film. However, whereas the Lord of the Rings films can be seen by everyone, I’d say that The Hobbit should probably be watched by people who liked the original movies or books, because otherwise a lot of the intricacies of the plot might pass you by.