Wow. Very funny and intelligent .

Great adaptation of the well-loved radio play/novel/TVseries, it captures the spirit of HHGTTG. Douglas Adams' would have been proud. Yes, there are elements that are different from the other versions, but IMO it only enhances the story instead of dragging it down to the mud. It is a relief that the producers decided not to rely on CGI for the Vogons and Marvin. It would have simply not been the same. Hopefully, the hinted-at sequel(s) (the novels actually form a "five-part trilogy") will be made with the same cast.… Expand

Utterly disappointing, given the pedigree of the original radio series, book and BBC TV series. The acting (apart from Bill Nighy) was poor, there was little comic timing and even less romantic interest, the script was weak and the editing and/or overall direction lamentable. It was a bitty, unlinked event and he only "big scene" that worked was the factory floor of planets under construction. All in all nothing to leave Earth for at all.… Expand

Great movie, the only movie I've ever been to where the audience applauded at the end.

A fitting tribute to Douglas, from us "Mostly Harmless" humans.

So long and thanks for all the fish.

This film was fantastic and was surprised that this film did not get better reviews. I honestly could not see how this film could have been much better. The effects were literally and figuratively out of this world. The acting was dead on. The story was interesting, granted a bit too hollywood. If I were to fault this film with anything it would have been making this film too hollywood via the romantic element. I do not originally think the book had that pronounced of an element. I could be wrong as it has been since high school that I read the books. I think if the critics are peeved it must be because of the movie not sticking closely enough to the book. But forget about that just go and enjoy this highly entertaining roller-coaster ride. For what the movie was it was as good as you'll ever see.… Expand

Very funny. Most fans of Adams would enjoy this movie. We need more british comedies.

This movie was hilarious. Some(most) of the jokes were so stupid it was funny. which I like. I haven't read this book so I don't know if this is better or worse than the books.

Funny. Insightful on many levels. It fails to capture all of Adams' brilliance, but, in the end, what ever could?

To those who worry about the source material, Douglas Adams, author of both the radio drama and novels, wrote the screenplay. He died as it was being produced, which is why the film is dedicated to his memory. It's a fine dedication, too. Take the heart of an absurd, oddball comedy and put it in science fiction, and you get this movie, where it isn't just the characters who behave bizarrely, but every aspect of the world, and soon, the galaxy. If you've never experienced a prior version of Hitchhiker's (it's been a radio play, book, videogame and television series before this), expect some of the most creative and irreverent humor you've ever witnessed. This movie will switch on a heartbeat from mocking ringtones to mocking the meaning of life. If nothing else, this flick is a good test of whether you can just relax.… Expand

I enjoyed this movie, it wasn't a classic or truely great film, which comedies are! however as a comedy i found it really enjoyable to watch, Sam Rockwell, as the President and Mos Def as Ford Prefect where spot on as was Bill Nightly. Visually it was also stunning and I love the theme tune. However all this said Martin Freeman was not a good choice as a lead but he doesn't manage to spoil the movie.… Expand

As an off-and-on viewer of the TV series, I was intrigued by this movie but I had my doubts that the dry, British humor of the TV series (and the book) would translate well to the big screen. I was pleasantly surprised. This movie is a classic British comedy in the tradition of Monty Python's Holy Grail and, except for a few slow moments, it had me laughing non-stop.

Not perfect, but it is bloody good! Better than yer normal hollywood cheese-fest and its mostly Britsh - harrah. Not as good as the book, but then, which movies are?!?

Best movie I have ever seen. Laughed from start to finish.

Fantastic job of keeping the spirit of the first book alive, while adding new material, and still keeping things from getting bogged down. here's to hoping for sequels for the other 3 books.

Good, a bit slow in parts but with excellent casting. Stephen Fry was the perfect choice for the voice of the guide and Martin Freeman was great as an ordinary British person (because he is, as am I) Beeblebrox got on my nerves, but that's Beeblebrox. Even though I have never read any of the books, it felt familiar. This may have had something to do with the fact that I recognised most of the cast, even Bill Bailey as the whale. And I managed to notice the original TV version of Marvin.… Expand

A surprisingly great movie. I had never read the book or anything, but I still loved this filn. Fantastic story and great characters with a cool adventure.

I thought this movie was cool, even though most of my friends hated it. it was very funny (at times - but then no film can be funny all the time).

This movie hit me wrong when I first watched it, and so I put it on the shelf and never watched it again for months. One day when I was sick, I watched it and was glad that I did. I have never read the book, but judging the movie by itself, it was great. From the humorous opening song to the wacky on-board computer, this movie kept me chuckling without trying to use stupid humor like many of the present day films resort to. I think you either get this movie, or you don't. I would highly recommend it, but if you don't get it the first time, "don't panic."… Expand

A mildly amusing yet bland film, that left a distinct feeling of unfulfillment.

Manuel M said... "Couldn't understand what they were saying so I stopped watching it." Ah, now that's a vote you can trust. A new 'Ebert' to lead the way, aren't you? English is though, isn't it. Now, I loved this movie, I personally think it's going to go down as the most underrated movie of the year. Sam Rockwell was great and I really enjoyed the quirky sense of humor (aka British comedy). I wasn't let down because I knew the only way this movie would live up to the books was if they made three or more films (Hollywood wouldn't take that much of a risk on HGttG) - kudos to the crew for making such a great, fun, and self-contained film that captured the zest and inventive nature of the original novel. I'm sure Adams would like it. True cinematic fun!… Expand

I've read the book and i can tell you that they changed a few things but kept it a really hilarious comedy with a nice story line.

I gave it a 2 because it is only fair not to give it a 0 because I couldn't watch the whole thing. That being said, I couldn't get through the original (I am pretty sure there was one) nor the book.

In short ... a bad film. Fans of the book beware ... You may start crying. Tries to be funy but fails .. which i thought was impossible with Douglas's master piece. Decent cgi . But who cares about that ! Makes you appreciate the lord of the rings as a movie which does justice to the book !

I imagine that this movie would suck. But get high before you go see it and, it will be the best thing that has ever happened to you.

Visually it was stunning. Original. Storyline was weak. Marvin the robot saved the day!

As a longtime fan of Douglas Adams, I am sad to see that this was the final product from him- essentially, he wrote a portion of the screenplay, and from there... they buried him. Appropriate for a dead man, and with a sad irony he might have appreciated, but still, a miserable failure of a film.

A somewhat interesting distraction. The funniest parts were of course the acual lines straight form the book, the other parts seemed to be lacking. My biggest disapointment was the budding relationship between Arthur and Trillian. What made arthur funny was the fact that he never quite got it. He never really accepted his situation and was always clueless about what was haappening. Making him the most insight ful of the cast just makes it another silly romance movie. Nothing particulaly special, nothing especially funny. I was smilling through most of the movie , but no real belly laughs wich I got from the books, radio series, and dar I say it ... even the TV series. While this had all the piecesx of H2G2 it just put them together wrong.… Expand

I wanted this movie to be good more than any other movie this year. Much like the American version of the Office... I expected the worst, but hoped for the best. With Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, I got the best. I saw this movie on Saturday with my friend who introduced me to the books... and I loved it (as did he). I loved it so much I convinced a different friend to go see it the next day. I loved it again. So did he. I don't know why people are shocked they left stuff out from the book or altered the story a bit... that happens in every book to movie rendition in history. Think of the best ever movies that started with books. The first one that comes to mind is A Clockwork Orange, which happens to be my favorite book. The movie A Clockwork Orange is missing a ton of the best parts of the book, but it's still brilliant. A Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy is also a witty and smart film, just like the book. The characters are all perfectly played, and the story perfectly adapted. Who's ready for The Restaurant at the End of the Universe?… Expand

I loved this movie! I believe the main reason it is not getting consistently good reviews is because it pokes fun at religion and has a reckless president of the Universe who closely resembles our current reckless and inept U.S. president. It captured the spirit of the books, which were my favorite science fiction series.

Good japes. Sam Rockwell was inspired as a Clinton-Jagger hybrid, the dolphins sang, the Book was great fun, the whale deserves Best Supporting. See it in a small cinema with enthusiastic viewers.

Wow. critics totally dropped the ball on this one. funny, engaging, and imaginative. a pleasant and fun experience just as the books were.

I am moderate fan of Adams' unique world of sci-fi comedy. At best, I think the books have some moments of inspired lunacy as well as some hilarious exchanges between Arthur and Ford and all the characters they meet. At worst, most of the material plays like a leftover Python sketch or, even worse, from "Out of the Trees", the 1976 sketch show Adams wrote with Graham Chapman. This movie plays the same way. A few genuinely inspired moments (Ford & Arthur turning into couches, Stephen Fry's pitch-perfect narration) are lodged between what is mostly a boring and uninvolving story. Despite my huge crush on Zooey Deschanel, she is terribly miscast here, and for the most part the cast gets nowhere near as dead-on as the cast from the BBC miniseries, which remains the quintessential Hitchhikers-on-film, despite the horrid special effects and production values. In the end, fans of the story will be pleased to see it get the big budget Hollywood treatment (with the best Arthur Dent EVER - Martin Freeman), but as an adaptation it does the book no favors and as decent Hollywood escapist fare, it's barely passable.… Expand

The critic for Entertainment Weekly was asked recently in the movie section's "Ask the Critic" column about which director he (it was Owen's turn) felt should get out of his usual milieu and try something completely different. Glieberman's answer was Woody Allen, and papa's brand new bag should be a big budget film with a lot of special effects. Since Allen made "Sleeper", maybe he'd have better luck at adapting Douglas Adams' science fiction classic. For sure, Woody knows a thing or two about self-deprecation and would handle Arthur Dent's(Martin Freeman) lack of self-esteem and his unrequited love for Trillian(Zooey Deschanel) with a steadier hand. If he could make Mira Sorvino lovable, imagine what he'd do with a talent like Deschanel. And Allen, a virtual one-liner machine, would've made the manic-depressive robot more beloved than R2-D2. "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" should fill us with the feeling of zipping across the universe and back. Each new planet our explorers inhabit filled me with the same disappointment I feel when a SNL sketch falls apart.… Expand

I admit I am an Adams fan, having heard the original radio series (and copied it on tape for repeated listening - it's given me many hours of commuting pleasure), read all the books, and seen the tv series (ok, so I like British humor!). I was wary of a film of his material, and was pleasantly surprised as it unfolded. However, the movie slowed to a crawl, the dry British wit evaporated, and I found myself bored during the second half. From what I had read, the new ideas, such as carrying the Vogons through the entire film and the "point of view gun", were Adams own, but the way they were implemented didn't have the sparkle of his off kilter sense of humor. What a shame.… Expand

The randomness and chaos of the story was captured to a fault in the editing. Interesting concept, dull presentation.

Total junk not worth paying anything to see it ,i would use dvd for a coaster for my drink.

Like the American-ized attempts at Red Dwarf, Doctor Who, Coupling, and The Office, when you take the Brit out of "British Humor" all you have left is "ish humor". This is "ish": somewhat off the mark. Not everything is improved by being "Disney-ized for your protection".

The movie makes the same basic points that the book makes. Bill Nighy, though, is the only actor that gets it. He is the only one with the right vibe for this film. The cheesy effects are perfect. The pacing is off. It takes way too long to get started. Why add the additional love angle? Not necessary, but very studio. I liked the movie, but hoped for so much more. In other words, it was entertaining but could have been great. I hope this director is not picked to do "Confederacy of Dunces.'' I'd hate to have 2 of my 3 favorite books ruined by the same guy. The other was made well (Lord of the Rings). peace stevieg.… Expand

I think it lacked virtually any of the satirical bite it should've had. And the romance between Tril and Arthur mostly fell flat, but, aside from that, the movie was really funny. I loved Rockwell's Zaphod. Hyaa. Mos definitely.

I dont know. something about this movie was just not funny. Some parts were funny and clever, but other parts, was "seen it before". its alright, i guess.

It was a fun departure from the book whilst keeping it's spirit. Romance a bit too heavy though... why can't hollywood think outside of it's formula?

I was actually very pleasantly surprised by this film, as I wasn't expecting much. I read 2 1/2 books from the series because all of my nerdy friends swore by them, and I stopped when I realized they were never going to get good. I never found Douglas' humor the slightest bit inspired. In fact, the most Douglas-esque moments in the film are the ones that fall completely flat, like the joke about the falling flower pot. My girlfriend and I just shook our heads disappointedly at these parts, as they were never funny. It's a weird sort of humor that is contrived, unnatural, and just...lame. HOWEVER: The film is great! Mos Def and the actor who plays Beeblebox are both mind-blowingly brilliant. They take the weak characterizations from the book and absolutely make them explode. They are incredibly talented, perfect for their roles, and very funny. Great direction, overall. The actor who plays the main role is fine, but he didn't have much to work with, as this straight character doesn't have any depth, humor, or interesting facets at all, in the book or the movie. He's basically the camera for the story. Honestly, not a great role to have to play. He did the best that anyone could given the script, I suppose. The chick who plays the lead female role also does very well. She's very applealing in every respect. Again, not a very meaty character. Overall, the direction, acting, and casting are fantastic, as is the comedy on the parts of Mos Def and Sam Rockwell. There are many funny parts, and a couple of sorry jokes from the book that fall flat. Oh, and the Volgon designs by Jim Hensen's studio are great! In my opinion, much better than the books. Very fun. Watch it!… Expand

In the grand variety of films in the common mainstream, let's be honest, there are good ones and bad ones. However, it is uncommon that a film backed by so much hype falls so short of the mark. Having read all the books in the (ahem) trilogy, I expected something a little special, maybe reminiscent of Adams' wayward rambling. However, what I got was a film of uncontributary special effects, and sense of the entire thing being ...just wrong. For the entire second half, I struggled to stay awake, and hoped that the end credits would soon start blurring on-screen, never a good thing to want when viewing a supposed box-office smash. The actors were hardly inspirational, not what we've come to expect from Bill Nighy, and the only redeeming feature came in the form of Sam Rockwell's occasional awkward humour, spoilt slightly by the over-done introduction of a second head. Alan Rickman, who shines in all other films he's in, provided a bland contribution in Marvin's vocals, and Mos Def's representation of Ford Prefect was as inappropriate as his name...in any situation.… Expand

A wasted opportunity. So many wonderful lines taken from the original radio series with the punchlines carefully removed. I see the filmmakers as being sincere, but missing the point a bit. A disappointment.

I've read all 5 books in the HHGTTG series, and i must say this movie was a little dissapointing. while its a good movie, it doesn't follow the first book closely enough, and adds too many unimportant scenes that were never even in the book. it also ends too abruptly, and leaves out some of the best parts of the book. Zaphod wasn't done anywhere near what he should have been, and could have afforded a lot less focus on his ego. setting all this aside, the movie is funny, great to watch, and seeing some of the characters come to life just made it all worth while. best part of the movie: when the Heart of Gold and its crew were all temporarily turned into yarn figures by the Infinite Improbability Drive.… Expand

This has to be one of the woooorst movie i have seen, i left the theatre laughing at how bad the movie was. the humor was so bad, the script and the storylines are stupid, only thing that was good was the special effect and the concept, the rest, extremely cheap.

When I first saw this movie I thought 10 all the way. They really couldn't have done much better for the genre. If I think about it real hard I'd give this movie 9 only because it catered a little too much to the general public instead of being more artistic, for lack of better words. However I am leaving my vote as a 10 because there are so many grumpy Volgons out there that gave this movie less than an 8. I don't know what these people expect but we've been completely spoiled but the entertainment industry. Does anyone remember what sci fi was like pre Star Wars? Shake off the shakles of entitlement and enjoy yourselves. Life is short enough as it is to, I dare repeat myself, to be a grumpy old volgon.… Expand

I expected the film to be linearized, and it was. I was expecting the film to be funny. It wasn't. I was expecting the film to be smart. It wasn't. Somewhere, somehow, for some reason, the comedy was left on the cutting room floor.

I really enjoyed it. It was close enough to the original material (I've seen the original TV series) to keep me happy as a fan but with enough new stuff to keep me guessing what would happen next. I can't find any fault with the actors either. Sam Rockwell as Zaphod was over-the-top and outrageous, which I always thought was the whole point of the character. Mos Def was nicely understated as the unruffled semi-accidental galactic backpacker Ford Prefect and Tim Freeman was just right as english everyman Arthur Dent. The other actors and voice-overs were good too.… Expand

A waste of my $7.50. As an avid fan of the novel, I hureidly rushed out once i heard they were making a movie of it and jumped with joy throwing confetti all down the street. What I expected let me down with a large "umph". I expected the book, a brilliatnly plotted, deep to run the same through the movie yet it did not. Don't get me wrong Freeman's great but it just wasnt the same. I belive if any book is ever to be directed let the author do it. Because this director just let me down with an umh.… Expand

This is a fantastic film... This exceeds the book, not to mention the series!

A sad travesty of the original(s). Anyone thinking of adapting a book, play or any other genre into film should have to watch this as a cautionary tale. Unfunny, incomprehensible. Only Bill Nighy raises a smile at all.

This version of the Hitchhikers Guide can only be summed up as BAD. Very bad. No good at all. Not even a single electronic or difital sausage of good can be found in this extremely BAD movie. Worse, I was a big fan of the original BBC series. I saveed my cassette tapes of it. The Book seems largely to be ignored (instead of being the most significant character). Arthur is poorly written and acted. The storyline would be incomprehensible to anyone who had never read the book or heard the series. So, why did they do this to poor Douglas Adams? Maybe this is what really killed him, he saw the screenplay!… Expand

Very, very funny. I love how the President of the Galaxy is (in retrospect) Premiere Bush. GREAT!

Simply spiffing. Stephen Fry's deadpan voice and delivery on top as ever. Radio shows were great. Movie (and music) - jolly. One leaves the movie feeling happy. Rare these days.

This film didn’t seem to have any beginning, middle or end. It just started, then a little while later it stopped. And I kept thinking that perhaps I would have enjoyed it more if I wasn’t so familiar with the book and the BBC TV series. Also, the humour in the film was far more slapstick than in the book (I suppose slapstick comedy can only really be visual), which I thought made for cheap laughs. Perhaps it was just the mindset of the audience around me, but at the viewing I went to, the scene on Vogsphere where Arthur, Ford and Zaphod kept getting hit in the face by the things under the sand got by far the biggest laughs. I thought this was a bit sad, as the humour in the book and the TV series was ironic and sarcastic, and made you laugh even more when you thought about it a bit.… Expand

Just saw this film, and fairly dissapointed. The books are part of the literary cannon for me, so my hopes were up when I heard they finally were making it to the screen. Somewhat managled is how I'd describe it, though not actually butchered-trying to be true to the spirit but lost along the way. I should have waited for the DVD. Sigh.

It was a decent job, and it made me laugh. There was plenty of geeker joy to be had. It would have been close to perfect if not for one thing: the overdone cheesy romance bit. Ack!

Although it is true that plot seems to take a bit of a backseat in this newest version of HITCHHIKER's, it is a visually stunning and well-acted film (especially Sam Rockwell and Stephen Fry) that stays faithful to the spirit of the original radio show/book. As someone who was brought up on Douglas Adams' classic, I was thrilled by this reimagining of Arthur Dent's odyssey; it stayed close enough to the original to satisfy me, but also took things in a different and ultimately fresh direction. If you want to see a reenactment of the book, rent the original British television show, but I for one was delighted by this refurbished version of a classic.… Expand

This movie brought me face to face with one of the great MYSTERIES of the universe: WHY SO MANY CRITICS GAVE THIS MOVIE A GOOD REVIEW!!!! I am a science fiction fan, but have never read the "hitchikers" book, so I can't comment on how faithful to the book it was.... but as a movie it was STUPID, STUPID, STUPID!!!! Halfway though I thought of leaving and asking for my money back, but there had been so many good reviews on metacritic I thought it surely must get better toward the end. It did get a little better... but it was still stupid! I can appreciate Monty Python style silliness, but this wasn't in that category. It was just stupid. Pointless. Dumb. I gave it a "1" for fairly good special effects at places, but other than that, I would have given it a zero. Don't waste your money!… Expand

I only fell asleep 4 time durring this movie.

It wasn't perfect, but I haven't laughed that hard at a movie in years. The fact that it had used wit to make some very pertinent points as well was all gravy.

Good for some laughs. All of the funniest jokes were taken directly from the book and for fans of the book, there were some big plot differences that I found irritating. For instance, the love between Author and Trillian was a bit overplayed. Overall, the casting was awsome! Very riddiculous opening credits.

As a fan of the books I thought they did a pretty good job translating it to the screen. I enjoyed it from start to finish!

All over the place. Dry humor. You will want to skip this one. Expected a lot more then what I got.

Wow was that bad!!!!! I fell asleep.

A funny, solid movie, close in spirit to its source material while being engaging and entertaining. A classic? No. Worth the viewing? Absolutely.

Well, they tried hard.... Unfortunately the acting is pretty bad - especially Zooey Deschanel, Mos Def and Sam Rockwell. Who are unfortunately the majority of the main charcters. They're worst in the first 20 minutes (after the great opening saequence) - where they get almost all their lines wrong (intonation and gag-cracking wise I mean) - but then once earth is left behind the special effects can distract you. And luckily, they're amazing. Incredibly natural - nothing like the crap that George Lucas gives us - they fit in with the world perfectly. And it's the vision of the Galaxy that they present which makes the film worthwhile. That said, the last third of film is strangely moving and allows you to leave the cinema feeling a bit more pleased than the film should really have managed to make you feel.… Expand

A beautiful movie, very smart screenplay and a mad direction... i enjoyed this movie from start to finish.

Absolutely terrible, i have never seen a film quite this bad. There was one bit i found funny in the whole film.

Do yourselves a favour and wait till after seeing the movie before you read the classic novels by Douglas Adams. The movie is a good laugh...but it doesn't come close to the hilarity of the original series of books. Though, Brit humour has never been more appreciated.

This movie made no sense to me even after reading the book. It was poor acting, confusing, and just stupid in general. Not recommended for anybody to watch. Bleh :P

A major disappointment! Truly dull film making, and a betrayal of its source material. The BBC television show, which in and of itself was nothing special, was nevertheless much funnier than this movie.

Weird, bad acting.. some parts were funny though including marvin and the fat aliens

Would have walked out if I wasn't with my kids, who will watch anything moving in color. Horrifically boring--long stretches without a single laugh, giggle, or even grunt. The point of view was amazingly confused and a very talented cast was wasted on a weak script. They should have jettisoned Adams from the screenplay--I suspect he confused matters during all stages of production.

It was mildly amusing, so I'd give it a" thumb's up". To those who complain that it doesn't compare to the book -- well, duh! No movie could ever compare to the book. Under the circumstances I think they did reasonably well.

Of the 110 runtime minutes: 10 minutes funny; 100 minutes boring.

A disappointment to those who've read the books, I'm sure... too many moments which seemed a waste of time. Enough good stuff however to lift it out of the ordinary. Bill Nighy lifts any movie he's in and the heroine sure is purty.

Atrocious. An absolute waste of Adams' legacy, and a complete molestation of a fine, satirical series.

It was the worst movie I have ever seen.

The worst movie i have seen this year. i was very bored throughout the movie. the best part was when i saw a bunch of nerds show up to the theatre covered in towels.

I don't know if this movie needed to be made, but it didn't need to be made this way. Roger Ebert had it right for the wrong reasons. He complained that it needed some more biting wit. Well, the original scripts had that. The movie version seems to have eviscerated all the real commentary from Douglas Adams. Perhaps this is because Adams died early in the process of making the film, or perhaps the story just didn't need rehashing another time. Other critics complained that the movie went flat after the first 15 minutes. No surprise, the first 15 minutes were truest to the original also! After that, it began to diverge with weak results. The chief thing missing was Adams' taut, even dense writing. If nothing else, he would write multi-layered, even impenetrable commentary. Now, some may say that for the big screen we need to make a big movie and so we don't have time for dialogue and the 'small-ball' sort of wit that Adams delivered on paper, radio and TV. Bosh. Piffle. Sense and Sensibility and other 'dialogue' movies translate wonderfully to the screen. The movie needs writing, though, and Douglas Adams, a great writer, is impossible to replace.… Expand

Definitely not nearly as bad as I was expecting. I was a little perturbed with the changes to certain scenes, and the Malkovich subplot really went nowhere fast, but the rest was highly entertaining.

They forgot all the great things about the book.

Now I loved the TV version and was annoyed by other reviewers who slaged the film off. The last thing I wanted was read negative reviews about a film I really wanted to see but the truth is the film has some good points and many bad points. The problem is that as the film is only 110mins long and you can imagine how much of the story they must have left out. Viewers who where big fans of the TV series will feel disappointed by how much they have left out and how much of the film doesn’t make sense. on a brighter note I love seeing the improbability drive in action and I feel that zaphod is what zaphod should of been and all the other cast are pretty good, but I do question the voice of Deep thought and Marvin they don’t really pull it of. Basically you won’t find the answer to life the universe and everything here. But I will still add it to my DVD collection. 6.5 out of 10. and i realy wanted to like this film.… Expand

Largely unimaginative. It seems like a British comedy written for Americans. It is unclear whether whether it will truly provide any laughs on either side of the Atlantic.

It wasn't just bad, it was galactically bad. The only saving grace was the visuals --- and I'd rather see a movie with a white background that is funny as hell than a movie filled with eye candy that tries to pass itself off as a masterpiece when in fact it has as much talent as a fourth grade play. I can't understand why anyone would like this movie --- it has to be the worst movie I have ever seen in the theater, so bad I would have walked out if I hadn't been with a friend who was hellbent on me seeing this steaming pile of crap. Funny? Not in the least. If you want entertainment, read the book. That way you won't have to shell out any money or debate endlessly if Mos Def was the best Ford or not. Who f.....g cares anyway? And you know I usually listen to both sides of the story, and I know there are a lot of people who liked this movie, but you know what, those people are wrong. In short, Panic. Peace, out.… Expand

Flat and dull - although preformances by principals were mostly okay - lost a lot in the translation.

AWSOME MOVIE!!loved it,missed a few things from the book (wich i ADORE) but one of the nicect flim ive seen all year.^^

Some of it WAS better than the Radio Play > Book > BBC Mini Series. However, it was a mistake to censor out classic lines like the explanation for why the "Babelfish" provided the final proof for the NON-existence of God. Ensuring that you never offend anyone will always leave you with dish-water.

What a cool movie and adaptation to Douglas' work. Cool in its own right, a fitting tribute to a great and goofy guy, who somewhere out there, is hanging on a clound in much the same way that bricks don't... So long Douglas, and thanks for all the fish.

Ok ok... I loved the book, very different but great book, but this movie... How can I express how dissapointed I was. It was missing the authors touch, the randomness of the book, the ship comitting suicide. I wanted to cry on how they managed to slaughter a perfectly enjoyable book. If they make a sequel I probably will not see it because I do not think any director could portray these books.

The movie is brilliant, funny and true to the spirit of the Douglas Adams book. The acting is terrific. Pay attention and you can get most of the jokes. It's visually wonderful. Let's make my score 9.42.

I have read every book in the late Mr. Adam's brilliant series, and I was VERY happy to find that the first of the adaptations was a clever, amusing, at times even BREATHTAKING film. I laughed, I was wowed, it was a great movie experience. The only downsides were a couple weak moments where the dialouge didn't crossover as well from the book to the movie, but for the most part it was GREAT.… Expand

Loved Loved Loved it. Haven't had that much fun in a movie in a long long time.

I wouldn't have minded the huge changes to the book and tacked on romance, if only the movie had been funny or coherent. A lot of the best lines from the books were kept in word for word, but were rushed through with such a lack of timing that I can imagine anyone not familiar to the book would just view this as a series of random images and words. All four points I'm giving this movie go to the visual arts directors and Jim' Henson's Creature Workshop. Like George Lucas at his worst, the director didn't seem to have any idea how to use human beings. I wish Peter Jackson had done it.… Expand