WARNING....Minor Spoilers!!!








The reviewer knows his stuff, and he does bring up some plot holes that really need to be plugged, but I lost a lot of respect for his opionion when he threw out this gem in the review...

"In other words, from the audience’s point of view, it matters not a jot whether Douglas Adams wrote any particular part of this movie; it only matters that it should sound like he wrote it."

I'm impressed by his stones, but it is utter and complete hubris to state that, I know what's funny about HHG2TG better than Douglas Adams does...

and unfortunatly, that's how the review reads...He seems to view the whole of Hitchhikers as a collection of Jokes and Good Bits. Yes, I miss some of these lines, but a lot of these jokes and scenes were built to fit the episodic nature of hitchhikers. They survived into the book because you had plenty of space to keep these scenes.

I haven't seen the film like the reviewer did, so the following paragraph is pure conjecture on my part...meaning I'm pulling it right out of my ass. That said, I think there was a reason why a lot of these scenes were dropped or streamlined. In it's translation to a 2 hour movie, it is neccisary for each scene to flow into one another, and the momentum of the film kept moving. These minor scenes, although humourous, would make the film seem "sketch-y" to make up a word. The plot would move forward, get distracted while the guide tells you about this really funny bit of galactic history, or the charactors have this funny conversation with a minor character. Although they would be funny, it would make the story seem "jerky." You can see this in the David Lynch version of Dune, which tries to cram in all the wonderful rich details about the world, but invariably distract from the main plot.

Don't get me wrong...I agree that some of the scenes could have been included without distracting the main plot, but I understand why they did it, The reviewer seems to be moraly outraged that they did not include all the bits that HE found important...I'd have loved to have seen Prosser in the mud also, but when you get down to it, getting Arthur and Ford onto the Heart of Gold to meet the other charactors is more important than exploring why Prossor wears a little fur cap.

I guess the thing that really horks my chain about the review is the underlying snarky tone, and utter and complete dismissing of any new parts of the script. To the reviewer...it's imperative that Ford turn into a penguin on the Heart of Gold. The fact that they decided to have them change into a Sofa is utterly and completely unfunny and a slap in the face of the whole of HHG2TG's Fandom.

He boasts he is a "dangerous maverick, or a grumpy old git, but maybe I’m the only one who can spot the Emperor’s new clothes for what they are" but he seems to be taking a sadistic amount of pleasure in ripping this movie to shreds, almost as if he was punishing not only the filmakers, but Douglas Adams himself in daring to think that they can craft their own vision of HHG2TG that is different from his familiar biblical cannon that only he has dissected, deconstructed, analyzed, and explained.

Ultimately, he shows himself to be a fool, because any reasonable thinking person knows that *I* am the end all/be all of HHG2TG appreciation.