I went into the cinema with a sense of foreboding. Early reviews of The Hitchhiker's Guide warned of a terrible movie experiance. Indeed, I was tempered.

While I don't think it was the most brilliant piece of film making, I thought it was pretty darned good. I think I enjoyed the new bits more than the original bits, because I didn't have the radio sound track playing in my head. I know the HHG like the back of my hand, so it's a little too comfortable, and I knew what was missing.

Arthur was well done, so were Ford and Zaphod. Zaphod reminded me of what most Englishmen think of when you mention Americans (loud and obnoxious). I don't think this was unintentional, though lost on Americans. Trillian was a bit flat. Slartibartfast was great. Marvin. I liked the original voice of Marvin. It was depressed. Movie Marvin just didn't capture depression. The words were right, but not the voice, and since there wasn't much more than a voice, the voice should've carried it.

In all, I thought it was a good adaption of the book. Sure, there were jokes that I think were cust off too short, or just cut out, that should've been longer or kept in, but it's a film.

There's been plenty of films I've felt gipped, and angry about seeing, but this wasn't one.

Since it was based on an Adams' script, it contained a lot of his material. Will the sequels pull it together as HHG? I'm hoping they will.