Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Micah Lloyd Excellent characters with emotional depth. My wife, daughter and granddaughter all enjoyed it...and me, too! Very good movie! You won't be disappointed.

Nayan Gough A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Bessie Smyth Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

dapplez The essence of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is that it is a stiletto sharp political and social satire. If you read the original "Gulliver's Travels," by Jonathan Swift, you will see a remarkably similar approach.This TV series retains the essence of that satire found in the original radio series and subsequent book. While I enjoyed the original radio series immensely, when I listened to it again more recently, I found it a bit rushed, and liked the pacing in the television version better.The extras disk with the DVD version provides an explanation of how the "computer graphics" were done in that 1981 pre-CGI age: by artists. What they accomplished was amazing and highly aesthetic.The preceding review by In descending order... makes some good points about the order of the Douglas Adams opuses. I assume, being British, he has more first hand knowledge than I. But I think he may be a bit off. I think what he considers a subsequent radio series was, to my understanding, a dramatized audio book, and one with additional material beyond any of the books, from what I can recall. But perhaps it was broadcast in Britain.And I think the original three books were revised when they were printed together as an anthology.So it is a bit of a mess to say which is the definitive version. Short of reading the book, I would say this BBC TV production is my favorite. It really holds up well to repeated viewing. But you should still read the trilogy; it is a masterpiece that deserves a place in a college 20th century literature curriculum.But one thing can be said definitively: The 2005 movie version is an abomination that bears no semblance to the artistic concept of the author.As Paul Newman used to say, "Why settle for hamburger when you can have steak?"

jon-788-143011 OK a lot of posts here, show that the history of H2G2 is poorly understood, it seems mostly by anyone who first encountered the 2005 film. So, to simplify, this was a radio show, then a book, then another radio series, then the TV series, then two more books, then three more radio series and another book, then a film.So the TV series isn't an adaptation of the books, at most it and the first two radio series are substantially the same material, although it is a bit mixed up and it isn't entirely consistent (though it all was done by the author, so it is legitimate).The radio shows used most of the same cast (except for Ford Prefect) and are the best version of the story (although it is a very long story, 15 hours or so). The TV series is a good rendering of the first two series and the first two books, inevitably it has some omissions.The movie is pretty awful, and best avoided.

pgr-fw One can claim that this was so good for it's time, or otherwise make excuses for it, but as a piece of entertainment this show is pretty weak. I'm not one to gripe about weak special effects, so I won't. That could be overlooked given budgets and production pressures. Quality entertainment doesn't require it.Something that is required in great comedy is a surprise. If you've read the book there's absolutely nothing surprising about the show.At least nothing surprising in a good way. Some say it's "campy" or "corny". I don't think it even rises to that level. A funny face, a gesture, even a raised eyebrow could have made the transition to tape worth the trouble; instead we got mailed in performances. They spoke the lines, they stood in the right spot, but that's about it. Arthur was flat, Trillian played as an airhead, but Ford was the worst. In this series he comes off as a rather affable, friendly fellow, not the deeply misanthropic (or should I say mis-pan-sentient) Ford Prefect that we love from the book. The properly two-headed Zaphod at least gave it a shot, and Marvin had potential.If you're taking a class on the history of low budget television production, this is a good vehicle. If you're looking for an evening or two of entertainment, you'll be better off with, dare I say it, the movie. It at least gave me a reason to keep my eyes open, if only to see where they mangled the original story.

MisterWhiplash Thanks to a friend, I've now become a fan of the Hitchhiker's Guide. For what it's all worth- and it is all about Life, the Unvierse, and Everything, isn't it- Douglas Adams's creation is consistently clever and silly, a work of imagination where the levels of human idiosyncrasies that can always be reached by levels of ego, self-pity, paranoia, greed, super-intelligence, self-deprecation, awkwardness, et all, can make for some great, succinctly dry-British wit. Sometimes Adams can go for the laugh out loud (anything with the dolphins, the answer to Life, the Unvierse, and Everything, the mice, Marvin, or the pig at the restaurant who asks to be eaten, all parts over), or the more subtle (the many bits taken away from the 'Book' as narration covers all sorts of topics, not least of which the usefulness of towels, the power of one throwaway phrase that can ignite a war between two alien systems, and of course, Blartfast). But always, the Hitchhiker's Guide series is about the knowing eye for the cruelness, humanity, joy, and just plain stupidity of human beings, and how it can be conceivably out there in the rest of the universe- just look at the Vogons with their poetry (actually don't)! The series produced for BBC is, typical of the network, not of the high-caliber of budget. At a time when Star Wars expanded the proximity of what could be done, unfortunately Alan Bell, Adams and the producers had only limited resources (like, erm, plain old models and locations in Africa for some of Magrathea, oddly enough where A New Hope shot as well), and even the entries shown from the book with characters 'drawn' in green outline or the globes were all hand-drawn. But despite the limitations, the comic strengths of the actors pull the material very well enough, especially Mark Wing Davey as Zaphod Beeblebrox, David Learner as the voice of Marvin (albeit the way he talks he should be voiced by a Woody Allen type of neurotic), and Richard Vernon as Blartfast (not to mention bit players like the guys who play the cops in episode 4 or Clockwork Orange alumni Aubrey Morris as the bathtub captain). And sometimes it the production design itself is in on the joke; the restaurant at the end of the universe is funny just to look at, with its main little dark area for the 'announcer', and various creatures all abound at tables introduced like it's Las Vegas.It's a minor triumph for all involved that these episodes were this much fun and occasionally brilliant, and they'll likely impress fans of the book moreover than the 2005 movie did.