Having just caught Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy out here in Edinburgh, I thought I'd offer some thoughts, because reactions to the film, especially from the uninitiated, seem to include a lot of confused queries about what happened and what 42 meant.

I thoroughly enjoyed the movie on a purely visceral level as it was a joy to watch. From the sperm whale to the Guide to the planets visited, the eyes were treated to a high-tech realization of the original audio series and book. Time flew by so quickly that the end of the movie seemed improbably close to the beginning. Yet there were failings that I have to admit. The story, packed between action, effects and gags, was often sliced and diced to the point of incomprehensible conciseness. While not much was left out, not much was elaborated upon either. Characters came and went, and now, one hour after the movie ended, I'm beginning to wonder why exactly the director felt it necessary to put John Malkovich in the movie for 2 minutes in an absolutely random role (lacking any context whatsoever) as Zaphod Beeblebrox's (Sam Rockwell) former opponent for galactic president, Humma Kavula. The greatest weakness was in how the story was transposed to the screen.

But despite the obvious weaknesses, I am still quite happy I saw the movie for the sake of the gags and the excellent character choices. Martin Freeman (Tim from The Office) was pure movie magic as Arthur Dent, playing the Britishness perfectly and remaining likable throughout. Zooey Deschanel, who is almost sickeningly sweet and cute (in that sort of "I can't help being so cute" bunny rabbit way), grew on me as Trillian, Alan Rickman's voice job for Marvin was an exact recreation of the voice I had in my head after reading Guide originally, and Mos Def did a decently entertaining Ford Prefect. I was more ambiguous on Sam Rockwell as galactic president Beeblebrox. He was over-the-top as required, but at times his character came across too strongly channeling the spirit of a petulant child, to the point of excess. Slartibartfast. What a name, and Bill Nighy filled the role well.

There was nothing about the movie that makes it as worthy as cult status as the book, but it was highly enjoyable in parts even if the sum was no greater than said parts. Highly recommended for a viewing experience though not so highly for plot coherence or a deft translation of the book into film.
---------

Update (or rather just something entirely new to add):

Lessons for American Media

The BBC stands as a symbol of both what a media organization should and shouldn't be. It should make politicians, businesses, and powerful individuals accountable to viewing audiences by uncovering scams, asking tough questions, and digging into dirty laundry. Witness last night's episode of Question Time, a political issues show that had a special "grill the leaders" night where all three major party candidates: Blair, Howard, and Kennedy, came in and answered questions from the host and the audience, which sat 25 feet away and included numerous openly hostile questioners who were allowed to openly argue with the candidates, especially Blair, for extended periods of time. By the end, Blair was sweating buckets and half the audience looked like they had eaten something sour. That's how you make politicians accountable--if they make a decision like Iraq, you make them face tough questions on national television from people who refuse to be shooshed or threatened like some reporters seem to be in order to buy silence. The BBC has a clearly defined agenda of cutting through bullshit and red tape on behalf of Brits. That is generally a highly laudable aim and is something that American outlets need to keep in mind at all times.

But, as recent events have shown, the BBC in all its power is too deeply involved in British political life to avoid getting its feet muddy. This isn't a case of the 60 Minutes' National Guard memo that tarnished Dan Rather's legacy, but rather incidents of seeming idiocy, hubris, and political opportunism. This week, it was discovered that the BBC had "embedded" several hecklers at a Conservative rally to help create footage for their upcoming documentary on political protest. Apart from the requisite Conservative outrage as expressed by the Daily Telegraph, there arose a general sense of disgust with the BBC for allowing something so stupid to happen. The situation was compounded by there meek assertion that they had planted people at the rallies of other parties, despite not having any readily procurable evidence to support such a statement.

Last year (?), a BBC internal probe found that the Beeb, as its known, was clearly siding with liberal interests in its news presentations. (stuff on Iraq?). The largest problem here is not with what side the Beeb favored, as British media outlets are often vehemently opinionated even in their news coverage. Though the Beeb is state-funded, the issue of its political leanings are not as important to American media as is the "holier than thou" feeling such actions create. BBC seems to think itself above responsibility to the taxpayers funding it to act with the sort of integrity and honesty it demands of the subjects of its investigations. Planting protestors, taking baseless stands on Iraq, (etc.) without even bothering to explain itself at times is the height of hubris. Behavior like this loses funding, viewers, and credibility. This is the lesson that is most important for American media to understand. If no WMDs are found in Iraq, Fox News should make that clear to its confused viewers. If the National Guard documents were bogus, CBS should take actions to clean house and restore trust. If PBS and NPR find themselves tilting to the left politically, they should question whether they have the right to show such an inclination (that is, whether they are left because the truth requires it of them, or just because they personally tend to tilt in said direction) while surviving wholly off of taxpayer funds.

.....Yeah, this is a work in progress, just wanted to get it down somewhere.