Took the kids to "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" as per their insistent request (I insisted the house be cleaned first- it was when I came home- they had all day to do it since today was a school in-service day.). A steroid-enhanced Dr. Seuss and Monsters, Inc. had a baby (this movie) on the Yellow Submarine.

Nathanael panned it- did NOT do the book justice (of course). Last year during the long drive back from Miami to Cincinnati, he had narrated his favorite parts of the book to us. I mean, he was seriously into this whole book. Of course the perpetual end of the universe as viewed from a posh restaurant can't really be dealt with well on film. So he had to settle with some disappointment, even though he says it's not just that, it's that they altered many events (I believe to make it understandable to the many of us who only understand things on the level of Dr. Seuss, Monsters Inc., or the Beatles' submarine. Wait, I think you have to be on LSD to get the submarine thing.) Well, anyway, that was Nathanael's opinion.

Micah and his friend Josh enjoyed it...sort of sat back and just let the movie happen to them. Which is what I did...I have to admit I liked the egocentric Zaphod...Sam Rockwell resembles my imagination's version. Though admittedly (and expectedly) he was a flatter character than the book's Zaphod. And the original Zaphod didn't lose one of his heads (and half a brain) to a hula doll. Marvin was cute- who else noticed the resemblance to Strong Sad of Homestarrunner.com fame?

So if you want the whole "Hitchhiker's", read the book. Character development was NOT strong in the cinema's version. Just no time, too much material.