Actuakers One of my all time favorites.

GurlyIamBeach Instant Favorite.

Zlatica One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

Justina The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Christine L. Cameron I did LOVE this movie. Sure there were faults, like a tardy interpretation of the banshee, and a far less sly and sophisticated Reacher Gilt than I remembered in the books, the film had charm. It wove slightly different twists -while a few a bit far-fetched- and served them quite neatly. You can understand the necessity to narrow a few things down. Well done.However, can not endorse a film produced by a company that steals an artwork, nonetheless well recognised by the artist and the fans. As we know, artwork on the internet is unsafe, and every artists takes a risk by uploading. Suck it up and learn from it, many say. OK. But to Sky 1, who took this artwork: http://juliedillon.deviantart.com/art/Lord-Vetinari-92120272 -by Julie Dillon (an artist I've highly admired for years), and expose it in a film without so much as bloody recognition is very low. Very dishonourable. Whether or not she had it protected properly is not the concern, you saw an artwork, clearly made by an artist, on an artists' gallery website. She recognised their robbery and wrote to you, never hearing back. So Sky 1, whose work was remarkably well done. I would demand you sort it out peacefully with Julie Dillon, for your own honours sake. Until then, I sincerely hope that this lovely series has earned you as little as you deserve. I hope its popularity remains diminished until then. Link to the scene of stolen image: https://drive.google.com/open? id=0B1J6CoFCfLtwQ3RBUFdjTWZVSWcThank you - an Aesthetic protecting an Artist.

white_rainbow I've seen a lot of adaptations on British television, and read most of the related books, so it took me a while to bring myself to see this adaptation after the gut-wrenching horror that was The Colour of Magic. I was hoping for something better.On the plus side, some of the acting is above acceptable, especially from the minor characters. Richard Coyle is not too bad as Moist von Lipwig, but the other leading characters are very disappointing. Dance as Vetinari is neither emotionless enough to be terrifying nor terrifying enough to be intriguing, and Suchet as Reacher Gilt ends up as a typical one-dimensional screen villain. Claire Foy is unfortunately hardly worth mentioning as Adora Belle, so I hardly will.The set design is rather good, and the special effects are mostly an improvement on the embarrassment of the previous adaptations. British television has a reputation for beautiful costuming in 'period' adaptations, and Going Postal lives up to this.On the minus side, the writing of the adaptation itself is poor. My opinion is that adapting a novel should involve taking the most effective parts of it and ensuring that they are presented on screen, while discarding anything unnecessary (and usually any side plots) to save time. The LOTR adaptations were particularly fine examples, as they mostly managed to remove side plots and adapt the remaining content to flow well and retain drama. Gormenghast was slightly less fine, but retained the darkness of the original characters, which made it successful. This adaptation struggles because the writers removed the elements of the plot and characters that made the book so excellent. This left a lot of space, which unfortunately got filled up with rubbish.Specifically, what makes the book so excellent is the structure of and interplay between the characters. As always, Pratchett makes it difficult to separate the 'good' and 'bad' at face value. For example, the irresistibly likable Lipwig and Reacher Gilt are almost indistinguishable until close to the end of the book. Adora Belle is completely misanthropic, but unusually caring about her golems. And behind it all, Vetinari plays the almost godlike ringmaster.All of this is lost in the adaptation, which leaves it feeling flat and mediocre. Worse, the dialogue and plot that was added instead is sappy, lifeless and pandering. Lipwig is no more likable than anyone else, which makes a good portion of the plot nonsensical. Gilt is so transparently evil that one wonders why anyone would trust him with a single penny. And the romantic subplot with Adora Belle changes from a wonderful clash of characters and excellent banter to a rather simple and boring love interest.The adaptations are improving gradually, but I hope that eventually the writers will take some risks and write characters more true to the novels. Terry Pratchett is a hugely successful writer not just because of his plots, but because of his disregard for narrative convention, his wonderful characters and electric dialogue. It would be good to see at least some of that retained on screen.Overall, my major complaint is not what was removed or changed from the book, but what it was replaced with. An excellent book that could have been a gorgeous miniseries has become merely a dull, average miniseries with a slightly better than average plot. A huge opportunity wasted.

dccarles First off, I thought Going Postal was an above average Discworld novel. It flowed nicely, the character development was interesting, and of course it included Pratchett's trademark similes.This production, however, was sub-par. First, though, what they got right.The special effects were adequate. The golems looked like what you'd expect a guy wearing a hundred pounds of clay-coloured latex to look like, but the clacks towers were well done, as were the swirling letters in the post office. The sets and costumes, however, were excellent. The city streets lived and breathed, and the post office was wonderfully dark and decrepit. (Moist's Postmaster hat, I noticed, improved over time as the Post Office's fortunes improved.) The script benefited from streamlining the novel's plot somewhat. Just about everywhere the plot was changed, I could see why they did so. Much of Pratchett's wit made it into the dialogue, as well as more than a few good lines that weren't in the novel. But nothing, nay, nothing can make up for the acting. I don't blame the actors here: plainly they were directed to mug like Jim Carrey having a facial spasm. So much of what was funny in the novel was made utterly cringe-inducing by being overdone. Pratchettian humour works by understatement, by the characters taking themselves and what they do seriously. Of the characters played for comedic effect only Vetinari, as far as I could see, was played straight, and not coincidentally only he survived this massacre unscathed. It might be that the program was aimed at children, and this explains the awful, awful hamhandedness. But Pratchett is lost on apparent age level they were trying to pitch to. A terrible, terrible shame, after all the thought and effort that went into the production, that the delivery was muffed so badly.

Death-of-Rats I begin this review wondering if 2/10 might be a little too generous. As quite a hardcore Pratchett fan for over 12 years, I don't know why I put myself through this kind of experience, I really don't. This TV movie was just excruciating to sit through, as I watched characters that I have know and loved for many years be desecrated, dumbed down, sexed up or just downright murdered. Sacrilege. I think everyone understands that one cannot transcribe a book word for word, action for action onto the big or small screen. Obviously it takes a lot of work and effort trying to achieve a film adaptation of a great piece of literature. But seriously? There is no excuse for such lack of attention to detail, to the storyline, to the attitudes, appearances and mannerisms of the characters, to the general hubbub that makes Ankh- Morpork Ankh-Morpork. Some of this has been mentioned already by other reviewers so perhaps I shouldn't dwell, but a blond Vetinari? A chubby and snide Drumknott? Rubber-like homogeneous golems? a fawning Adora Belle Dearheart? And where is the life and hustle and bustle of the city? The interactive crowds, not to mention the lack of species diversity?I should try and balance this with something positive, right? It was a spirited attempt at Moist von Lipwig, I admit, and you can't fault an actor for a poor script or a pants director. Sargeant Angua looked awesome, for 2 seconds before she changed into a werewolf in a crowded bar, which obviously, is completely out of character. Stanley was almost spot on! and some of the visual effects were't half bad.But the thing about Pratchett, and it's far too important to overlook when adapting his books, is that he crafts such amazing, intricate characters, beautiful running narratives and delicate witticisms that one is awed by his magic, and the life that his books take on inside ones head. Anything short of complete dedication to his intent is simply an insult. This adaptation was lazy, unspirited, rushed and complacent to obviously commercial interests. This makes me very sad. I felt largely the same way about the previous two adaptations - I really can't understand any Pratchett fan being happy with the Hogfather or the Colour of Magic, and certainly not this. It is a shame that those of us truly enamoured with Pratchett's work should be sold out for a wider (dare I say less sophisticated?) audience.Until Tim Burton directs a discworld movie, and all the actors, screenwriters, make-up artists and costume designers are contracted to read the entire discworld series at least three times over before daring to make an appearance on set, I think I'll be giving any screen adaptation of Pratchett a wide berth.