Genres

Visitors Review

white_rainbow 2012-05-25 02:42:28

A fantastic book converted into another mediocre miniseries

I've seen a lot of adaptations on British television, and read most ofthe related books, so it took me a while to bring myself to see thisadaptation 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, especiallyfrom the minor characters. Richard Coyle is not too bad as Moist vonLipwig, but the other leading characters are very disappointing. Danceas Vetinari is neither emotionless enough to be terrifying norterrifying enough to be intriguing, and Suchet as Reacher Gilt ends upas a typical one-dimensional screen villain. Claire Foy isunfortunately hardly worth mentioning as Adora Belle, so I hardly will.The set design is rather good, and the special effects are mostly animprovement on the embarrassment of the previous adaptations. Britishtelevision 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. Myopinion is that adapting a novel should involve taking the mosteffective parts of it and ensuring that they are presented on screen,while discarding anything unnecessary (and usually any side plots) tosave time. The LOTR adaptations were particularly fine examples, asthey mostly managed to remove side plots and adapt the remainingcontent to flow well and retain drama. Gormenghast was slightly lessfine, but retained the darkness of the original characters, which madeit successful. This adaptation struggles because the writers removedthe elements of the plot and characters that made the book soexcellent. This left a lot of space, which unfortunately got filled upwith rubbish.Specifically, what makes the book so excellent is the structure of andinterplay between the characters. As always, Pratchett makes itdifficult to separate the 'good' and 'bad' at face value. For example,the irresistibly likable Lipwig and Reacher Gilt are almostindistinguishable until close to the end of the book. Adora Belle iscompletely misanthropic, but unusually caring about her golems. Andbehind it all, Vetinari plays the almost godlike ringmaster.All of this is lost in the adaptation, which leaves it feeling flat andmediocre. 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 sotransparently evil that one wonders why anyone would trust him with asingle penny. And the romantic subplot with Adora Belle changes from awonderful clash of characters and excellent banter to a rather simpleand boring love interest.The adaptations are improving gradually, but I hope that eventually thewriters will take some risks and write characters more true to thenovels. Terry Pratchett is a hugely successful writer not just becauseof his plots, but because of his disregard for narrative convention,his wonderful characters and electric dialogue. It would be good to seeat least some of that retained on screen.Overall, my major complaint is not what was removed or changed from thebook, but what it was replaced with. An excellent book that could havebeen a gorgeous miniseries has become merely a dull, average miniserieswith a slightly better than average plot. A huge opportunity wasted.

Robert 2012-05-24 06:54:07

Embarrassingly bad

"Going Postal" is a cringeworthy adaptation of Terry Pratchett's workfor TV where every subtlety is lost, characters are utterly2-dimensional, and music steamrolls you at every turn. Pratchett seemsto have taken every cliché'd character imaginable (including theanimated kitchen sink) and thrown them into a Steampunk "ChristmasCarol". Vampires? Check. Werewolves? Check. Golems? Check. (And theGolem in question here is almost a direct rip-off of "Kryten" from "RedDwarf".) But for all that "Going Postal" has that is unwelcome, it'sconspicuously lacking two elements: a character that you can give adamn about, and a "McGuffin" that makes you care about what happens tothem. "Going Postal" is a superficially clever premise that is utterlylet down by a paper-thin script and made insufferable by treacly musicand unnecessary voice-over. Give this one a WIDE miss.

ithyl 2012-05-24 10:08:36

This movie truly brings the book to life!

Those who haven't discovered Terry Pratchett's brilliantly funny novelshave a treat in store. Most of them are set in an alternate universe,upon a flat world that travels through space on the shoulders of fourelephants that stand on the shell of the great Atuin, a huge turtle.Despite the fact that the Discworld is so fundamentally different fromour own and his characters so fantastic, you will see yourselves, theconventions and concerns of your own world, reflected in surprising,hysterically funny, and entirely entertaining ways.Going Postal is the story of a con man who, when his cons catch up tohim, is faced with the choice of re-opening the derelict post office ordying a painful death. As he reluctantly takes up his post he is facedwith the unintended consequences of his crimes and soon finds himself,with his engagingly unbalanced staff, committed to saving the postoffice, bringing Reacher Gilt, evil owner of the clacks system (ratherlike the internet without electricity) to justice, and winning theheart of Adora Bell Dearheart.I've seen all of the Discworld movies and mini-series and enjoyed them... The Hogfather was great, and The Color of Magic waswonderful,(although I felt Vetenari was a bit too much a comic figurein that one), but Going Postal is nearly perfect! Though I didn'tenvision the patrician as ginger-haired, it made no difference becauseCharles Dance absolutely IS Vetinari. The rest of the cast RichardCoyle as Moist Von Lipwig, Claire Foy as Adora Belle Dearheart, DavidSuchet as Reacher Gilt, Andrew Sachs as Groat and Ian Bonar as Stanley,all are fantastic. Even the Golems are just as I thought they shouldbe! Going Postal is a must-see for any Terry Pratchett fan.

waygarn 2012-05-24 07:47:22

I liked it

Perhaps I lack sophistication but I liked it.It's been so long since I read the book that the details were fuzzy tome but as with the other two adaptations I can live with the changes.To do faithful film versions would require making mini-series of them.I didn't expect a high budget production and expected to see changes,partly to make sense in the allotted time and partly to appeal to abroader audience.As for the uninitiated, I'd think that those who liked it will like thebook better and those who don't probably wouldn't like the book either.Even with all the flaws in the movies I hope to see other of T.Pratchett's books adapted to film. I'm rooting for "Night Watch" as thenext one.

2012-05-21 22:20:58

Not the same thing

Good film. Good actors. Too bad it's not the story that in the book. If you don't mind that- go for it.

marspeach 2012-05-21 07:54:57

Whimsical and Wacky

It's not really a period drama so much as a costume drama- It's got amagical, Dickensian feel with the Victorian inspired costumes andsettings. The world is located on the back of four elephants who are ona giant turtle…I haven't read any of the series but from what I've readabout it and from watching this adaptation, it's a comical crossbetween Dickens and fantasy.This series definitely made me interested in Terry Pratchett's works!Don't know if I'll have time to read them any time soon but one day itwould be fun! I think if you like fantasy series like Harry Potter andsuch as well as costume dramas you should like this show.

doggydog2312 2012-05-20 12:43:30

Probably deserved better

So one of better recent Terry Pratchett books get converted into aminiseries/3 hours movie? As a huge Pratchett fan I should bethrilled... or should I? I'll try to keep it short. Basically, they dida more or less good job of making a random Victorianoid adventure moviewith light fantasy elements. They failed at making a Discworld movie.Ankh Morpork simply isn't Ankh Morpork. Not just for the lack of dwarfsand trolls. It misses nearly all the elements that make it special. Itcould be nearly anywhere.Acting was generally good, with some really good performances to lifteverything to a higher level, and casting was generally good as well.There are exceptions to both though.The costumes? Unsure on the golems, but the vampire and the banshee arejust silly.Too many liberties have been taken with the script, Pratchett'slegendary humour is rarely well replicated. The movie even getsslightly shoddy at some times (obvious unpolished cuts).I'm sure that the budget wasn't brilliant and the movie has its' ownmerits - it's highly approachable by those who don't know anythingabout Discworld. But for a fan, it'll be a disappointment on more thanone level.

Death-of-Rats 2012-05-20 00:50:52

Bitterly disappointed

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 Iput myself through this kind of experience, I really don't. This TVmovie was just excruciating to sit through, as I watched charactersthat 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 forword, action for action onto the big or small screen. Obviously ittakes a lot of work and effort trying to achieve a film adaptation of agreat piece of literature. But seriously? There is no excuse for suchlack of attention to detail, to the storyline, to the attitudes,appearances and mannerisms of the characters, to the general hubbubthat makes Ankh- Morpork Ankh-Morpork. Some of this has been mentionedalready by other reviewers so perhaps I shouldn't dwell, but a blondVetinari? A chubby and snide Drumknott? Rubber-like homogeneous golems?a fawning Adora Belle Dearheart? And where is the life and hustle andbustle of the city? The interactive crowds, not to mention the lack ofspecies 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'tfault an actor for a poor script or a pants director. Sargeant Angualooked awesome, for 2 seconds before she changed into a werewolf in acrowded bar, which obviously, is completely out of character. Stanleywas 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 overlookwhen adapting his books, is that he crafts such amazing, intricatecharacters, beautiful running narratives and delicate witticisms thatone is awed by his magic, and the life that his books take on insideones head. Anything short of complete dedication to his intent issimply an insult. This adaptation was lazy, unspirited, rushed andcomplacent to obviously commercial interests. This makes me very sad. I felt largely the same way about the previous two adaptations - Ireally can't understand any Pratchett fan being happy with theHogfather or the Colour of Magic, and certainly not this. It is a shamethat those of us truly enamoured with Pratchett's work should be soldout 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 toread the entire discworld series at least three times over beforedaring to make an appearance on set, I think I'll be giving any screenadaptation of Pratchett a wide berth.

Jagvillinteha 2012-05-18 04:47:04

A few things to hate, So Many things to love!

First off, This is the third film based on Terry Pratchett Discworldand if you have seen the previous films you know they lacked in quitemany areas.As it happens to be, the moment I started reading Going Postal(thebook) I thought for myself "This would make a really great movie!". Why? you ask and I answer Good story that is easy to follow without anyprevious knowledge of Discworld. Small amount of magic and specialeffects that would require a 100 Million budget to make decent. This iswhere the previous movie Color of Magic went wrong.So as it came to my knowledge Going Postal was the next movie to bemade I felt quite happy, perhaps this would be the time when they gotit all right?Now that I've seen the result I must say that it was in fact, quiteawesome! This is far much better than the mediocre Color of Magicadaptation, and it even goes ahead and surpasses the first movieHoghfather.There are a few things to hate about Going Postal though, and I believethese are the reasons some people absolutely hate this movie. I believewhat all this is about is the use of Cinematic Freedom. First, Anguahas been totally removed use some cinematic freedom and replaced with a"posh blond pale looking I'm not afraid to transform to a werewolfanywhere" girl, which many fans probably hate, I myself hate it aswell. And even then they had to go ahead and make a wolf animation ofher, the type of crappy animations I was hoping wouldn't be required inGoing Postal!Second thing to hate about the movie is the Banshee, seriously, it'sthe most silly piece of outfit ever seen! If you cant make a goodbanshee with wings, then use some of that cinematic freedom and justmake him normal man dressed in black with some black smoke around him!As it turns out the banshee is the single most disturbing thing aboutthis movie since everything else adds to an atmosphere that theDiscworld is actually real. The moment this guy enters flailing hispaper wings and screaming the whole atmosphere takes a big dip.So now you ask, if the movie is so bad why did you rate it so high? Itsquite simple really, because of the two things I just discussed.Because even if those 2 details could have been done A LOT better,there is the whole rest of the movie, and this is a movie that hasgreat acting, great story, great atmosphere, great characters and notto forget Great Entertainment Value!Going Postal is by far the best Discworld movie as of yet and if youare only able to see past the few bad drops in the bucket filled withgreatness, Im sure you will come to the same conclusion as me.

2012-05-17 21:13:02

But words... words have a totally different power. They enter in through our eyes and ears and work their way into our souls.

In the city of Ankh-Morpork, all long-distance communication is done by the clacks (sort of platform telegraphs). But all of that changes in "Going Postal," the third miniseries adaptation of Terry Pratchett's Discworld books -- this one poking fun at the postal service, with a charmining conman, a golem, and a ragtag band of postmen at the helm.Moist von Lipwig (Richard Coyle) was a very successful forger, conman and embezzler... until the Watch caught him, and he was hanged for his crimes. Fortunately, he's not QUITE dead. It turns out that Lord Vetinari (Charles Dance) wants to give Moist a choice: he can die for real, or he can revive the moribund Post Office. So Moist finds himself saddled with a decaying building filled with undelivered letters, two slightly insane postmen, and golem parole officer named Mr. Pump. And every night, letters force Moist to see the fallout of his past crimes, including a terrible one against the prickly Adora Belle Dearheart (Claire Foy), whom he is starting to fall for.But the biggest problem may be the owner of the clacks, Mr. Gilt (David Suchet), who is willing to do whatever it takes to destroy the post office. Though he's becoming a more honest man, Moist must put all his con-man skills to use in a war between the clacks and post office -- or he'll lose a lot more than just his job."Going Postal" a grittier, less fantastical story than the previous two Discworld miniseries. Sure, we still have fantasy stuff like banshees, golems, whispering letters and wizardly devices, but it all basically boils down to the Post Office against the telegraphesque clacks. But don't worry, the adaptation is pitch-perfect. As with the original novel, the miniseries is a witty little affair with lots of funny moments, but it also has some darker moments (Moist being forced to see sepia-toned flashbacks of his crimes' fallouts -- suicide, bankruptcy, etc). The writers give it the usual Pratchett mix: dry, satirical wit ("How dare the Gods work against me! I don't remember giving them permission"), a striking central message, and a clever complicated plot.Coyle really does a brilliant job as Moist, he's a charming rogue who starts out bratty and selfish, but becomes a kinder, better person as the story goes on... without losing his roguish charm. David Suchet plays Gilt with lip-curling relish, and there are some great smaller roles for Andrew Sachs, Nicholas Farrell, and the coldly Machievellian Charles Dance. The one problem is Claire Foy. I don't know what it is about this actress, but her Adora is so relentlessly prickly and snarly that it's hard to see why Moist likes her. It's hard to think of a communication service that makes the postal service look efficient, but "Going Postal" gives you a new appreciation for the written word. Another Pratchettian delight.

siderite 2012-05-16 23:42:00

Weaker than Hogfather, but still pretty good

I have not read the books, so I can hardly comment on the similaritiesor differences from the story, feel or characters therein. I thought itwas a fun movie, with good actors but with a slightly commercialscript.The Discworld universe is presented in a far more modern light, wheremagic gives way to technology and economic mechanisms. The entire filmis a satire to the present capitalist world and no one is leftunscathed. Company owners that cheat and lie and do anything for abottom line, shadowy and powerful people that change the course of the"free" market as they see fit for their (often petty) needs, ridiculousworker syndicates, corporate spying, bureaucracy, nothing is spared.However, while it makes for a good social commentary, the film is lessfunny and definitely less magical than the previous two adaptations ofDiscworld stories. I would say that if it weren't for the attention todetail of British actors and film makers, this film would probably havefelt average.Bottom line: nice, but I kind of expected a little more.

Kato86 2012-05-16 10:12:04

Was it really necessary...

... to make all the changes? I'm not saying I was completelydisappointed. It is a Discworld adaption and as such it was pretty muchimpossible to make something entirely bad. But apart from necessary oradequate changes such as removal of the sorting machine were all thedifferences really needed? The last Flashback was so... no... it issupposed to be a comedy but I don't think this was supposed to becomical. I would have much preferred the postman initiation over allthe flashbacks which really didn't serve any real purpose. (I know whatpurpose it was supposed to serve, yet it didn't. The viewers aren'tmorons and neither is Moist. No need to drop an anvil.)The depiction of the golems was... good enough, I'd assume. I alwaysimagines them otherwise but that's up to personal taste.The actors I liked quite well. I loved Coyle back when he was Jeff andhe is a great Lipvig as well. Adora Belle and Vetinari also were forthe mo part well depicted, except for the changes to Adora's character.Though, Gilt suffered badly from the adaption. I won't blame it on theactor, I guess he did what he was told to do. But the evil genius conman became such a pathetic little worm... No I just didn't like it.Also, I'm looking forward to what they will be doing with the MakingMoney adaption due to the changes in Angua's plot line. Way to makelife difficult for yourself.Anyway, it's not a bad movie per se, but... I would not recommend it ifyou read Going Postal, or plan to do so. Then it is more sad thanenjoyable, or at least to me it was, sadly.

2012-05-16 02:58:21

One of his best books-well adapted.

I wish they had this in the correct format for the USA, but the movie was extremely well done. I loved the book and the movie stayed fairly faithful too the book. The new Vetinari is amazing, much better than Jeremy Irons (even though Jeremy Irons is amazing in other things). The obligatory Pratchett appearance is much appreciated too. :D The way the world was made out to be a steampunk fantasy world made me happy too.

fair_dos 2012-05-15 16:51:27

Terrible Adaptation, if only there was a 0 out of 10

Whoever wrote the script for this TV adaptation should have his figginroasted and sliced into tiny pieces then given to a seagull. Also somesort of serious bodily injury would be appropriate. It appears as ifhe/she managed to read the book and get the general gist of the plot-line, made a note of several character names and remembered a couple ofjokes that he/she obviously didn't understand and attempt to combinethem all into 3 hours that bear almost no resemblance to the originalbook, with several random moments stolen from the book added in out ofcontext. I do understand that not everything from the book could makeit in, and budgetary constraints do... er... constrain things but theycould have easily done a much better job than this.As another reviewer's already mentioned, most of the cast looked likethey'd stepped out of a pantomime, the only exception (in my opinion)Tamsin Greig as Sachrissa Cripslock, Ian Bonar as Stanley Howler andCharles Dance's commanding presence as Lord Vetinari, even though hishair colour and beard weren't appropriate, but i digress. It seemsironic how unrealistic and frankly stupid the sky adaptation teamseemed to make the show for a work based on an author who attempts toingest as much realism and intelligence into his fantasy books aspossible.There were 2 moments that gave me a modicum of entertainment; cries of"Heretic" towards Tamsin Greg in a Pratchettian moment not in theoriginal book and a 2 second cameo of watchman Nobby Nobbs.I could go on about the stupid banshee costume and terrible specialeffects i could spend ages complaining about the fact that all thegolems were identical, i could complain about the lack of trolls anddwarfs in the crowd scenes i could wonder why there were plot threadsthat began but were never ended but that would be as pointless as the 3hours i wasted watching this piece of garbage.Do not watch this if you're a fan of Terry Pratchett's books, you WILLbe sorely disappointed.

TheLittleSongbird 2012-05-14 13:06:13

So far, the best of the Sky/Pratchett adaptations

I did like Hogfather and Colour of Magic too, but what made me likeGoing Postal best of all was that it was more solid in especially thestory, pacing and acting departments. Not that the other two were badin those categories, but they did have characters that weren't exploredas well as they could have been or there were moments of sluggishpacing or forced dialogue.Going Postal could have easily had those problems but it didn't really.Of all the Sky/Pratchett adaptations it is the best paced overall,while the story even with the changes is compelling and the writing isplayful and witty on the whole.The costumes are colourful and beautiful, and the sets and scenery arealso stunning and the effects in general are above average though Iwasn't crazy about the Banshee. The photography does very well tocapture these lovely visuals, while the music is very good and thedirection credible enough.The cast I feel is the best yet. Charles Dance, Richard Coyle and StevePemberton turn in great performances, and Claire Foy is also appealingand David Suchet is an interesting Gilt.All in all, I thoroughly enjoyed it, and while I liked all threeSky/Pratchett adaptations this one was the best. 9/10 Bethany Cox

poebelsmurfen 2012-05-13 19:18:54

Just another biased review

Like it says in the title, I'm writing this review from a biased pointof view. I read the book prior to watching the series, because I wantedto know the story before I saw the TV-series.And that ruined the whole TV-series for me.The series are interesting in the way that they put a face on thescreen to the name of a character from a book. But that's about as faras the similarities go. Some movie adaptations of a book change a fewinsignificant points in order to make the movie more appealing to themasses, and also because some things don't work out as well in movieform as they do in a book form, which is fair enough. But twisting andskipping the most important plot elements all together is a trap whichthese TV-series have fallen into, resulting in a plain anduninteresting version of the story.As previously stated, I think the TV-series will only have a slightappeal to Discworld-fans, simply because the series put a face to thename of characters from the book. To people who do not like, or thosewho are not familiar to the Discworld books, I can't see any appeal toeither of these groups in these TV-series.

Philip Swain 2012-05-11 23:59:59

Gone Postal, and not going back

First off I'd just like to say that I don't like being negative aboutbodies of work as a lot of people have worked tirelessly to puttogether a piece of art that has required dedication, hard work andmany many late nights I'm sure.This being said, I was moved to write a review on what is one of myfavourite Pratchett stories due to one of the worst adaptations of astory I've watched (the worst by far being I Am Legend). This piece ofwork seemed extremely rushed, poorly thought out and, for me, seemed tocompletely miss the point of the book, and the progression of thecharacters.I appreciate how hard it is to turn a large book into a 3 hour film.This being said, there were more scenes and dialogue made up than takenfrom the book. Entire chapters were replaced with generated sceneswhich didn't convey the message of the book, or develop the charactersanywhere near the degree that the story did. Also, story-line's wereinvented and adapted to change the characters progression throughstory, in ways that didn't fit with the original story line. Thebiggest ones for me was Spike giving up smoking at the end, along withGilt killing Horsefry and being overall far more evil than he iswritten as, and Moist's apparent turn from sinner into Saint. Evenparts of the characters that existed were either accentuated orrepressed to fit in with what seemed like Sky's target audience.The character's were not fantastically portrayed either, although I putthis down to the script rather than the actors ability. Moist had noneof the flash and over the top promises that made the character who heis and was the focus for his philosophy (and gained his golden suit fartoo late and with no comment on it). Spike flirts constantly withMoist, and has none of the spite she begins with, and therefore cameover as a wronged, fawning teen-comedy star. Vetinari was closer, butagain missed the malevolent, no nonsense attitude he appears in thebook with. Gilt comes across far less as a nasty business-man with acon-artist back ground, and more like a James Bond baddie determined torule the world.The one point of praise I do have is the fantastic casting. Purely onlooks, I think it is one of the best cast choice since the LoTRtrilogy. Every character, building and costume looks stunning and theextras who supplied their own costumes deserve an extra bit of praisefor making the look if it so genuine.If you haven't read the story, then go and enjoy it. If you have, thensteer clear unless you want a simplified and child-like version of whatis a fantastic story from one of the most prolific writers of our time.

SoWhy 2012-05-11 07:05:11

Better than "The Colour of Magic" but worse than "Hogfather" (Updated)

SkyOne has tried to tackle the very difficult task of creating a moviebased on Terry Pratchett's fantastic universe once again with it'sthird movie, "Going Postal". Just like those two before it, "The Colourof Magic" and "Hogfather", this title seems randomly picked from thelist of Discworld novels - their first movie was based on the 20th, thesecond on the 1st and 2nd (unsuccessfully trying to merge them intoone), this one on the 33rd. While "Hogfather" was a brilliant adaption,with characters and scenes true to the book and a great atmosphere,"The Colour of Magic" was influenced by a terrible arrogance. Afterhaving made a near-perfect adaption (as perfect as possible at least)with "Hogfather", "The Colour of Magic" changed a great many thingsfrom the books it was allegedly based one: The main character was 40years older, the plot changed, they tried to cast people who werefamous rather than those who fitted the book and they tried to combinetwo novels into one movie. And the end result was, predictably, verybad, at least if you had read the books before it."Going Postal" seems to rectify some of the last adaption's mistakes.The scenery looks much more like it's described in the book and many ofthe secondary characters are indeed based on the book - with theexception of the main character, Moist von Lipwig, unfortunately. WhileI do like Richard Coyle, he, as a 38-year-old, cannot convincingly playa character who should be in his mid-20s. And of course a number ofchanges were made from the book, some irrelevant and partly creative(like the B/W sequences depicting his crimes) and some relevant andstupid (like having Adora ride with him, Angua in the beginning,meeting Reacher Gilt so soon etc.) because they were differentprecisely to make the story work.One can hope for further adaptations of Pratchett's works nonethelessand possibly SkyOne will avoid unnecessary changes in their nextadaption (we can only hope it's "Night Watch" :-)) and stay true to thebook where possible. Still, "Going Postal" is an enjoyable adaption ofone of the (imho) best books by Terry Pratchett, despite some changesthat will annoy someone who already read the book.Update: It seems I spoke too soon. When I wrote the review, it wasafter viewing part 1. Unfortunately, part 2 managed to be much morelike "The Colour of Magic" than "Hogfather". Vital, important parts ofthe plot were either removed or changed (Vetinari keeps the money;Offler was the god who allegedly provided it; Moist chose the messagerather than Ridcully - although it was vital to the plot that thewizard did so (because it had many pictures); Adora giving up smoking;etc.) and frankly ridiculous story lines and changes were added (Giltis now, as a fellow reviewer wrote, more of a James Bond supervillianwannabe rather than a con man like Moist - even to the point of killingHorsefry himself; the overly dramatic scene on the tower at the end;the soppy speech at the end and the "rescue"; etc.)So I have to revise my initial conclusion, it's far worse than"Hogfather" (9/10) while still being better than "The Colour of Magic"(2/10): 5/10. Hopefully future SkyOne adaptions will rectify thoseproblems.

memmh 2012-05-10 14:49:46

Disappointing adaptation

Having enjoyed the two previous adaptations by Sky of Terry PratchettDiscworld novels - "Hogfather" and "The Colour of Money" - I was verydisappointed with this adaptation of "Going Postal." There were manyaspects which were well done, for example, the humour and satireendemic in the Discworld books were present and the overall quality ofthe writing and the acting were excellent, while the creation ofAnkh-Morpork and the casting of most of the characters were just right.(Andrew Sachs as Tolliver Groat, Ian Bonar as Stanley Howler and ClaireFoy as Adora Belle Dearheart were all very good; Richard Coylecertainly captured the spirit of Moist von Lipwig, despite beingsomewhat older than the character; Tamsin Greig is always worthwatching, even though she wasn't entirely accurate as SacharissaCripslock; and, of course, David Suchet is always great, even ifRichard Coyle is more the age I imagined Reacher Gilt to be whenreading the book. The main disappointment for me was Charles Dance,who, unfortunately, didn't make Lord Vetinari quite as forbidding andintimidating as he should be.)However, any disagreements I may have had with the casting are minordetails, especially as the actors are all so good. My main problem waswith the actual storyline itself. While I didn't expect the adaptationto be exactly true to the book, I felt that far too much was changed. Ihad been looking forward to watching this but in the end, despite theinvolvement of Terry Pratchett in the project, the story I was watchingbore so little relation to the book that it could hardly be called"Terry Pratchett's Going Postal." Rather, "Loosely Based on TerryPratchett's Going Postal" would have been a more accurate title. Isincerely hope that the next Discworld adaptation that Sky does,whichever novel from the series it may be, will be better.

Wednesday_Next 2012-05-09 21:03:54

Only OK, awful casting on leads

Production values are top notch with one, terrible exception: Mr Pumpis utterly awful. His costume was taken out of the lower-school foamart class. They did Grile fine, so why such a bad job of the golems? Iwas surprised at the casting, actually, especially as the productionseemed so opulent. Besides the costume, Mr Pump is too short, andrarely golem-like. Only the moment when he held Lipwig by his ankle wasrecognizable. Richard Coyle could not con his way out of a damp paperbag. Not glib, not clever, not quick, not joyful. Lipwig has anincredible way with words. Coyle, sadly, does not. David Suchet wascompletely ridiculous--Reacher Gilt is like a smart pirate, also aconman--not simply a sociopath.On the plus side, unlike another reviewer, I wasn't too fussed byCharles Dance. The hair color was wrong, but he was true to Ventinari'sdemeanor and self-control. He was miles better than Jeremy Ironscamping it up in The Colour of Magic. Claire Foy was fine, as wasAndrew Sachs. Ingrid Bolsø Berdal was great in the small part of Angua,though she acted out of character. And last but absolutely not least,Ian Bonar was a complete pleasure to watch from beginning to last--aperfect Stanley. Intense, slightly wrong; he even leaned to the side("he was raised by peas") even though it wasn't mentioned in thescript.The treatment was OK. I could live with most of the narrative changes.It's just that if you're going to condense it this much, the actors,especially the leads, should really be inhabiting the characters, whoare all so fully formed to begin with. I wish they had all been IanBonor's caliber.