Lumsdal Good , But It Is Overrated By Some

Micransix Crappy film

Glucedee It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

Siflutter It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

SnoopyStyle In Ankh-Morpork, there are vampires and werewolves. More importantly, the post office is a crumbling mess. Moist Von Lipwig (Richard Coyle) is a petty con man. He gets caught and Lord Vetinari (Charles Dance) hangs him to an inch of his life. Vetinari lets him off to head the defunct post office. Mr. Pump, a golem, is used as his unceasing guardian and parole officer. Groat and Stanley are the only two junior postmen. Their opposition is the Clacks which compost of countless light towers relaying messages run by the ruthless Reacher Gilt. Lipwig tries to modify Pump and goes to the Golem Trust. He finds Adora Belle Dearheart (Claire Foy) in mourning after her brother John Dearheart was killed on top of one of the Clacks towers.It's a wild, imaginative adaptation of this weird fantasy world. It's a wonder visually considering it's a TV show. I'm not terribly in love with these characters. Lipwig is too dumb at times, and too mean-spirited for too long. His first letter is a missed opportunity. There was no real reason for him to deliver it. There has to be a more compelling reason for a scheming, selfish conman to selflessly deliver the first letter. Inventing stamps is interesting. In addition, I'm uncertain about Adora Belle's character. She's very one dimensional and I would like her to be more. This is a nice wacky world and I would like to like the characters more.

TheLittleSongbird I did like Hogfather and Colour of Magic too, but what made me like Going Postal best of all was that it was more solid in especially the story, pacing and acting departments. Not that the other two were bad in those categories, but they did have characters that weren't explored as well as they could have been or there were moments of sluggish pacing 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 is playful and witty on the whole.The costumes are colourful and beautiful, and the sets and scenery are also stunning and the effects in general are above average though I wasn't crazy about the Banshee. The photography does very well to capture these lovely visuals, while the music is very good and the direction credible enough.The cast I feel is the best yet. Charles Dance, Richard Coyle and Steve Pemberton turn in great performances, and Claire Foy is also appealing and David Suchet is an interesting Gilt.All in all, I thoroughly enjoyed it, and while I liked all three Sky/Pratchett adaptations this one was the best. 9/10 Bethany Cox

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.