CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Bergorks If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

Verity Robins Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

Cristal The movie really just wants to entertain people.

Tweekums From an early age Moist von Lipwig made a living by conning others out of theirs; ultimately he is caught in the city of Ankh-Morpork and sentenced to hang. He survives the hanging and finds himself being given a choice by Lord Vetinari, the city's patrician, he can either be executed again or take over the running of the city's failing post office. Not surprisingly he chooses the latter. When he gets to the Post Office he soon thinks he has been given an impossible task; there are years' worth of letters stacked everywhere and all recent post masters have met with untimely deaths. He is a quick thinker and soon starts to get the service working again… much to the annoyance of Reacher Gilt, the owner of the 'Clacks'; a system of sending messages via semaphore, who doesn't want any rivals. It becomes apparent that Gilt isn't above murder eliminate the competition. Moist von Lipwig will have to be particularly clever and get the help of Adora Belle Dearheart, whose family invented the clacks but were conned out of its ownership, if he is to keep the post office open and avoid being hanged again.I enjoyed this adaption of Terry Pratchett's book; I haven't read it yet but have read others featuring many of the characters including 'Making Money' which is also centred on Moist von Lipwig. I thought Richard Coyle did a really good job bringing the character to life. Charles Dance was suitably imposing as Lord Vetinari and Claire Foy impressed as Adora. I was less sure about David Suchet's performance as Gilt; it had a bit too much of the pantomime villain for my tastes. Ankh-Morpork was portrayed well enough although I imagined it to be more threatening with narrower streets and intimidating characters lurking in the shadows. There were plenty of things to enjoy about the production; I liked how the Clacks where depicted and the appearance of various characters who have small parts here but are more important in other Disc World novels; notably Sergeant Angua, the werewolf in the Watch. Overall I rather enjoyed this and would recommend it to people who have enjoyed the Disc World books.

connollymeister I've just finished watching "Going Postal", yet again a live action adaptation of a Discworld book has missed the mark. 1) The whole thing looks like it's been filmed on a back lot, this is especially sad, since I'm pretty sure that they spent a lot of money on the production, but I think it looks like a school pantomime. 2) The eccentric, larger than life style of the books works in print (and I think would work in GGI) but falls completely flat in live action, unless you're willing to spend movie budget money, not TV miniseries money. For example, the city watch uniforms look comical in real life, and they ruined my suspension of disbelief. 3) The characterization of so many characters is markedly different from the book, and for no particular reason. Most egregious is Reacher Gilt, who's much more a pantomime villain, and far less the smooth talking master con man. 4) The storyline is drastically different to the book in key point, but none of the changes seem to have a practical reason, they don't add to the story or condense it for TV. 5) While major plot points are changed or omitted to the detriment of the story, incidental pieces of dialogue that add nothing to the plot are transcribed faithfully, but what reads well in print falls flat when spoken aloud. 6) Coyle, who's a perfectly capable actor, is simply much older (6-8 years) than the character of Lipwig as described in the book (~27 years old).

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.

lordman I must admit that I am quite surprised about the negative feedback the third movie based on Pratchett's works has received. There are many reasons for my surprise, which I will introduce in the following short review.Going Postal is a story about a master con-artist who faces the gallows but it given a second shot at life as master of Ankh Morpork's run-down post office. To save the post (i.e. his own life) and win over the principled Golem-rights-activist Adora Dearheart, he has to employ all his conman wit to beat the owner of the telegraph-like "Clacks" in a business race evoking industrial-age competitions like that between Westinghouse and Edison, where showmanship and publicity were far more important than the actual product.Talking about the product, this movie is well-acted and well-presented. It is based on one of Pratchett's newer stories and evokes a more urban industrial Steampunk feel than its Fantasy (Colour of Magic) and Faerie Tale-based (Hogfather) predecessors.Still, for a friend of solid acting, solid backdrops, and more substance than metaphor, this may qualify as the best of the bunch.Someone pointed out that the film lacked the "magic" of the other adaptions. This is all but true, yet, the lack of a fairy-tale air allows the narrative to flow much better. This time, you know precisely what you are looking at. After the somewhat confused and heavily-altered adaption of Colour of Magic, it is a relief to see a certain solid quality in terms of serious movie features returning to the series.Let's face it: a TV-based production never does well when it relies on special effects more than it does on good actors, a decent script and solid direction. This was a mistake all too obvious in Colour of Magic, and is one not repeated here. Certainly, the visuals still to a perfect job at bringing Discworld to life, mostly due to the enormous attention given to them. However, they never feel overtaxed with their task, which makes it easier to suspend your disbelief in this adaption than in the other ones.Of course, the movie is not for everyone. Especially those expecting a fantasy-fest will be sorely disappointed. This is fantasy only in the broadest sense, i.e. it takes place in a world quite fantastic and (maybe not quite to) unlike out own. If one wanted to exaggerate, it is - as Discworld always was - to fantasy what Daybreakers is to vampire fiction - a satiric subversion of the tropes.It should be noted that the film is staffed mainly with rather less known actors - and this is a good thing. Although one might miss the presence of the likes of Tim Curry, Jeremy Irons and even Sean Astin, these are not exactly C-list actors either. You will be surprised how many of them you have seen before. I have graded some of the initial performances below. Please note that the 9 is not an average but a measure of the entire film relating to other reviews.Plot: 10/10 - The best adaption yet, the changes within which are less noticeable than in Colour or Hogfather. Visuals: 7/10 - Clearly a TV production, but made with love. Not in over its head, unlike the previous adaptions. Special kudos for the sets (even though there is much subtle CGI involved), which are beautiful. Audio: 8/10 - More subtle, fitting. Certainly did not have a huge budget, but everything fits.Richard Coyle as Moist: 8/10 - I was skeptical at first, but Richard Coyle makes for an energetic and sharp-witted scoundrel. An excellent fit for Moist Von Lipwick.Claire Foy as Adora Belle Dearheart: 7/10 - She plays the role very much to the expected degree, and while her on-screen chemistry with Coyle is great, her performance is a bit too much "by-the-book" for my taste. Still, Claire Foy displays a lot of charisma; a more courageous performance might have been in order, though.David Suchet as Reacher Gilt: 5/10 - Suchet plays Gilt very much as a commedia dell arte "scaramuccio", the scheming, conniving, but ultimately inept villain, always with a top hat and twirl-worthy beard. Oh, and the eyepatch. This is actually precisely what the role demands and he delivers. Still, there is not crowning moment in his performance, he just "gets it done", which is a pity given that his character is the only one standing up to Lord Vetinari.Charles Dance as Vetinari: 7/10 - Charles Dance is not Jeremy Irons, that is for certain. It is also for the better, as Irons' performance in Colour, while memorable, was also very much unbearable on the longer run. Good thing it was so brief. Dance does a solid job, and gives Vetinari a very human, while inhumanly competent, face.Steve Pemberton as Drumknott: 10/10 - I have singled out Pemberton as Drumknott because it is hard not to like his take on the character. Drumknott may just be Vetinari's right-hand-man and therefore destined to an existence as living piece of backdrop, but Pemberton really gives the devout assistant a depth which, I believe, is quite true to the spirit in which the character was conceived. He is not a footstool, although trained as one, and actually immensely able when tasked. However, he does not show this openly but rather gives subtle hints at his capability. Of course, this is (probably) not in the script, but mainly conveyed through Pemberton's acting. He nailed this part.All in all, if the Sky1-Productions continue in this vein, we will not have to fear another disappointment like Colour. Expensive actors a good movie do not make. Great overall style and love and care, that's more like it.