Pluskylang Great Film overall

MamaGravity good back-story, and good acting

AutCuddly Great movie! If you want to be entertained and have a few good laughs, see this movie. The music is also very good,

Sameer Callahan It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

BurgerAndBeer I'm a longtime fan of Pratchett and his worlds, and that's why I write to steer people away from this abomination. I give it a vote of 1 only because I can't post negative numbers."Wyrd Sisters," the book is a complex interweaving of the plot of "Macbeth", and the lives of the people of Lancre, but none of this subtlety comes through in the adaptation: it's just a -pardon me- two dimensional portrayal of the witches, and everyone else, as stock figures that you can't possibly come to care about.The animation is quite bad, on the level of a children's Saturday morning cartoon show.The voices don't fit the characters at all. Granny Weatherwas never screeches - she has a hard flat voice that doesn't come through here at all.The editing is non-existent. The producer and screenwriter simply took the book and stuffed it onto film, so it appears disjointed and random.As a result, a finely nuanced piece of literature comes through flat, lifeless and annoying. If you're already a Pratchett fan, stay far away from this ghastly thing, and if you're new to Discworld, don't judge Pratchett's fiction by this movie. Go rent "Hogfather" or "The Colour of Magic" for a real introduction.

neil_t-2 I wanted so much to like this movie but I can't say that I did.Terry Pratchett's book is wonderful and the film follows the plot pretty much exactly and for that it gets four stars. The characters are drawn reasonably and are not jarringly different from how I would imagine them.That's what's good about it but everything else was disappointing.First of all; a great deal of TP's humor lies in imaginative similes that do not translate visually at all. "Lighting stabbed at the mountains like an inefficient assassin" how do you visualize that in a cartoon? It just becomes lightning. In the books the weather is cast as if it were a character but it has no lines so the film ignores that running gag and the Shakespearean parody aspect of that completely.Perhaps more important than that, though, is the cartoon style. My problems with that are difficult to describe but try to imagine the difference between Scooby Doo and The Simpsons. The Simpsons doesn't try nearly so hard to be drawn in any detail however the faces, stances, and expressions are carefully drawn to help convey the emotions of the characters, with excellent comic timing for adults. That's what is missing. This film has no comic timing whatsoever. None. Expressions of surprise, for what they are worth, appear on characters faces a full second after the surprise has passed and dissipated. Other expressions likewise don't convey any useful information or emotional content. Like a Scooby Doo cartoon.Voice acting likewise appears uncoordinated. Although the voices individually aren't bad (except for the actors - especially Tomjohn and Vitollier who sound embarrassed to be on stage) - in concert they do not sound at all natural. Real conversations overlap. This sounds like everyone is reading a line and then pointing to the next person instead of acting out an entire conversation. Example in point when Magrat and Granny are arguing and Nanny is "coo cooing" the baby... The baby talk is a separate line, spoken in isolation, while the arguers wait for it to be spoken. That's not how people argue. That's just bad acting. Very, very, bad acting.The opening dialog of the book, "When shall we three meet again", "Well I can do next Tuesday" is a good joke when handled well which the film spoils by putting another scene in between the lines.I'm sorry, but this just is not good.

Cemetarygirl I have been a fan of the Wyrd Sisters for a long time, but it is only now that I am fortunate enough to see this film in full. I did catch a little when it was shown on the ABC years ago, but was not able to get a copy until now. And I am glad I did. Christopher Lee as DEATH was superb! He definitely owned that role. And Jane was a most perfect Magrat. I actually imagined a couple of different actors as Granny and Nanny, still they did a wonderful job of bringing these characters to life. Terry Prachett knows his Witches and comes up with the most amazing characters, that have kept his numerous fans enthralled and in a state of wonder as we identify and mimic and quote him as many times as we can fit it in. This story a mixture of Shaksperian drama with more magic, more deaths and deep and darkened dungeons. And a cat called Greebo. As the Witches try not to interfere in the course of things after saving the Kings son from the usurpers henchmen. We have a Fool that isn't, a traveling bunch of thespians (from Thespia). I for one loved the simplicity of the animation, it was a great joy to watch and I will continue to do so as Discworld turns. Exit stage left.

kirsty_uk I loved this animation! After reading the book first, I totally agreed with how the characters were represented.The three witches are by far the best characters, Magrat and Nanny Ogg are so funny. The story is good too. Taking elements from stories that have included witches in the past. In particular Macbeth and sleeping Beauty.I talked to Terry Pratchett online last year when he was doing a guest chat on yahoo. I asked him if he was happy with the two animated versions of his books Wyrd Sisters and Soul Music and he said he was extremely pleased with them. So there you have it.Some people may be put off because it's animation, thinking "It's for kids" Although there is nothing nasty in it to make it unsuitable for kids, I think it appeals to an older audience and that kids might not understand all the subtle and clever jokes. The books themselves are definitely aimed at adults.In conclusion just go and watch this now if you are a discworld fan.