Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%

Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

It is interesting even when nothing much happens, which is for most of its 3-hour running time. Read full review

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

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.

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.

Like it says in the title, I'm writing this review from a biased point of view. I read the book prior to watching the series, because I wanted to 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 the screen to the name of a character from a book. But that's about as far as the similarities go. Some movie adaptations of a book change a few insignificant points in order to make the movie more appealing to the masses, and also because some things don't work out as well in movie form as they do in a book form, which is fair enough. But twisting and skipping the most important plot elements all together is a trap which these TV-series have fallen into, resulting in a plain and uninteresting version of the story.As previously stated, I think the TV-series will only have a slight appeal to Discworld-fans, simply because the series put a face to the name of characters from the book. To people who do not like, or those who are not familiar to the Discworld books, I can't see any appeal to either of these groups in these TV-series.

I've only come to the Discworld fairly recently and 'Going Postal' was the first book I read. I've found it one of the most enjoyable books in the series, and Moist Von Lipwig is by far and away my favourite character. So I had a vested interest in this, Sky's third adaptation of a Terry Pratchett novel.After the first episode aired, I was in raptures. It was well filmed, the script was good, it had remained fairly faithful to the plot and it appeared to be well cast (although all the way through I expected Richard Coyle to jump into the TARDIS as there's something very Doctor Who-ish about his performance. And I thought Adora Belle Dearheart wasn't written very well at all). The second episode, however, was very disappointing. It seemed that the writers had read half of 'Going Postal' and then left their copy on the bus so had to resort to making the end of the story up. I cannot understand why they would change it so drastically. There's artistic license, and then there's sheer stupidity.I guess we cannot expect any better from the writers. For a screenplay to be 100% true to the book, Pratchett would have to write it himself and now that's never going to happen. I would have liked to have seen them have a crack at 'Making Money' but their ending of 'Going Postal' hardly segues smoothly into the following book.I prefer 'Hogfather', but 'Going Postal' is still very entertaining. You just have to try to forget ever having read the book.