Going Postal (2010)

If you enjoy getting absorbed in fantastic worlds, like Harry Potter, then "Going Postal" should definitely be on your list. Adapted from a Terry Pratchett novel, it's imaginative, humorous and highly entertaining. Despite being made on a budget as a miniseries for telly, "Postal" has big-budget cinematic feel and probably could have been released in theatres. The costumes, set design and art direction are particularly outstanding. And rather than rely on big budget effects, they got rather inventive with practical effects, such as the Golems.There's also some tremendous acting from veterans like David Suchet and Charles Dance, and a great cast of comedic actors, like Tamsin Greig from "Black Books" and Andrew Sachs (aka Manuel from "Fawlty Towers").There are little niggles, such as the unconvincing chemistry between the two leads, but overall, "Going Postal" is well worth a watch, especially if you have kids, meaning 11 or 12+. It does get pretty dark in a couple spots, but mostly lighthearted and fun.

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.

Perhaps I lack sophistication but I liked it.It's been so long since I read the book that the details were fuzzy to me 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 a broader audience.As for the uninitiated, I'd think that those who liked it will like the book 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 the next one.

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.