This is an adaptation of the novel of the same name from the series "Flat World". The film was surprisingly fascinating, witty, with excellent acting work. It's a genre of satirical fantasy. The swindler, who has been hanged but escaped execution, is forced to accept Lord Vetinari’s offer, which he cannot refuse because he will die, to revive the postal service of Ankh Morpork. He will, of course, try to escape, but he will be confronted with a gole, who will simultaneously monitor his safety. In the city, he will have to face a murderer and a fraudster who seized the semaphore service, as well as survive many different vicissitudes. But in a good fantasy, everything will end well and the villain will be punished. The film is large in volume - 2 episodes, each more than 90 minutes. Starring Richard Coyle, David Suche and Claire Foy.
When I think of Terry Pratchett’s work, there’s always the image of a respected stray circus under the dome. From afar you hear loud music and go to the sound in anticipation of the show. With each step, you see more and more light, colored lights and the awareness of something grand in the air.
However, you do not look through the eyes of an idle spectator, as it may seem at the very edge of the tent. You are one of the staff of the circus, so you go past the stall with sweet cotton candy and popcorn, past the ticket offices to the inconspicuous far corner and step into the darkness, you get to the holy of holies - the backstage. There is no stupidity and fuss, here are the last preparations for the next issue, which are preceded by hours of hard training in an empty arena. Only here you understand the actors, see their real character, not the stage image. You keep walking between cages of predators and a pile of props, and if you're smart enough, you realize that a circus isn't about 1.5-2 hours of twists and tricks on stage. This is a difficult job, built on trust and attention to the little things.
There's room for the author. He is always on stage, like an invisible tightrope walker who is above all, thanks to which he skillfully keeps the crowd in suspense, keeping balance and not forgetting to show the wonders of verbal balancing.
Unfortunately, the directors of the film show the “Opohdrovie” from the side of the onlookers from the hall, who do not know the details. After all, viewers are not behind the scenes and see only laughter and fun. Some may say that this is not necessary, but I honestly do not understand why with this approach to take on Pratchett. Each of his works carries the idea that everything is not so simple, that every action has a stage and a scene and you have to go everywhere to get the right idea. It's not in the movie.
Plot
In some places crumpled, in some places tightened. There are moments that go against the book. Extra scenes are empty and do not cause emotions, and some of the missing moments pushing the plot in the book are missed and huge holes gape.
There are still a couple of fresh moves when stories from the past are shown and when the golem catches Moist on the gallows (the moment is interesting for those who have not read books).
entourage and costumes
Almost the best element of the film. Rare scenes of the city suggest a dirty, crowded metropolis of the late 19th century and it's great. Costumes, in general, are also great, especially liked, Angwa, Barbant, Saharisa. But there are 2 major misses. The first, oddly enough, is Vitinari. He's a hell of a killer in black clothes and a black cloak, which has been repeatedly emphasized, not a priest in a cassock. And 2 misses is Mocrist, who most of the film was held in an ordinary costume, although this can be more attributed to the plot inconsistencies.
Characters
Here is the opinion of a pessimist, for whom the glass in this film was half empty. The visuals are well-chosen. But it's like a finger in the sky. For some key actors, she simply did not fall into the image created by the author. In my head, and then and then sounded the phrase Stanislavsky voice – I do not believe!
Mocrist
A simple idiot, not a clever crook. According to the film, it seems that he is more likely to accidentally achieve success, crooking than using his many years of experience as a crook.
Bribe
Not the undercover owner of the city, but the cardboard villain from the comics, such a bad bad boy.
Vitinari
The acting is great. Power, power, manners. It's all right.
Miss Goodheart
Playing the actress is successful, but it seems the director confused cynicism with hysteria.
Gross
Very kind old man, cheerful. The image is interesting, the actor played well, although peculiar.
The chancellor
A faceless ordinary wizard from children's fairy tales. An old man without a crossbow.
Stanley, Slepin, Anga, Saharisa, Pony, Barbant
Getting to the point.
Summary
The movie was watched through force. In the last 20 minutes I regretted watching. Even the little that was in the character of most of the characters smeared ill-conceived cuts and directorial exacerbations of the plot in the last scenes. Pratchett is in the small. Part of the important details simply disappeared and instead of an original, unique world, a typical fairy tale for teenagers who do not read books appeared.
5 out of 10 just for a juicy picture and some good moments and a wagon of disappointment for everything else
10 of 10 I don’t particularly like fantasy, because of all the works I read in this genre (not very numerous, in other words), I was able to believe in the sense of Stanislavsky only in the 2nd world – Tolkien and Pratchett. Only Pratchett was also lucky with the adaptation: the filmmakers managed to remove not pop squalor (or wretched pop??), suitable only for box office, as in the case of the great predecessor, but a really adequate film that conveys the style, aesthetics, idea and atmosphere of Pratchett’s books. It must have been Sir Terry Pratchett's careless involvement. Maybe that is why these films are much less known to the general audience?
“Overview” is really atypical for a modern science fiction film. Many people complain about the minimal use of computer graphics. But so cinema is actually an art, not a review of modern technology. First of all, there should be directing and acting, and everything else is optional and in supporting roles. Therefore, costumed golems are better than painted golems, because Pompa-19 is not an element of entourage, but a character with his inner world, although not a person, so a computer image can not replace him by definition. And this is an adequate use of the tool only where it is really needed, and not where it can be used in principle and the tail of the mare cannot but please.
Although it has caused many to grumble that Ankh Morpork has too little magic, that it is too similar to our world. But this is our world! This is such a satire on him, only in the fantasy setting. Some Pratchett books have more satire, some have more fantasy. “Admiration” is probably a champion in the level of proximity to our world, so this recognition and similarity to what we see outside the window is adequate. But it's very, very exciting to see how much love Ankh Morpork was made in this film. We see on the screen its streets, random passers-by who, it seems, do not play a role in the development of the plot, but create the atmosphere of the largest city of the Flat World. However, the creation of this atmosphere helps a lot and the music – brash, major and memorable.
Carefully conveyed not only Pratchett's aesthetics, but also his philosophy. He is not a tribune, not a passionary, he does not call anyone to the barricades, because he is too skeptic and ironic for this. No, Pratchett is just showing old-fashioned things from an unusual angle. He sees how thin the line between fraud and murder is (given the general lack of systematic thinking, I can only express my admiration for being able to see a causal relationship between events separated in time and space). The swindler retains the ability to hear his angel, in contrast to the benign unbearable gilding. And the occupational therapy with the restoration of the post office is simply magnificent! At the same time, Pratchett diligently avoids pathos and boring moralizing. If you want to make your own conclusions, if you don’t want to – just laugh like we laughed at this film with a large group of friends, most of whom were not familiar with Flat World before. So, the authors of the film, thanks to which people from the street, in principle, were able to get into what is happening on the screen.
Special thanks for the acting. After all, the film is based on it and on the incomparable Pratchett dialogues. Maybe one of the actors and overdoes a little with the schizophrenic image, but in general it does not interfere. How wonderful is David Sushe! Before that he was known to me only as the most canonical Hercule Poirot, and I considered him the actor of one role, albeit brilliantly successful. But then I realized that this is absolutely not true! Briber Gild is not Poirot at all. Yes, the cat's face has not gone anywhere, but it is a completely different cat - cruel and insidious, almost no longer a cat. I admired him and applauded him standing up.
P.S. What a pity that in the new adaptations of the Flat World, Sir Pratchett will never appear again.
My love for Sir Terence Pratchett began with the book “More, the Disciple of Death.”Then I read the series about “Tiffany Hurts”, “Witches” and then of course “The Position” and “Make Money” about the eccentric fraudster Moist von Lipwig.
I think Terry Pratchett’s books are very difficult to film.
Since we are going to talk about the film “Honoring, I will begin my review.”
What immediately caught my eye was the strange name of the main character.
Why in the translations of the book, as in the film, is he called Mochrist von Lipwig instead of the proper Moist von Lipwig?
The proposed version in the film as well as in the book does not sound at all.
And Adora somehow became the Angel of Goodheart, in general, somehow ridiculous.
Let’s start with the main character of the film, with Moist. .
The most interesting thing is that Terry Pratchett does not describe his appearance in the book. But she's "memorable." The only thing we know is that he's young, like he's 26. In the film, it was performed by actor Richard Coyle. I liked that the role took the actor of mature age, so more believe that before his work in the Post Office he managed to pull a lot of scams and accordingly already known.
I liked the screen image with its attractive appearance, a kind of eccentricity. But still in the film, he is shown not as a cunning and enterprising guy, but as a person who swims with the flow. The movie is more of a comedy Moist, I think. In my view, it looked different, but the on-screen Moist definitely deserves attention.
Angel Goodheart.
Beloved Glavhero, bitchy lady in the past suffered from money shenanigans Moist. The actress (Claire Foy) performing her role was just perfect. A capricious, wayward girl in black with an eternal cigarette in her mouth. In the book, it is slightly faint, and here it is more complete and filigree irritating with its hysteria. Well, here is a scene with a whip and an insidious blow with a 10-centimeter stud, generously handed out spanks and slaps in the face testifies to what a difficult character the BDSM lady has.
I liked that in the film, the relationship between Moist and Angels is more revealed, and it is presented beautifully. Especially from Moiste's side.
When you look at an actor, you believe he is in love. In the book, their story is condensed, and little romantic. I give the writers a plus.
Patricius Vetinari (Charles Dens) was just born for the role.
So poisonous and sharp was the created character, as if descended from the pages of the book.
The kind of lord and tyrant of Ankh-Morpork I thought he was. And I liked the door joke and the way it was played. Despite his refined despoticism and sometimes cruelty, Havelock Vetinari has a real sense of the right people and he sincerely cares about the good of the city entrusted to him. Bravo to the casting experts!
BribeGild, played by the famous David Sushe I liked more than in the book version. An unparalleled villain in all his greatness.
Younger postman Grosz.
In the film, this character played by Andrew Sachs turned out to be a more good-natured, sincere believer in his business old man. In the book he caused persistent irritation, in the film he liked his kindness more.
His assistant Stanley.
A pin-crazed kid, postman. In the book a boy, there is a young man with manic tendencies. It is pleasant to look at it, probably everyone has met such a crazy, obsessed person in life. Naive as a child, but good on other actors will not stop.
Antourage.
I really liked the panoramic views of the city and the semaphore towers and the Post Office building. You can see, of course, that this is computer graphics, but the graphics as well as special effects on the average level for a film that does not have a large budget. Confused only that the roof of the burning post office building, because the fire did not spread at all on it and the flame simply burned vertically. A joint.
Costumes.
The costumes of the heroes, really everything is as it should be. Especially beautiful and exquisite looked journalist Times, Sakharissa Kripslock and Bribery Gild. And the final dress of red-blood color on the Angel of Goodheart looked generally chic.
Result.
The film turned out to be comedic but still with a moral, as is customary with Pratchett.
Those who complain that the creators of the film have gone through the content so well... You can't fit all 400 pages in 2 episodes of the film.
Much is not shown, but what is presented does not spoil the impression of the film. Scenario liberties came clearly to the place, even the plot became more interesting. The book itself is a bit heavy, in my opinion, the film turned out to be easier.
Everything was shot competently, mentally, there is nothing superfluous and the author’s parallel with the modern world of consumption is visible.
Here you and mobile telephony, and the economy and hackers.
Crazy Flat World in all its brilliance.
Definitely, "Opodravlenie" does not cause rejection and looks a head taller than the same gloomy "Santa Gryakus" and incomprehensible "Color of Magic".
Moreover, “Opodtarie” can be viewed as an independent work, and everything will be clear. It was nice to see the writer in a cameo postman.
Terry Pratchett is one of those authors who read it does not matter what is written. So I was very surprised that some of his novels were still filmed. I was very afraid to start watching, yet I sincerely love books and believe that many things that make them unique are simply unbearable on the screen.
As it turned out, it is possible and even quite successfully. The plot was moved without global changes, adjusted for a shorter duration and no lyrical digressions. Well, the behind-the-scenes monologues of the main character in the film look somewhat strange.
Characters are well conveyed, although actors of not the first magnitude are taken, but they visually fit the images, and try to convey the characters of their heroes as fully as possible. Most van Lipwig himself came out especially successfully this is not quite young, but very sociable and charismatic, I imagined him.
The capital drawback was not a total lack of budget and cardboard decorations, but a very small amount of humor. Although I understand that visually display humor built on the play of words is almost impossible.
6 out of 10
The flat world rests on the backs of four elephants that stand on the great turtle A’Tuin. This huge world is full of magic and magical creatures, in it you can meet many creatures of varying degrees of malice. This universe was given to us by Terry Pratchett, without exaggeration – one of the most outstanding writers living in our time. His works are full of subtle irony on our reality, they parodied a lot of classic subjects and played an incredible number of first-class subjects.
Book 33 of the series, it is included in the subcycle about Moist von Lipwig (it includes three books "Origination", "Make Money" and "At All Pairs"). This is a swindler who at one time, got money by all possible illegal means. He was eventually caught stealing $150,000 in Ankh Morpork and sentenced to death. And even parole. After this, the patrician of Ankh-Morpork, Lord Vitinari, made Moista an offer to head the postal service of the city, which had ceased to function for twenty years. The reason for this was the appearance of semaphore communication, which was ten times faster than the old mail. Now Moist has not only to revive the post, but also to survive in the fight against the ruthless businessman Vsyatker Pogollot, director of the semaphore company Big Way.
I’m a longtime Terry Pratchett fan, and for me, this is not another comedy fantasy film (however, I can’t remember many of these films). I was wondering how the director and actors would portray this wonderful world, whether they could convey that unique atmosphere from the author’s books. And I think it worked out. There is also a light sur, coupled with an interesting plot, in which the struggle between evil and ... good is intertwined, well, not such a good as Tolkien, but a kind of cunning and sneaky. On the screen of the sea of action, the characters constantly get into different situations, from which they brilliantly get out, and, of course, there is a lot of quality humor.
High-class fraudster Mochrist von Gubwig all his life deceived others for his own benefit, without thinking about the consequences. But the day came when the consequences came. In the person of Lord Vitinari, the patrician of Ankh Morpork - the most majestic and odorous city of the Flat World. The choice was simple: to publicly say goodbye to life or to highlight this life for the benefit of society, becoming postmaster of the city.
Thoroughly but unsuccessfully resisting, Mocristus chose the lesser of two evils. The Post Office building, which has long forgotten its best times, two postmen, about whom you can safely say “old and young”, as well as the Pomp 19 Golem, passed into submission to him. Having overcome many difficulties and defeated the main enemy of the Post, Mocrist gained friends, love, and most importantly, became a completely different person.
The film is based on Terry Pratchett’s novel of the same name, and that says it all. I think the impressions of the film should be divided into two camps: those who do not know who Pratchett is, and those who are a fan of the writer.
I saw a lot of reviews from the first, whom the film did not impress or left indifferent, who wondered – “What the hell?” This is not surprising – unknown characters, unknown place of action; subtext that is so clear to those who have read the entire series. It’s like being offered a couple of episodes of a series I haven’t seen before.
For Pratchett fans, who I am, it is a must see. I must say that the book itself is not one of my favorites. But the movie turned out just great. I’m always skeptical about film adaptations of my favorite works, because my idea of the characters often doesn’t coincide with the actors chosen for the roles. It spoils the mood of watching. Surprisingly, this is almost one hundred percent.
Richard Coyle is great, he is, in my opinion, the best literary character played. This is how I imagined it, even more: Coyle seemed to complement my ideas, painted them in brighter, more vivid colors.
Charles Dance is beautiful, too. In my opinion, Vitinari is a little more apathetic, but looks very similar. Red-haired Claire Foy is beautiful in all black with a mouthpiece in inflated lips. Knock-Potuk, young Stanley, the owner of the pin shop, even the executioner - all without exception to the point.
But what struck me most was David Souchet, whom I only recognized by watching the credits. His Briber Gild is even better than in the book, more colorful, insidious and artistic. For me, this great actor after the film rose to a new height.
Special thanks for the dubbing of the film. It was translated and voiced not only by professionals, but also, of course, by fans of Pratchett’s work. Because no name and title are confused (which many translations of famous works, other than official book translations, sin).
This is the only Pratchett film I like. I love it! I hope that his books will continue to be filmed, and they will all be of this quality.
10 out of 10
After watching this film, I read rave reviews: for lovers of old fantasy, subtle humor, good film adaptation, great acting... but all this did not coincide with my impression. I was expecting something more emotional, it wasn’t funny at all. Okay, cool, nothing more. I haven’t read Terry Prachett’s book, probably in vain.
The main disadvantages are protracted, tedious, too moralizing. Long conversations about the post office and the need to restore its work are boring. The actors are quite organic, but sometimes they overplay. I can't say I liked anyone very much. Except for a pinhead. “Supervising officers” who know how to improvise are a special charm, especially at the first appearance.
The idea is good – to show in the form of a fairy tale unfair competition, the fight for the client, the discoveries made in the process of this struggle (perforation!), but these are the pluses of the novel, as I understand it. And the film did not drag me into its atmosphere so much that I wanted to put a high rating.
P.S. The film runs for three hours, it would be good to add the genre of “series” here, so that the audience tuned in advance for the slow development of events.
I started watching and dropped in the 5th minute. The genre of “fantasy” is not mine, but on one recommendation I decided to “rematch” and the film unconditionally defeated my skepticism. I’m not talking about excitement, but approval.
The graphics weren’t impressive, but for the TV version it was more than that. The acting of the actors, especially the main ones (and in general), delivered a lot of pleasant notes to the viewing and I suspect that this aspect played a decisive role in the positive perception of the tape. I became a part of the events played on the screen, which is rare for me even when watching movies in genres close to my tastes. You can't miss the humor. He's subtle and even touching. He is multifaceted and skillfully woven into the plot; although he did not cause laughter, the smiles were deserved without exaggeration.
The film presents a different, fantasy world, which, nevertheless, is the brightest reflection of modern reality, providing a wide field for the expression of satire, irony and metaphor, which to some extent was used by the authors of this tape (or the author of the book – did not read it). And that's the second thing that got me in the movie. Also, those who are familiar with the history of the formation of the British postal service, could not but note almost a direct connection with the film, which added a couple of light shades and pluses to the pleasure that brought viewing.
The film is, of course, a fairy tale, but it is very metaphorical, and the understanding of this will not leave indifferent adults who are not prone to “harrypotters”, but who have imagination and appreciate beautiful and subtle humor.
To begin with, I am an avid fan of British fantasy in general and Pratchett in particular. Of course, I couldn’t get past this movie.
No negative impressions. Which is strange, considering that the film is based on a book read to the holes. I mean, every character somehow already imagine, and then all of a sudden - BAH! - and Vetinari red, and Saccharissa - a kind of manish babence of grenadier growth ... But it fit perfectly!
A lot of positive impressions. First, actors. No role is a masterpiece. Richard Coyle is great! Secondly, the spirit of the original book is 100% consistent, with no boredom or protractedness in the film. Thirdly, as it turned out, to enjoy the film, the original book is not something to remember by heart - it is not necessary to know at all (two friends acted as guinea pigs, Pratchetta did not read - laughed to colic and cried sobbing).
In short, a masterpiece. It is even strange that his release has largely remained unnoticed by either the audience or critics (in Russia, at least). I review it regularly to lift my mood and I am sure that my children will also review it repeatedly. For the fairy tale has no reference to time, it will be watchable in 10 and 20 years.
9 out of 10
I liked the film (or rather, the miniseries), but it caused a strong feeling that “we could have done better.”
For a long time tried to understand what exactly the essence of the claims and came to the conclusion that it was not hooked because of the too everyday atmosphere. I wanted to talk about stories.
What is the lack of fantasy?
For example, there is no feeling of entering another world. The city in which the action takes place is almost not shown. In fact, there is a feeling that there is only a square and a post office.
At the same time, the building itself does not look abandoned / cursed from the inside, but rather in the stage of repair, when the plaster was torn off and the money ended on this.
And in this, slightly cardboard, atmosphere put good, in general, actors.
Although they do not always draw roles (for example, the representative of the Invisible University for me remained a bearded uncle, diligently read his text).
Anyway, it's still a good movie, but he can't jump to the level of Santa Hryakus.
Sometimes I get disappointed in movies. This happens when it is difficult to choose from a string of new films. But I fall in love with cinema again when I find movies like "The Blessing."
Imagine a movie where you are completely immersed in the world of heroes. Imagine a movie that you start watching without even watching it. You look at the clock and you see with great regret that there are 30, 20, 10 minutes left. I'm sure you've seen such films on your way. And rest assured that the sanctuary will be one of them. I would like to forget this film and discover it again.
I've heard of Terry Pratchett for a long time, but I haven't read a line. I am glad that I came across this film, which began my acquaintance with the Flat World.
The film opens up a whole new world. A world full of wonderful inventions (simaphores, omninocles) and incredible creatures (golems, banshees). And also the world of bright, colorful, memorable characters played by Richard Coyle, Claire Foy and David Souchet.
Mochrist von Hubwig is not an honest, noble, but genuinely sympathetic hero. He's charming, smart, optimistic. The charming fraudster played by Richard Coyle, his gestures, facial expressions, eyes, in which enthusiasm and fun splashed, struck me in the heart.
Angela Goodheart is a strong, determined, purposeful and hot-tempered hostess of the Golem trust. Claire Foy doesn't know at all. There is no trace of the meek and compliant Little Dorrit. Now it's a fury in black, unless the broom is missing. What a reincarnation! Between her and Mochrist not only sparks flew, but also chairs. Watching their relationship is a never-ending pleasure.
Briber Gild - the name speaks for itself. I’ll just add that David Sushe did just as well as everyone else.
There is also Grosz, who has been dreaming of a promotion for several decades, the postman Stanley collecting pins, Mr. Pompa is a scary, but very friendly golem. As well as the strange Lord Vitinari, an arrogant journalist, a werewolf bloodhound are stunning characters. They all create a fabulous, but still alive and whole world.
The history of post office restoration and the invention of stamps is very fascinating. It is like rediscovering what has already been revealed, creating what has already been created. That was funny!
I want to talk about humor in the film. Humor here is like a separate character, special, worthy of praise. I giggled, laughed and laughed the whole movie: at the tricks of the characters, at their words and deeds.
I was very pleased with the translation of names into Russian. Undoubtedly, this added to the attraction of the characters and attention to the film.
Good to see you!
Sir Terry Pratchett's books are almost impossible to film. Unhurried narrative, generously diluted with wit and ironic digressions, does not fit well into the dominant format on the screens. Over the past ten years, we have become accustomed to the “big fantasy” with an abundance of special effects, a bright picture and simple plots. However, that is why the chamber appearance in which the “Opoztarie” appears causes a lot of positive emotions - the film carries the atmosphere of old fairy tales - coziness, soulfulness and a little naive, and therefore real magic.
Everything looks incredibly tasty: Victorian-carnival costumes, and Ankh-Morpork cramped streets with majestic buildings, and, of course, the miracle of technology – click-tower telegraph.
No character disappointed. Mochrist is an incredibly charming fraudster, even a little more beautiful than necessary. Angela is an unshakable “iron lady”, then touchingly fragile. A penny is good even without the stuff of folk healing, but Stanley is psychotic just right. Golems are alive and real. Luxurious red-haired Vetinari, beautiful Angwa with icy wolf eyes, and when Saharissa and Otto appeared in the frame, I had to pause to laugh. The Smoking Wildebeest hackers look almost modern, as does the cheerful Truper executioner. And of course, applause for the villainous Gild, insidious and merciless.
I want to note the careful attitude to the source: neither spirit nor humor of the book is not lost when transferred to the screen.
Verdict: Pratchettomans must watch, as well as fans of old fantasy.