The Color of Magic (TV Mini Series 2008) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
61 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
Great Fun
weemadhenry1 April 2008
Only 8 out of 10 because I would - of course - have loved to have everything in it ( I would also have liked a big "Lord of the Rings" budget and effort on this).

They have made a creditable effort to cram the most important bits in. I've watched it with someone who doesn't know the books and had, in fact, never heard of Terry Pratchett. It took him a while to get into the fun of things but he didn't need clarification on anything, so the story line cant' have been too hacked.

As TV productions go, "Colour of Magic" (and "Hogfather") are like watching filmed theatre; it is a stage setting rather than film scenery and the acting certainly is superb. The incidental moments with Death and Rincewind are great as is the scene with the Patrician ordering Rincewind to look after Twoflower. The magic sword, on the other hand, sounded like 'Eddie, the shipboard computer' from Douglas Adams' "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy". And they have to improve the dragons before they start on 'Guards Guards'.

I loved it - every minute of it. And Terry Pratchett had a hand in it so it must reflect at least some of his ideas - he always impressed me as being quite a strong character.

I hope they'll make all of them!!!
79 out of 87 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
It's not epic, but still good!
thasaidon27 January 2009
Despite all the "bad" reviews posted here, I guess it all depends on your personal taste. I, for one, loved this movie! But like the tag line says: "It's a pigment of your(!) imagination"

No movie will ever be as good as it's book (or books in this case). However, they did a very good job trying to capture the essence of the books and put it all in this movie.

The movie won't please everyone as you can see from other reviews posted here, but like Sir Pratchett said: "If I've would have written these stories to be a movie, I would have written them very differently".

All in all a good movie which will certainly please most people, regardless if they are familiar with Terry Pratchett or not.
40 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Hugely enjoyable adaptation of a Terry Prachett novel!
TheLittleSongbird5 February 2009
I haven't read any of the DiscWorld books, and I know you are going to say i should. For a TV series, I found it surprisingly enjoyable. It looks beautiful, but I do agree that most of it lacks magic. The special effects, while overblown in places, aren't actually that bad, considering the track records of slapdash effects in TV series. Try the Chronicles of Narnia, very good, and faithful to the books, but the effects tend to let them down. As for the performances, what can i say? Very good indeed! David Jason, Britain's funniest living actor, gives a very funny performance of Rincewind, considering he wanted to do that role for years, though he may have been duller than what Pratchett intended. Sean Astin, of Lord of the Rings fame, is also a nice contrast to Jason's Rincewind. It's true that some of the humour is forced, but the chemistry between the two men compensate. Tim Curry was an inspired choice for Trymon, and he did a superb job, showing off his versatility, bringing back fond memories of his performances in films like Legend, the Three Musketeers and It. He wasn't too frightening, or campy, just in between.Christopher Lee was great as Death, great lines.("that's when they'll be taking my mask off" and "I think I've had another near-Rincewind experience")The script had its downsides but was overall very funny. It is evident that the adaptation is unfaithful to the books, because I felt it could have done a little more with the ending, which was rather disappointing. Overall, an uneven but enjoyable adaptation of Terry Prachett, who actually liked the changes for once. Try telling Stephen King that! 7.5/10 Bethany Cox
26 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Perhaps not the best books to adapt
phonenumberofthebeast23 December 2009
Vadim Jean's second adaptation of Terry Pratchett's longrunning Discworld series of comedic fantasy novels cannot compare to the first, though it is not really his fault. The series adapts Pratchtt's first two novels, The Colour of Magic and The Light Fantastic, which together form a loose single narrative. Set on a typical fantasy realm, replete with trolls, dwarfs and demons, they are, effectively, a parody of the hero's quest, in that the hero, an untalented "wizzard" named Rincewind, has no intention either of being heroic or of going on a quest but ends up fighting monsters, riding dragons and trying to save the world anyway. He is assisted by his "sidekick" Twoflower, who seems only dimply aware that he isn't on a packaged holiday. And that, without mentioning specifics, is the entire plot. Along the way, several fantasy (or perhaps D&D) conventions, such as talking swords, scantily-clad, Heavy Metal-style warrior women, and raging loin-clothed barbarians, are duly referenced and lambasted.

After the relative success of Hogfather in 2006, Vadim Jean decided to take the series in a surprising direction: backwards. Correctly in my view, he chose perhaps the archetypal novel in Pratchett's canon to adapt first. Hogfather was Pratchett at his absolute height, mixing adventure with philosophical commentary and existential humour, the most mature expression of such Discworldly themes of imagination vs. reality, the power of myth vs rationality, and the dichotomy of "the falling angel and the rising ape". "The Colour of Magic" and "The Light Fantastic" were written 25 years ago, when Pratchett was still finding his feet as a writer. As such, they lack some of the sophistication one comes to expect from the series. The books' humour, which would eventually become character and situation-driven, here operates on the level of broad parody, lampooning the absurdities of many fantasy and fairy tale conventions. The characterisation, which would become far more complex in later novels, is as broad as a wall, with Twofower the naive Asian tourist and Rincewind the cowardly non-hero. In a move that was either very wise or bewilderingly silly, Jean decided to cast Sean Astin as Twoflower, even though in the books he is East Asian in appearance. Perhaps this was done to lessen the racial stereotype, but if so, that doesn't reflect well on the source material. His decision to cast the elderly David Jason as Rincewind, who in the books is a youngish man with a scraggly attempt at a beard, is less explicable, other than Jean was simply grateful that Jason wanted to do another series with him.

But if the plot is slight, the actors certainly give it their all. Astin plays Twoflower with just the right kind of naivete, while Jason, though miscast, creates a Rincewind that is suitably cynical and craven. For Pratchett fans, a number of pleasing retcons have been incorporated: The Librarian becomes an orangutan much earlier; Death is now his fully-evolved, pleasantly bemused self, and the Patrician is unquestionably Vetinari, here played by Jeremy Irons- a nod to Pratchett saying that a good actor for Vetinari would be "that guy from Die Hard", ie Alan Rickman.

In summary, I think Pratchett fans will find pleasure in it, but others should probably stay away.
22 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not bad
soneil124 March 2009
I quite liked this film thought I thought some elements of it would be lost on people who haven't read the book since there's only so much exposition you can fit in a film. One of my pet hates is when one of my favourite books gets turned in to a film where the director just can't resist changing every second character and adding entirely new scenes. This kept faithful to the books while still being enjoyable for those who haven't read the books. The version I got on DVD actually comes in two parts with the first part covering the first book - The colour of magic. The second part covers the second book in the series - The light fantastic. Not sure if that's the standard version everyone gets or if some only get part one.
13 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Meat pies! Hot sausages! Inna bun! So fresh the pig h'an't noticed they're gone
tbor820 April 2008
I loved the movie. I saw that people gave comments like "it didn't live up to the accuracy and quality of Hogfather", but what would you expect? Nothing is perfect, and I can't say as a big Discworld fan that I didn't have a lot of fun watching this movie.

I loved all the characters in it, even if they didn't look anything like I had them in my mind.. It is just so great to actually see a movie like this that I am more than willing to forgive little mistakes and changes and enjoy it for what it is.

Great scenery, really amazing, especially for a TV movie. Most of the CGI was very good (except the dragon). Loved the costumes and sets and also the acting was outstanding. All in all, I could not have hoped for anything better and am looking forward to the next adaption, the (currently) latest novel Going Postal. Could've used some CMOT though.. Still a 10 out of 10.
43 out of 56 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not that bad..
perisho28 March 2008
Not as bad as some on this site say. I am a huge Terry Pratchett fan, I have read all the Discworld books and few of his other books. While this movie/TV special doesn't really live up to the books, it isn't half bad. I enjoyed revisiting the story with some pretty snazzy special effects- even if some of the subtle humor was lost (or was it just very very subtle?) I have to admit that many of the jokes in the books I probably miss. I know sometimes it takes 10 pages before I realize he's just made a joke, which makes me feel stupid, and then I laugh at myself for being stupid. Sometimes I don't even catch them till the second reading! This movie/TV show (or whatever it is) doesn't really have that feeling.

If you are a fan of Terry, i say you should watch it, if your not.. then go buy one of his books and read that before deciding to watch the movie.
34 out of 54 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
They try their hardest
conroyashton457-15 April 2008
Warning: Spoilers
There is a lot to enjoy in this adaptation of Terry Pratchett's first two Discworld novels, and interestingly enough it all seems to come from the adaptation rather than the source material. I am another Pratchett fan ringing in here, but I haven't read these novels in a very long time and my memory of them isn't very kind. With the adaptation, the producers seem to have stripped back the arguably juvenile, direction-less comedy of the novels down to the plot - which, unfortunately for them, isn't strong enough to carry 4 hours worth of film.

The production values are high, the casting is superb (especially David Jason, who is nothing like my mind's version of Rincewind and yet is thoroughly enjoyable in the role, and Sean Astin plays Twoflower perfectly), and it doesn't suffer from the plodding pace that Hogfather had (though I would like to stress that I loved every instant of Hogfather, and haven't read the book in the fear that it won't be as good).

But the story of the Colour of Magic just isn't that interesting. I like Terry Pratchett very much, I think he's funny, and develops plot well, but I agree with Neil Gaiman in his appraisal of the early novels, saying that the plot follows the jokes, rather than the reverse which is true in the later novels.

So in conclusion, this adaptation is superb, it just doesn't adapt anything really great.
15 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
It's not great but
TeafIMDB29 March 2008
Most comments mention the disjointed themes and story lines but lets face it, they are condensing two road trip books into one movies an dyou cant have everything in there. These were the first discworld books and Pratchetts writing got better and better with one or two odd moments. If you like Hogfather (which as a book I didn't) an feel this isn't the same quality then don't despair. The production team have taken a difficult tale and made something - lets hope as with the books, they continue and get better and better.

On the associated webpage, Pratchett likes it a lot.

PS: Jeremy Irons (who isn't credited anywhere) as Patrician was very good and David Jason is only going to be alive for a limited amount of time - make the most of him. I'm sure I could of put that better but you know what I mean.
6 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Lacks magic
Leofwine_draca28 December 2018
Warning: Spoilers
THE COLOUR OF MAGIC is the second of Sky's two-part miniseries adaptations of Terry Pratchett's Discworld series, following on from THE HOGFATHER. This one goes right back to the beginning and features David Jason playing Rincewind the Wizard and Sean Astin as Twoflower the tourist. It's an all-star ensemble piece, packed to the rafters with magical effects with the aid of a copious CGI budget, but the truth is that there's something missing here.

And it's the lack of magic which comes as a real surprise. There's a sense of everybody going through the motions rather than anyone really shining, and the script is perfunctory at best. The humorous one-liners come regularly but somehow they're blunter than they were on the page, and at times I felt like I was watching an amateur dramatics adaptation. Jason and Astin are okay as the leads, but upstaged by supporting players like Tim Curry and David Bradley. Despite the wealth of material I also felt that the three-hour running time was just too long leaving this to drag more than a little.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A very enjoyable "family" movie.
msb-utils26 February 2010
Technically, this movie is very good. The effects are well done, with very high quality computer graphics for a "Made for TV" movie, that won't stand behind theatrical release movies. The outdoor scenes were all well produced, placing the actors in a "real" discworld. The customs and environment are in a child-movie style, because of the story's background (it came from a series of books made for children). But that doesn't mean low quality. It just adds to the comical overall feeling of the film. The actors followed this same comical/child-oriented line when playing their roles.

About the story, it never gets boring, and a lot of things happen to the main characters. They practically cross the world in a single adventure, including a journey in "outer space". Multiple parallel plots also take place. In the end, this 3-hour movie entertains you the whole time. The main motivation is very original: following the steps of the first tourist. And the world description is ironically fun.

This story has 2 main perspectives. From the Twoflower point of view, it's a story about having an open mind. One may have much fun and learn a lot when he keeps his mind open to new experiences. From the Rincewood point of view, it shows that one must have persistence; and also that, even in the face of failure, your value doesn't diminish. You're not defined by your failures and/or successes as perceived by the others.

In the end this is a family movie, worth watching by itself, and even more with your children (if you happen to have any).
11 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
I want my Catweazle back!
dedeurs30 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
phonenumberofthebeast's review (2009) almost made me abandon the idea to write my own... Okay, David Jason's Rincewind is exactly as I pictured him, and Jeremy Irons and Tim Curry are quite memorable (as usual). Actually the set designers and 98% of the cast did a more than adequate job. Actors from the UK are always a delight!

But the special effects look 1880's (except 'Luggage', he's amazing), the score is an attack on your eardrums, and both the orangutan librarian and Death make me wish I had chosen to watch episodes from 1970's Catweazle. (same type as Rincewind, but much funnier!) 'Death' is Pratchett's best novel character, he is mystic, dead-seriously ironic and sometimes hilariously human. And I get to see an actor wearing a cheap unmovable cardboard mask?? Come on, just some extra FX wizardry, and he would have been much more impressive, and even fearsome.

Less relevant, but I always envisioned foreigner Twoflower as a little rotund semi-Asian guy. Not a robust American. (With all respect to Sean Astin)

Pratchett's books constantly tickle my funny bone, even after an umpteenth re-reading. The movie made me laugh only once (and I forgot what it was).

The problem, I think: Pratchett wrote novels in which the humor is not very subtle, it borders on slapstick, yet it is brilliant. Really, really funny. That man had an enormous wit. And although in the movie I heard familiar Discworld dialogues, they all fell flat. Director/screenwriter Vadim Jean clearly failed in transferring that quality.

I dare not think what would have happened had Hollywood taken on Pratchett, but I do wonder what Terry Gilliam, Harry Potter's Alfonso Cuaron or David Yates (Potter again) would have made of The Colour of Magic... (Yes, it's 'colour'. It's a British title.)
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
We still need to wait for a truly magical Pratchett movie
baba447135 February 2010
One thing I don't understand. Pratchett wrote quite a lot of Discworld novels, and some of them are simply begging to be put on the big screen. Most of the "Watch" novels for example. "Small Gods" as another. However, when Pratchett actually gets on the big (ok, small) screen, they seem to make the worst choices possible. First it was the "Hogfather", which is probably one of the most esoteric and confusing Discworld novels out there. Now they take the very first Discworld novels which - while perhaps being the funniest in the series - do not really present what Pratchett's work is all about. These early two novels are basically Terry taking a jab at (but also making homage) to a fantasy genre in general. Well, perhaps the entire Discworld series is like that, but in "Color of Magic" and "The light fantastic" this parody takes the front seat while a coherent story and characters sit in the back. And this works well in written form, but as a cinematic narrative it simply fails; clever jokes get cut, simplified and/or drowned in the overall chaos, the plot has to move quickly so it is nearly impossible to absorb everything that happens (let alone enjoy it) and overall it represents a rather frustrating experience, both for the Pratchett fans as well as the general audience.

The first thing that bothered me is the casting. Sean Austin is a fine Twoflower, even though I think it perhaps should have been cast by a more exotic-looking actor. David Jason, sadly, is a complete miss as Rincewind. This particularly bothers me since David is probably my favorite British actor; however he is just too likable to pull of a Rincewind. Someone like Rowan Atkinson channeling his Black Adder persona (but with less malice and much more cowardice) would be perfect. The thing is, you need to take pleasure in Rincewind constantly being put from one peril to the next; David's Rincewind is like a kooky old grandpa that you feel bad for when he gets thrown from a cliff, threatened or trampled on. And whenever he does something Rincewind-y (like taking off with Twoflower's gold), it actually feels out of character.

The rest of the cast is hit-or-miss. Death is horribly puppet-like - I endured him in Hogfather but here the rubber skull should really have been lees pronounced. Vetinari is on par (even though in those early Discworld novels he most probably wasn't the "Patrician", but that's fan service for you). Tim Curry overplays Trymon to the extreme, but I guess this is due to the bad direction - many characters seem to be overacting their bits probably to infuse a sense of lightness and silliness. Just check out the faces leader of the Krull makes while doing his speech; inexcusable.

However the biggest culprit is the plot. It is just too hectic, too chaotic and doesn't let the characters to develop or even establish themselves. This perhaps has a lot to with with (un)necessary exposition given by both the narrator and the characters - the plot hardly gets a chance to move along before the next bit of exposition has to get its turn.

It's not all bad however. There are some superb actors involved in this, the sets and effect look fantastic (especially for a TV movie). And even though I said Jason makes a bad Rincewind, it still is a joy to watch this fine actor doing his schtick. And it IS Pratchett, after all.

So I guess that bottom line I can give this a passing grade, but it's still a deeply disappointing venture. I hope they do "Guards! Guards!" next, and I hope they do it good.
20 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Well...they tried...
SoWhy5 April 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Well...it has been said in several comments before and it's just a reprisal of those reasons.

Two thesis:

1.) It's not a bad movie

2.) It's a bad movie

To explain:

1.) It's not a bad movie: Some characters are cast well, like Cohen and maybe Vetinari (even if I'd preferred Alan Rickman in that role^^). The sets are nicely decorated and the costumes are good. It's a good movie compared to other movies you see these days.

2.) It's a bad movie. If you liked "Hogfather", you will hate this one. Hogfather took 3 hours to narrate a 300+ pages novel. They had to cut parts and some parts did not fit, but yes, it was the same overall. Not so in "The Colour of Magic". The reason is: It tries to combine two books with 250+ pages into 3 hours. But the lesson learnt from Hogfather should have been that if you cannot distill one book in 3 hours, you really can't do it with 2 books. Important parts where simply left out, leaving but the shell of Colour of Magic and The Light Fantastic. How does Rincewind know about Old Granddad? - In the book trolls who help him, are telling him. How did he open the door to the Octavo's room? - In the book he made the door want to open. I could name many more of those questions...

But that's not the worst part. The worst part is, that they changed scenes altogether. If you read the book, you will be utterly confused. Let me name some examples:

  • Trymon is not possessed by Monsters of the Dungeon Dimension like he is in the book. Rincewind does not beat him in a fist-vs-tentacle fight and he does not die falling down the Tower of Art - instead Rincewind uses the Octavo to deflect a spell which then falls back on Trymon and turns him to stone. No fight, nothing, just that


  • The Librarian is on the roof with him and Trymon slips on a banana peel which leads to the aforementioned ending


  • Ysabell is missing in Death's Domain, so are War, Pestilence and Famine - The luggage lures Cohen to Rincewind and Twoflower (there is no reason why it should do so and none to explain it)


  • The magic arrow Weatherwax uses does not bring back the luggage as it did in the books (Trymon kills him instead) - Rincewind and Twoflower are boarding the submarine-thingie out of free will and against the wishes of the Krullians


  • The scenes in the town on the way to Ankh-Morpork are missing completely (except the making of the dentures and the fight with the star people, which are set in AM instead)


  • The scenes with the gingerbread house where the wizards meet Rincewind are missing - instead Cohen saves them by killing them all (in the book they manage to flee and the wizards survive).


  • The little star turtles are not visible in the book but they are in the movie. The red star is vanishing in the end instead of Great A'Tuin simply flying away


  • Twoflower "catches" a spell for Rincewind (like a bodyguard) which makes him go into the deathlike state


  • etc. pp.


There is no reason I can see to make those changes, except maybe to make the movie have more "action" scenes. It's not bad, if you don't know the novels then it's just a fantasy movie with a few good moments and nice costumes and sets. If you read them though, you will be disappointed. I mean, it's not hard to keep funny elements like Cohens "fight" with the crowd of star people or nice visuals like the spells of the Octavo dancing in the air when said.

I hope the next one they try will be Hogfatheresque in terms of quality. The books deserve it...
3 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A much better adaptation.
Java_Joe7 March 2019
After the cartoon of Soul Music left a bad taste in my mouth over how cheap it looked, I was very reticent about anything else Sir Pterry related. That is until I saw a bit of "The Color of Magic". Well needless to say I had to see the rest and I wasn't disappointed. Well, not entirely.

Obviously it had a much bigger budget and while I would have really have liked something on par with "Lord of the Rings" I think they hit a good balance between cost and the final product.

The story itself follows the novel with Twoflower, the Discworld's first tourist, coming to Ankh-Morpork and introducing the denizens to things like tourism and the mysterious concept of "In Sewer Ants" where you get money if an accident happens. It does help that Twoflower is played by the only American thus making him stand out more.

In a lot of ways it feels more like a play than a movie or anything and that's not a bad thing. The acting is great. They took the best bits of the novel and worked with them. And how can anybody say anything bad about Tim Curry's run as the overzealous Trymon, Christopher Lee's death, David Jason's wonderful Rincewind and of course Sir Pterry's bit as one of the Astrozoologists? You can't so don't even try.

It's far from perfect but it was the sign of greater things to come.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Very refreshing and enjoyable.
Spitfire_Swe30 August 2008
Where to begin? I have read all Discworld books and am eagerly anticipating the book coming out this year. I also caught Hogfather which is equally as magical as this one.

Obviously characters and places are not what they were in your mind when reading the books, but reviewing this movie based on the books would be wrong (although I did miss all the subtle jokes the books push).

The Colour of Magic is a very good movie, no doubt about it and the plot is very refreshing compared to the age old fantasy genre where it is always good against bad, blah blah blah. Here we have a protagonist who is a bit of a coward, irritable and useless at his profession and very unwillingly pushes the plot forward. As with the books, Terry Pratchett is a true original when it comes to character personalities and plots, at the same time he pulls of introducing a completely new world where things often enough exactly are they way they seem.

Read Terry Pratchett's Discworld books, they are completely amazing.
11 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
An enjoyable Discworld story
Tweekums4 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
This Discworld story follows Rincewind, a student wizard who is expelled from the Unseen University for failing to reach the first level of wizardry after forty years of study, and Twoflower, the Discworld's first tourist. The pair meet the Broken Drum tavern where Twoflower's large trunk full of gold coins has attracted more than a little attention. Rincewind agrees to show Twoflower the sites but does a runner after being paid… however a few words from the Patrician of Ankh-Morpork explaining that he is to ensure Twoflower has a good time and returns to his homeland with a good impression of the city he returns. It isn't long before the two of them get involved in a series of adventures that will lead them to have encounters with dragons, a troll and even discover what is over the edge of the disc amongst other things. While all this is going on we see the politics of the Unseen University at work as the devious wizard Ymper Trymon murders his way to the top then seeks the ultimate power of learning the eight powerful spells in the 'Octavo'… there is just one problem; one of the spells is in the head of Rincewind.

I have read a few Discworld novels but not 'The Colour of Magic' or 'The Light Fantastic' on which this is based. I thought this adaption nicely captured Terry Pratchett's Discworld even if the relatively low budget does show at times. Since it is based on the first two books one doesn't need to be familiar with the Discworld as things are nicely explained. The story is an enjoyable adventure that can be enjoyed by all ages as the scary bits are more comic than frightening and there is no crudeness to the humour. The cast do a solid job; David Jason is likable as Rincewind, Sean Astin nicely captures the stereotype of a slightly annoying but harmless foreign tourist who wants to see all the sights and Tim Curry delightfully hams it up as the villainous Trymon. Overall I found this to be enjoyable; I hope we'll get more adaptions of Disc World novels… hopefully based on the activities of the Night Watch.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Nice, clean, British fun!
siderite26 April 2010
I've never been able to read Terry Pratchett's books, mostly because they were too ... British. All those large words and phrasing that seems to always say more than one can possibly understand. So I was grateful for a chance to grasp a little of what all this Discworld business is all about.

The film is clearly a TV movie, the special effects are simple and either completely CGI or weird mashups (like the fire breathing dragon bit), but that never bothered me because the acting was great, the story fun and the people in it clearly enjoying every moment of its making.

Bottom line: like the old Shakespeare plays that BBC was doing and I gobbled up as a young child or like Doctor Who or any other of those shows that Brits do, which are cheaply done, but with a lot of soul, I really liked it. I am looking forward to watching Hogfather, next.
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Turn down the music
coldwarmp6 August 2019
Attempted to watch this, but the background music was so loud I couldn't hear the narration or dialogue.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
If your a fan of the Books, watch it if your not, maybe watch it
l1ghtange4 November 2018
I loved the books and seeing all the characters was great fun! From a cinematic perspective however, the movie falls short. It's no master piece, but it doesn't pretend to one either.

If you loved the disc world series, it's definitely worth seeing this movie. Otherwise, stop staring at your screen and go read the books!
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Patchy in places...
markleci-13 May 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I was very excited when I saw Tim Curry stalk onto the screen, and Jeremy Irons as the Patrician was excellent. That is pretty representative of this adaptation: the actors are generally quite good but some (in fact most) of the plot changes are frankly awful. The producers seem to have gone out of their way to remove as much of the humour from the story as possible, while adding in a lot of generic fantasy nonsense that is precisely what Pratchett was satirizing in the original. The addition of just a couple of the weirder scenes from the book (like the aeroplane scene) would have vastly improved things.

Unlike other adaptations I have seen (like the BBC's Gormenghast), the added dialogue is poor, and the chummy character-building scenes between Rincewind and Twoflower seem forced and painful. Having said that, the costumes and scenery are good, with a very Lord of the Rings feel (in fact they seem to have pinched the music). The second part is much stronger than the first, so don't be too discouraged. It is still worth watching the three-odd hours to see how things are adapted, but those new to Pratchett should not take this as representative of his work.

Overall, it could have been so much worse, but I was expecting greatness, and I was disappointed.
9 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A well made and enjoyable adaptation of the original Discworld Novels
The-Sarkologist25 November 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I must admit that I was quite excited when I was wondering through the video shop to discover that they had made a live-action version of Terry Pratchett's original discworld novels (this movie covers the first two books, Colour of Magic and Light Fantastic). I believe that I have seen an animated version but I thought it was cool to see them actually turn the books into a telemovie. I guess it was going to happen sooner rather than later considering the popularity of the Discworld Novels, and after the popularity of Lord of the Rings, Hollywood has been attempting, on numerous occasions, to replicate the success.

Discworld, I will have to admit, is one of the more original novels that have appeared since the phenomenal success of Lord of the Rings, and I suspect that their success is not only due to Pratchett's writing style, but also because it is quite amusing. I tend to call Discworld the Hitchhikers Guide for fantasy worlds. The plot itself is not very original as it involves a quest and saving the world, but the world itself and the characters, once again while not strictly original, still stand apart from the typical fantasy novels.

It is the characters that I will be looking at here, beginning with Rincewind. Now Rincewind is a wizard that has pretty much failed wizardry. He is like one of those perpetual students that has never successfully completed a university course and has thus spent the rest of his life trying, and failing, to get out of university. The reason is because, as a dare, he opened a powerful spellbook (which contains the eight spells that hold Discworld together) and one of the spells leap from the book into his head, and ever since he has never been able to master magic (because the spell in his head simply does not give him enough space to learn any more spells. Further, Rincewind is not a hero, he is a coward, and spends his time trying to escape from danger only to find himself slap bang in the middle of it. He is not a man with a goal or a quest beyond simply surviving. In subsequent books (and not all of the Discworld novels are based around Rincewind) he is no different, but I digress.

Next we have Twoflower. He is a tourist who has traveled from the legendary continent of gold to visit Anhk Morpork simply to look around. This, like the rest of Discworld, is poking fun at aspects of our culture using Discworld as the vehicle of comment. One might think it strange that somebody would travel halfway across the world simply to look at something, but we have a whole industry devoted to this. However, personally, until you have done it, one really does not understand the nature of tourism. Granted people did not do thus until at least the 18th Century, and even then travel was slow and people never traveled far for any reason beyond business or war. With industrialisation, and the increase in the speed of travel, things changed, however, prior to that, if somebody where to travel half way around the world, they generally did not return.

One wonders if Twoflower is supposed to be Japanese or American. I always envisaged him as American, but I read somewhere that he was supposed to be Japanese, which is not surprising since back when the book was writing people all saw the Japanese as being perennial tourists. In fact it seemed at the time that Australia rode on the Japanese Tourist's back. Things have changed since Japan's time in the economic sun is over, but now we are seeing them replaced by Chinese tourists. Personally, I like traveling halfway around the world to look at stuff, but to me there is a lot more to looking at stuff than simply looking at it and saying 'gee, isn't that beautiful'.

There are a number of other characters as well, such as Cohen the Barbarian. No guesses as to who this is supposed to be, though it should be noted that he is actually very old. Despite his age, he is still a very, very effective fighter. Out of all of the characters I liked Cohen the best, simply because he is pretty much unique. Who has ever heard of the hero of a fantasy novel being a geriatric barbarian who does not know when it is time to retire. Finally there is the luggage. Normally suitcases are background props, but not in Terry Pratchett. The luggage is not a prop but a character in its own right, and a psychotic and uncontrollable one at that. He also has developed a strong attachment to Rincewind, much to the laters horror.

Look, I liked this film, I thought is was done quite well, and while there may be questions as to how faithful it is to the original books, I personally thought they could have done a lot worse. Rincewind's character was portrayed well, and while I was not what I had conjured in my head (I thought he was a lot younger) it did make a lot of sense. It is funny that watching films like this make me want to go back to reading these books again, though I must admit that I have a lot of other books on my shelf that have a higher priority than a re-read of a Terry Pratchett novel.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A Discworld adventure: Beyond space and imagination!
Reno-Rangan14 June 2016
It is a 2 episode television mini-series adapted from a fantasy novel of the same name. If you have already seen 'The Lord of the Rings' and 'Harry Potter' films, then won't get excited while watching it. But it is not a bad film, that made par with the television quality. Visually acceptable, but the performances and locations were good.

It was a decent story, but mostly clichéd. Inspired by middle age about the understanding of the earth and the universe. The world is flat and circular, where different kingdoms across all the continents about verge to discover something new. In this tale set in somewhere where a tourist and an expelled wizard to team up for the sightseeing, but end up in a long unexpected adventure where they face various dangers and overcoming it brings an end to the narration.

The film characters were awesome, the imaginations were brilliant. It might be an ideal film for children, but for the grown up it is not much effective. I'm not doubting the Terry Pratchett's creation, but only this series. A couple of seasons television series would be a good idea, but should not compromise for the graphics. While 'Game of Thrones' making a big, why can't this. Hope my wish comes true very soon.

6½/10
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Booooooring!
knutte-430 January 2010
I love the books - full of humour, action, and a laff-a-minute. This production is anything but. It is sloooooow, it is baaaaaaad, it is boooooooring. Even the "action" scenes are sloooow and ponderous.

The casting is abysmal (I mean - grandpappy David Jason as Rincewind? Come ON!!!) Even the actors that *could* have been good make their best to outbad each other - Tim Curry vies for the Ham of the Year Award; Jeremy Irons, who could have made a *fabulous* Patrician if he only tried, turns what should have been a cold and calculating character into an effeminate fop with a speech impediment; and Sean Astin simply ruins every scene he is in (which is virtually the entire movie) by mustering all the acting skills of a grade school pageant.

All in all - simply shockingly BAD! I really had to steel myself not to turn it off after 30 minutes.

This is not a movie for watching, this a movie for lying down and AVOIDING!
12 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
"You see what you see, I see what I see", and I guess I see "what's really there, see?"
clarem-78 August 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Until having seen "the Colour of Magic" a couple of days ago, it seemed impossible to me that the essence of a work of literature could successfully be transported into the plot-based medium of the film: this production, however, managed impressively to concentrate on the discworld novels' linguistics. The whole film is a glorious firework of puns, absurd dialogues, hilarious speeches and twisted theories, full of witty allusions to our real world's historical, philosophical, cultural, social, political, economic etc. realities, just like in the novels. The narrator's introductions sparkle playful rhetoric; the scene changes abound in funny little parallelisms; the plot follows with complete logic the discworld's crazy intrinsic reality; all characters are represented with convincing comedy, far from being ridiculed – a superb achievement especially among those "of the elderly persuasion"; thankfully, the audience is spared the usual trivial matters and unconvincing special effects; the most brilliant performance, of course, is Sir David Jason's magnificent characterisation of Rincewind in his countless dangerous confrontations from neck-romance to informal death, whose accomplishments mere words cannot describe adequately. Failing to understand the adverse criticism, I assume that many expected more loyalty towards the novels' details and maybe have not properly paid attention to the film as a whole: From hub to rim, all the important things have been preserved, the pathetic coward Rincewind, yet the only mentally sane person on the whole Disc; the ancient barbarian Cohen who has heroically survived his own legend; the frighteningly ambitious and maddening orderly wizard Trymon; the ingenuous tourist Twoflower, an expert in starting annoying discussions at precisely the wrong moments; his loyal luggage with its "homicidal attitude towards anyone who threatens its master"; and all the other peculiar personalities, officious magic devices, spells with speech impediments and curious disc dwellers carried through space on the majestic Great A'tuin... there is no reason to dwell on petty little details, when the adaptation has turned out to be the Best Film Ever. Hopefully, we will face another "near-Rincewind-experience" soon: it won't be long until he comes running past again, will it?
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed