Watch Going Postal For Free

Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

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

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

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.

So one of better recent Terry Pratchett books get converted into a miniseries/3 hours movie? As a huge Pratchett fan I should be thrilled... or should I? I'll try to keep it short. Basically, they did a more or less good job of making a random Victorianoid adventure movie with light fantasy elements. They failed at making a Discworld movie.Ankh Morpork simply isn't Ankh Morpork. Not just for the lack of dwarfs and trolls. It misses nearly all the elements that make it special. It could be nearly anywhere.Acting was generally good, with some really good performances to lift everything to a higher level, and casting was generally good as well. There are exceptions to both though.The costumes? Unsure on the golems, but the vampire and the banshee are just silly.Too many liberties have been taken with the script, Pratchett's legendary humour is rarely well replicated. The movie even gets slightly shoddy at some times (obvious unpolished cuts).I'm sure that the budget wasn't brilliant and the movie has its' own merits - it's highly approachable by those who don't know anything about Discworld. But for a fan, it'll be a disappointment on more than one level.

I did like Hogfather and Colour of Magic too, but what made me like Going Postal best of all was that it was more solid in especially the story, pacing and acting departments. Not that the other two were bad in those categories, but they did have characters that weren't explored as well as they could have been or there were moments of sluggish pacing or forced dialogue.Going Postal could have easily had those problems but it didn't really. Of all the Sky/Pratchett adaptations it is the best paced overall, while the story even with the changes is compelling and the writing is playful and witty on the whole.The costumes are colourful and beautiful, and the sets and scenery are also stunning and the effects in general are above average though I wasn't crazy about the Banshee. The photography does very well to capture these lovely visuals, while the music is very good and the direction credible enough.The cast I feel is the best yet. Charles Dance, Richard Coyle and Steve Pemberton turn in great performances, and Claire Foy is also appealing and David Suchet is an interesting Gilt.All in all, I thoroughly enjoyed it, and while I liked all three Sky/Pratchett adaptations this one was the best. 9/10 Bethany Cox

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.