Based on the Terry Pratchett novel. On Discworld, (a world carried on four elephants standing on a huge turtle travelling in space), in a small country called Lancre, three witches, the ...
See full summary »
Based on Terry Pratchett's Novel. On Discworld (a world carried by four elephants standing on a huge turtle in space), a small girl, Susan Sto Helit, has got a major problem. Her ... See full summary »
Ermintrude, or as she prefers to be known, Daphne has been shipwrecked and when she comes across the 'native' whose family have been killed by a freak tsunami she invites him to dinner - despite the fact they can't understand each other.
Based on the Terry Pratchett novel. On Discworld, (a world carried on four elephants standing on a huge turtle travelling in space), in a small country called Lancre, three witches, the flowery Magrat Garlick, the lively Nanny Ogg and their leader Granny Weatherwax find themselves dragged into royal politics. The king of Lancre, Verence, has been murdered by Duke Felmet and he has taken over control of the country (but he is trapped under the control of his over-powering wife - the Duchess.) However there are two problems, firstly the Duke hates Lancre and the actual kingdom of Lancre is pressing the witches to find a king that would take better care of it. The second and bigger problem is that Verence's baby son has escaped and has fallen into the hands of the witches prompting the Duke's fury towards the witches. The son must be protected but Granny doesn't want to get involved with the situation but it looks like she doesn't have a choice in the matter... Written by
Lee Horton <Leeh@tcp.co.uk>
I wanted so much to like this movie but I can't say that I did.
Terry Pratchett's book is wonderful and the film follows the plot pretty much exactly and for that it gets four stars. The characters are drawn reasonably and are not jarringly different from how I would imagine them.
That's what's good about it but everything else was disappointing.
First of all; a great deal of TP's humor lies in imaginative similes that do not translate visually at all. "Lighting stabbed at the mountains like an inefficient assassin" how do you visualize that in a cartoon? It just becomes lightning. In the books the weather is cast as if it were a character but it has no lines so the film ignores that running gag and the Shakespearean parody aspect of that completely.
Perhaps more important than that, though, is the cartoon style. My problems with that are difficult to describe but try to imagine the difference between Scooby Doo and The Simpsons. The Simpsons doesn't try nearly so hard to be drawn in any detail however the faces, stances, and expressions are carefully drawn to help convey the emotions of the characters, with excellent comic timing for adults. That's what is missing. This film has no comic timing whatsoever. None. Expressions of surprise, for what they are worth, appear on characters faces a full second after the surprise has passed and dissipated. Other expressions likewise don't convey any useful information or emotional content. Like a Scooby Doo cartoon.
Voice acting likewise appears uncoordinated. Although the voices individually aren't bad (except for the actors - especially Tomjohn and Vitollier who sound embarrassed to be on stage) - in concert they do not sound at all natural. Real conversations overlap. This sounds like everyone is reading a line and then pointing to the next person instead of acting out an entire conversation. Example in point when Magrat and Granny are arguing and Nanny is "coo cooing" the baby... The baby talk is a separate line, spoken in isolation, while the arguers wait for it to be spoken. That's not how people argue. That's just bad acting. Very, very, bad acting.
The opening dialog of the book, "When shall we three meet again", "Well I can do next Tuesday" is a good joke when handled well which the film spoils by putting another scene in between the lines.
I'm sorry, but this just is not good.
11 of 14 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?