Home
| Search
| Now Playing
| News
| My Movies
| Games
| Boards
| Help
| US Movie Showtimes
| Top 250
| Register
| Recommendations
| Widgets
Box Office
| Index
| Trailers
| Jobs
|
IMDbPro.com - Free Trial
| IMDb Resume
Copyright © 1990-2008
IMDb.com, Inc.
Terms and Privacy Policy under which this service is provided to you.
An 
company.
Advertise on IMDb.
License our content.
Own the rights?
Buy it at AmazonMore at IMDb Pro Discuss in Boards Add to My Movies Update Data
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotesOverview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany creditstv scheduleAwards & Reviews
user commentsexternal reviewsnewsgroup reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guiderecommendationsmessage boardPlot & Quotes
plot summaryplot synopsisplot keywordsAmazon.com summarymemorable quotesFun Stuff
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQOther Info
merchandising linksbox office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specslaserdisc detailsDVD detailsliterature listingsNewsDeskPromotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo galleryExternal Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clipsIMDb user comments for
The Colour of Magic (2008) (TV) More at IMDb Pro »
18 out of 20 people found the following comment useful :-
Great Fun, 1 April 2008
Author: weemadhenry from United Kingdom
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!!!
5 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-
Meat pies! Hot sausages! Inna bun! So fresh the pig h'an't noticed they're gone, 20 April 2008
Author: Tim Bor from United States
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.
4 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
They try their hardest, 5 April 2008
Author: Mark Conroy from Australia
*** This comment may contain 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.
Cheers through gritted teeth, 29 September 2008
Author: Mike Carter from United States
WHY, WHY, WHY is the DVD not available in the United States? In order to see this film, I had to wait until my son came back from Japan on his summer holidays and had a downloaded version on his laptop.
Is Colour of Magic better or worse than Hogfather? Yes - in the same way that a Woodie Allen flick is better than a Spielberg flick which is worse than LORT. Different books, while both set in the same universe, would logically deserve a different sort of presentation.
Having said that, I read the books on which CoM was based back when they had yet to come to the U.S. and this film was like going back to that heady mix of humour, comment, and downright great storytelling. The Rincewind series was essentially the great, sweeping canvas of the quest or the great conquest. The Weatherwax series, the Vimes series, and the Death series were drawn on a smaller canvas, possibly more cinematic. Some of the books, I would not like to see on film, but they are few and far between -- and I heartily encourage production teams to prove me wrong.
The book caught the spirit of the early series brilliantly. In the (slightly adapted) words of the late R.A. Heinlein, it grabbed the viewer by the lapels, dragged him into the story, taught him a lesson, and finished with music and laughter. I showed this to some students who were unfamiliar with the writer, and they are now busily going through my Pratchett collection.
Now if someone will take on the Tom Holt body of work ........
Patchy in places..., 3 May 2008
Author: markleci-1 from Canada
*** This comment may contain 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.
7 out of 14 people found the following comment useful :-
Not that bad.., 28 March 2008
Author: perisho from United States
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.
0 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :-
Very refreshing and enjoyable., 30 August 2008
Author: Spitfire_Swe from Sweden
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.
1 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
Well...they tried..., 5 April 2008
Author: lsh2k
*** This comment may contain 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 7 people found the following comment useful :-
It's not great but, 29 March 2008
Author: teafcby from United Kingdom
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.
14 out of 32 people found the following comment useful :-
disappointing, 28 March 2008
Author: danag_da_costa from Netherlands
As a long time fan of Pratchett I just had to comment on this movie. In short this movie is very disappointing. Hogfather wasn't great, but that has never been one of my favorite discworld books, despite of the message on the nature of humanity it contains. after the first part i have nothing left but a feeling that it could have been so much more... it just feels like it was all rushed. all the time i got a feeling they were rushing you along to get to the end of the movie, pushing two books into one movie just to get a satisfactory closing. The dialogue was forced, even more so than in Hogfather where I got the impression they were just reading their lines of a Teleprompter, the details that clearly make it a story by Pratchett got cut out leaving you with an attempt at a regular fantasymovie with attempts at humour and aimed at the general public who don't know that the whole discworld series is meant as a satire on the fantasy genre (the abundance of magic swords, the geriatric barbarian, the make-believe dragons, explaining the in-sewer-ants, they had so much potential for that!) also totally miscast; Nigel Planner would have been the been the only choice for Rincewind in my eyes..., Two-flower is Chinese, Death looks like a failed power ranger at times...)
When you read about Ankh-Morpork you can almost feel the grease and soot in the air, it is a living breathing entity you can almost feel coming to live when you read about it, and in the movie it's just... a set
In the end this is how I felt about the entire thing; SO great in the books but such a great opportunity lost, just to sell the movie...
If you have the day to spare to read the 2 books that comprise this movie, i suggest you read them instead of wasting three hours of your life... you will understand why they wanted to make this into a movie and where it failed miserably...
Add another comment
Related Links