Marketic It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

Matrixiole Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Gary The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

BurgerAndBeer I'm a longtime fan of Pratchett and his worlds, and that's why I write to steer people away from this abomination. I give it a vote of 1 only because I can't post negative numbers."Wyrd Sisters," the book is a complex interweaving of the plot of "Macbeth", and the lives of the people of Lancre, but none of this subtlety comes through in the adaptation: it's just a -pardon me- two dimensional portrayal of the witches, and everyone else, as stock figures that you can't possibly come to care about.The animation is quite bad, on the level of a children's Saturday morning cartoon show.The voices don't fit the characters at all. Granny Weatherwas never screeches - she has a hard flat voice that doesn't come through here at all.The editing is non-existent. The producer and screenwriter simply took the book and stuffed it onto film, so it appears disjointed and random.As a result, a finely nuanced piece of literature comes through flat, lifeless and annoying. If you're already a Pratchett fan, stay far away from this ghastly thing, and if you're new to Discworld, don't judge Pratchett's fiction by this movie. Go rent "Hogfather" or "The Colour of Magic" for a real introduction.

neil_t-2 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.

tomimt Imagine a gigantic, no even bigger than that, turtle, named Great A'tuin, swimming through the space. Now, when you've gotten there, imagine four huge elephants standing on his back. Now this might be stretching it a bit, but imagine a world, shaped as a disc on the four mighty backs of those elephants. You are imagining Discworld, a home of wizards, witches, trolls, dwarfs, Ankh-Morpork and Death, yes with an capital D. You are imagining a world, where anything is possible."Wyrd Sisters" is not my favorite book by Terry Pratchett, even tough there is nothing wrong with the characters of the witches themselves. I just find the book to be little bit of boring. Tough there is some stuff in the book, and in this movie, which make you laugh out loud.If I would have been the one to decide, I would have filmed "Witches Aboard", which is much funnier book, but alas, "Wyrd Sisters" we have and that's we are going to review. As a note, this particular cartoon is not made for youngest of children, it's clearly aimed to please more mature audience.Granny, Magrat and Nanny are three witches, who are, by accident, trusted a baby of unknown origin. There's bound to be something special about this kind of baby, and special babies do need godmothers, three of them in this case. So that's the basic plot outline, a parody of your typical fairy godmother fairy tales ala Cinderella. But in this case you have godmothers who actually do have more spirit than whole Disney lot combined.As adaptations go, "Wyrd Sisters" is pretty much straight forwarded made from the book, without any bigger changes. So if you've read the book,there won't be any surprises for you, and if you haven't, well, you won't have to, in terms of understanding the movie. Both are pretty much the same.Voice acting is all around very solid in this movie, but the highest prize is taken by Christopher Lee with his superb role, which he reprises in "Soul music", as Death. The whole cast does good job, deserving their paychecks.Music and sound effects of the movie do their job very well, in terms of giving right ambiance to movie. Music itself is not nothing spectacular, but it does not drive anyone to the brink of suicide.Background art of this movie is just beautiful and there is nothing wrong with animation itself, eventough it's not Disney caliber in that sense.There are some bits, which would have needed some touching up, but maybe the animators ran out of time, given the fact of run time of 2 hours and 20 minutes. But everything in art department does it job, and I can honestly say, that I've seen a lot worse.All things concerned, I can give this movie a solid 7 from good effort. it's not the greatest animation film ever made, bit it's not the worst one either.

kirsty_uk I loved this animation! After reading the book first, I totally agreed with how the characters were represented.The three witches are by far the best characters, Magrat and Nanny Ogg are so funny. The story is good too. Taking elements from stories that have included witches in the past. In particular Macbeth and sleeping Beauty.I talked to Terry Pratchett online last year when he was doing a guest chat on yahoo. I asked him if he was happy with the two animated versions of his books Wyrd Sisters and Soul Music and he said he was extremely pleased with them. So there you have it.Some people may be put off because it's animation, thinking "It's for kids" Although there is nothing nasty in it to make it unsuitable for kids, I think it appeals to an older audience and that kids might not understand all the subtle and clever jokes. The books themselves are definitely aimed at adults.In conclusion just go and watch this now if you are a discworld fan.