Rating: 
Summary: excellent american spirit movie
Review: Good movie, has suspense, realistic look at what could very well happen in the event of nuclear war. Intelligent comedy hidden througout, good use of classic quotes.
Rating: 
Summary: Three hours of nothing
Review: Braveheart was a movie that ran 178 minutes, the same time as the Postman. When it ended, I felt that time wasn't enough, and I wanted the movie to go on. This film, on the other hand, is three hours of nothing. It's a total waste of photography, music, actors, budget, time, and even a perfectly good R rating. Aside from being another one of Kostners attempts of building a seedy monument to himself (if you can bear to watch this film to the end, you can see he does this in more ways than one)this movie is an attempt to go on the grandiose scale. It basically has the same formula as his other movies ("Dances with Wolves", "Robin Hood", and "Waterworld")about an outsider who helps the people of a hostile realm fight against the mauraders. Each attempt he has made was worse than the one before it. Finally we're at the bottom of these tiring reiterations. The Postman uses elements from all of these movies , but seems to have lost inspiration. This one is just a lumbering bore, with no redeeming qualities. The plot is too silly to be taken seriously, the action is only dull at best, and a few scenes (particularly the scene where he takes the little boy's mail) are absurdly overdone. Despite being a painful three hours long, this movie has nothing to show for it. I had the nagging feeling that if the movie went on any longer, it would start showing clips from his former films. What's Kostner going to do next? Make a future movie that takes place underground this time, and, when combined with Waterworld, will be called his "Apocolypse Trilogy"? Let's hope not. I don't see how it could get much worse.
Rating: 
Summary: Not an epic
Review: The Postman failed at the box office because of bad reviews. When I first watched the movie, I thought it couldn't be that bad. It was. I generally like post apocalyptic films but this one really screwed up the genre. The fact that the actors took this film very seriously offered no chance for humor in this story which was sorely needed in the many, many boring moments that plagued this film. It also takes quite a while for Costner to begin his quest as The Postman. About nearly an hour into the movie is how long you have to wait. And this movie is three hours long. The last hour is especially long and feels like another movie by itself. Towards the end, instead of being rewarded with a climactic showdown between the numerous ferocious Holnists and the townspeople, we get an anticlimactic fist fight between Costner and Will Patton who plays the leader of the Holnists.But this film also had some good points. The cinemotagrophy was brilliant and the performances, for the most part, were good. It seemed like Costner tried to hard in making this movie. This movie "won" five razzie awards including worst picture. The Postman wasn't the worst movie of 1997. That honor goes to Batman and Robin.
Rating:
Summary: TOTALLY ENTERTAINING ! ! ! ! !
Review: Totally entertaining - isn't that what movies are supposed to be! Forget everything negative you've heard about this film, sit down, relax and enjoy.
Rating: 
Summary: Screw the critics. This movie is pretty good!
Review: I thoroughly enjoyed all three hours of Kevin Costner in this film. The acting was a little corny, and there were parts to the story that just didn't flow, but pretty much, this is a darn good movie. The fifteen minutes that Tom Petty had in the film were very cool, I might add.
Rating: 
Summary: Subject to unfair critical exageration.
Review: One of the primary problems with film criticism today is the emphasis placed upon monetary return. If a film does not generate at least twice what was spent to produce it, then in must be "bad" -- so the critics say. Compounding the problem is that fact that a rumour mill starts running while a film is in post-production and a judgement is rendered before it is even released. The death-knell to the film is ensured because there exist enough movie goers who take what critics say at face value. How often have you heard the hubristic response: "Oh I'm not seeing that, it's supposed to be awful!" Making matters worse is the fact that many people attend a film simply to confirm the preconceived judgement they have already obtained from the reviews. As a result, most films are set up to fail or succeed long before release. Having said that, The Postman is not a great movie. However, it certainly does not deserve the bitter invective heaped upon it. Although the jingoism is embarrassing and Costner's referral to the female lead as "weird" really presents him as being far more weird, the film is actually better than most Hollywood pap. The production values are first rate and I found the storyline moving at a good clip in spite of the length (178 minutes). An overall good entertainment value if you can get over what everyone else has said about it.
Rating:
Summary: It was pretty good
Review: I never really listen to critcs because half the time they dont know what they are talking about. If you love America and are patirtic like I am then you will love the Postman. Hey I bought it.
Rating:
Summary: Far better than Waterworld
Review: I loved Waterworld, but found the ending terrible. Postman though seems so much better, has a great ending and tons better than any of the Mad Max trilogies (not to say Mad max movies are bad.. but I'd rather be watching The Postman to cheer me up when I'm down than mope around on the end of the world with Gasoline.) As for critics being fools. No one is a fool, but some of us tend to disagree with critics. Unlike the normal public, critics tend to base it off the study. Some have gone thru years of studying in the terms of what is good and what is bad. I know, I'm in a film class. Looking at the lighting, where the camera is placed. The Cinematography and so on. All those things I like, but someone who doesn't pay attention to that doesn't understand it. So most critics ignore that small item and go on as if all of us were school in the same way. I loved the Postman, and who knows how good it would have done if Titanic hadn't opened the same weekend.
Rating:
Summary: Worst picture/actor/director/screenplay of the year????
Review: Those were the awards garnished on this movie. I've never seen one movie so pummelled as this one, and it darn sure didn't, and doesn't, deserve it. I was shocked when the reviews poured in, and most were mean-spirited. They couldn't possibly be reviewing the movie I saw, could they? Hey, I admit it, I'm a Kevin Costner fan. I've liked almost everything he's been associated with. While "The Postman" is not a great movie (although it could have been), it is a good movie. The audience in the theater applauded loudly when the credits rolled up...and no, not because it mercifully ended;-). Note: I saw the movie before most of the negative reviews poured in (probably the first time in history that critics agreed with each other). "The Postman", loosely based on David Brin's novel, is about a post-apocalyptic world struggling to survive. The scattered remnants of humanity have banded together in small towns and hamlets, and are isolated from each other and the rest of the world because a powerful rogue band of survivalists (known as Holnists) patrol and control the countryside. A lone scavenger (Costner), who by chance comes across a wrecked postal truck filled with 16 year-old mail, figures he can 'glean' food and favors from these villages by telling them that he is an official postman and that the United States government is being restored. For the first time in 16 years, people have been given hope, and what starts out as a simple con, soon grows out of proportion and is beyond his (or anyone's) ability to control. Although the movie is three hours long and has several embarrassing "Costner" moments (including a somewhat corny and anti-climactic ending), it was never boring. Although this movie won't be to everyones' liking, I found it very entertaining and David Brin's premise original, if not down-right brilliant. Even with the problems stated above, I give "The Postman" 7 out of 10, and a word of caution: Don't believe everything you read from movie critics (good or bad). Note: David Brin's novel: Although I am probably in the minority here, I have to say that I was disappointed in Brin's novel, or at least in the development of his characters. Brin never made me care for anyone other than Gordon (the postman). Even Gordon's love interest (Dena), wasn't developed to the point where I cared one way or another about her. Because of this, I can't recommend the novel.
Rating:
Summary: This movie is a complete waste of time.
Review: Midway through this movie, I felt like ejecting it from the VCR and throwing it out the window. I could have saved myself 1 l/2 hours or sheer boredom had I done so. The acting was not believable; the plot was heavy-handed; and the dialogue was worse. The only reason I am giving it one star is that zero is not an option. I used to be a big Kevin Costner fan, but a few more movies like this one and I will not only not go to the theatre to see his movies, but I will not rent them either.
|
