The Postman

Rating:
Summary: I just do not understand?
Review: All the reviewers panned this movie when it came out.

So, I went to see it anyway and I loved it. I still have no idea why the hostility towards this film? Perhaps because it's patriotic or sentimental.

Maybe because it indicates that Americans are survivors and are willing to fight for what's right? Maybe because they're afraid it's true? I don't know.

I guess I may never know, and truthfully, I guess I don't really care. It is a heartwarming, patriotic, strong American movie. Those are all the reason's I loved it.

If you enjoy "feel good" movies, you will LOVE this movie.
If you enjoy movies where Americans triumph, you will LOVE this movie.
If you LOVE Kevin Costner, You will LOVE this movie!

But if you love movies where a nation is downtrodden, beaten and chooses to stay that way. Don't see this movie. You won't like it.



Rating:
Summary: dumb
Review: this movie is pretty dumb. it's excessively corny and full of unnecessary details, such as the final scene which is supposed to be 3 decades later. the meaningless inclusion of tom petty playing himself was stupid too. oh my, kevin kostner, how far you have fallen. and to think that i really enjoyed "dances with wolves" too.

but here's one of my many questions: why did everyone need to ride horses? yeah, i know that there's supposed to be this whole apocalyptic war which its reason was never fully explained, and that nukes were used (the white house was allegedly burned down in some ridiculously named fictional battle called the "battle of georgetown"). but don't you think that the vast majority of people older than 20 years old can pull their resources together and, gee, possibly rebuild society? not to mention using the many leftover scraps of cars lying around and maybe build a car?

another question: how did the vast majority of the remaining population in the west morph their modern accents in such a short amount of time? they sounded more like 19th century pioneers, rather than people living in the beginning of the 21st century.

another question: the plot is supposed to take place in 2013 or something like that, while the movie was released in 1997. ok. so i'll give the movie 16 years of apocalyptic living, provided that the fictional "war" that destroyed 100 years of worldwide industrial and post-industrial/electronic development happened at around opening night at the theaters. well if that's the case, then the western terrain sure looks pretty good after going thru a catastrophic war that was capable of destroying the united states government. didn't the "two year winter" you elude to at the beginning of the movie (i can only assume that you mean radiation fallout and nuclear winter) permanently destroy the environment? i think i'd rather believe the governator and the post-war future of "the terminator" over yours.

speaking of which, where is the rest of the world in this "war?" are we to assume that the entire world suffered the same war too?

and am i supposed to believe that a tiny roving band of bad-acting bad dudes led by an unbelievable and unplausable head villian is going to hold the entire west hostage? pretty stupid.

mr. kostner, if either you or any of your people read this, please, go back to the great movies that you use to be in. "fandango" was a brilliant movie, and you were wonderful in it. and no one can surely forget your string of great baseball flicks like "field of dreams" and "bull durham" (i'm not including "for love of the game," which too sucked). i will give you credit, though, because i have heard that "open range" wasn't as bad as any of the movies you were in during that decade-long slide. and the trailer to "the upside of anger" looks funny.

it's not too late to resurrect your career. if virginia madsen and diane lane can do it, so can you.

Rating:
Summary: What gives - this is a good movie
Review: I d not understand why everyone hits down on this movie. It has a good plot, the characters are believable. Unfortunately, the lead character is flawed and very human. I guess this sort of 'hero' is not popular enough, and most people prefer the 'heroic' lead type...

Going from Dances with Wolves to this movie was a big jump for Kevin Costner; I mean who could follow a classic like that with another straight away. However, I feel The Postman is still better than 90% of the garbage pumped out by Hollywood. This movie at least had some style, compared to say Highlander 2, or Dumb & Dumber...

Something to make you think - do you hate this movie only because you wanted another Dances With Wolves ? I suggest you take a good look at so-called popular stinkers like Prince of Thieves or the Matrix sequels; and then re-judge this movie - I dare you.

Rating:
Summary: It's GOTTA be an inside joke
Review: Methinks Kevin Costner got too far into Tom Petty's bag of weed on set and went on together to demonstrate total contempt for filmmaking and audience so deep and pervasive that I have to give it an extra star for audacity. There is no other excuse for the mess this movie is. I loved the initial ha-ha...that a self help guru book breeds a group of fascistic barbarians in the post nuke future. If you're into cinematic masochism, you NEED to buy this movie and sit your friends thru it.

Rating:
Summary: The Second Worst Movie Ever
Review: I say this is the second worst movie ever made because I actually sat through the whole thing whereas I finally turned off "Play It to the Bone" in the last fifteen minutes. Of course, when I was watching "The Postman", I had just had oral surgery and wasn't much into moving.

Nevertheless, this movie is bad. Imagine a post apocalyptic Pacific Northwest. Think of an odd marriage between an Ewok village and rejects from the cast of "Road Warrior", and you will get the basic feel for the setting of this movie.

Kevin Costner finds a bag of undelivered mail and a postal uniform and inexplicably begins to deliver the mail. He becomes a hero to the people, now caught in a struggle between bad guys that look like they didn't make the cut for "Road Warrior" and are still upset, and the good American people trying to make the best of their brave new world.

Radiation poisoning has sterilized men, so naturally, a local woman and her husband ask Costner to try and impregnate her. He obliges them, but the would-be stepdad is killed two scenes later signaling a romantic interest for Costner.

This postal service is propped up by Costner's lie that the US Government is starting to reform and get itself together, and soon, a bunch of villagers, including the token funny black kid named Lincoln Mercury, are delivering mail.

Perhaps the only amusing part of this movie is Tom Petty, playing himself, his post apocalyptic career being the head of a peace loving community. The only reason this is amusing is because I am a huge fan of Tom Petty's, and someone who isn't will not even care.

Not only is the acting horrible, the plot stupid, and the characters difficult to like, but this mess drags on for a very long time. If you want a good post apocalyptic movie, get "Road Warrior" and "Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome". This Costner effort makes "Water World" look like a timeless classic, and when you are through watching it, you will conclude that you sat through it at all because it's just fun to rank on it.





Rating:
Summary: Critics should be critiqued, I thought this was a great film
Review: I had heard, thru critics and such; that this movie was boring and long drawn out. I beg to differ. Why couldn't this happen. Why couldn't one man turn a world torn apart by war and now run by tyrants into a better place by reuniting those who believed it could be. At first when it came on, I thought what does this have to do with the postman, never read the by-line to the movie, so I thought it was about the pony express. But this is well after that. I believe if you were to sit down and watch the whole thing...3 hours. It would make you understand how it could happen. Critics have no heart, they get paid to make or break a movie, they probably "get paid" by some people to make or break a movie. This is a great movie, all acting was great, I got so caught up in it; I didn't want to walk away just to get a cup of coffee. If you have a heart, and if you open it while watching this movie. You'll love it, and wish there were more at the end. It is a great movie!

Rating:
Summary: Costner owes me money!!!
Review: Some of the above reviews label this turd as "under-rated". Were they watching the same movie? This pooper is right up there with BATTLEFIELD EARTH (which is actually enjoyable in it's lameness). The script is weak. The story is sappy. It's the feel-good movie I never wanted to see. And if I see another movie in which the bad guy obsessively quotes Shakespear I'm going to move to another country--one too small and poor to have movie thaeters.

Rating:
Summary: This "movie" made me sick !!!
Review: Kevin Costner have made a crime against humanity. The real mistery to me are those numerous "patriotic" Americans who suport this attack on mental health. God save America from Costner because Allah probably won't...