I liked it. It was different. But I understand why a lot of people hated it.
I thought it was funny that the kid was named “FordLincolnMercury”. Was that from the book?
Can’t say I loved the movie, but I certainly liked it, and will watch it if comes on the Tele.
I did think it was a bit long, and could have told the same story in about an hours less run time, but still an enjoyable movie for though.
And I will also raise my hand as enjoying Waterworld. By no means a great movie, but take it for what it is, a big budget post-apocalypse mindless action flick. Its OK. Just try not to think too much about some of the set up and its enjoyable.
I actually agree whole-heartedly with spoke- that it’s ‘cool’ to hate Costner and his movies. I like quite a few of his actually. Inluding Postman, Waterworld, and Prince of Thieves, (yes I do enjoy this movie despite it being pretty stupid - refer comments above about Waterworld - take it for what it is )
David Brin liked it too. Here is his reaction to the film - http://www.kilnwars.com/postmanmovie.htm
I came in here to say that no, I liked it too… until I remembered that David Brin wrote the book.
I was annoyed at the massive departure from the book (only the basic premise is the same), but when I put aside that loyalty, it was enjoyable. Trite, yes; jingoistic, yes; but it’s still not a bad film. It’s not a good one either, but the hatred is silly.
How exactly was it jingoistic?
Jingoism:Extreme nationalism characterized especially by a belligerent foreign policy; chauvinistic patriotism.
I don’t see how that fits the movie at all.
Nowadays, it’s the in thing to refer to any type of patriotism whatsoever as “jingoistic.” It’s been this way for about 10 years. “Jingoistic” has basically become a synonym for “patriotic.”
Anyway, I thought the film was vastly superior to the book. I found the book ponderous and pretty uninteresting; it truly took Costner’s directing to bring the characters to life. General Bethlehem, for instance, in the book was hardly fleshed out at all and practically a nonentity; in the movie, portrayed by Will Patton, he’s one of the most memorably sadistic movie villains of all time. The Holnists, likewise, in the book are just sort of a vague band of barbarians; the film creates this very vivid and menacing army of horsemen with M-16s and red scarves, sort of like latter-day Cossacks from hell. One of the most memorable “bad guy” armies of film. And of course the unbelievable set locations, and beautiful wide shots of the Northwestern landscape.
The premise was good, but the execution of it in the novel was only so-so. But it became astonishing when translated onto the medium of film.
I guess that’s the divide.
I only half saw it once, it seemed to be Independence Day with horses. Rates 5.5 on the IMDB, seems a couple of points too high.
Nationalistic garbage with a saviour twist. Maybe it was a parody, no idea.
I thought it was sooo bad. I didn’t have a clue so many people hated it when I first saw it. It was so silly. Never saw Waterworld.
I liked it just fine. It could have been shorter and less flawed as noted above, but the hate for it is way out of proportion. I think Brin’s analysis above is pretty much spot on.
What the fuck are you talking about? What nationalistic garbage? The fact that they wanted to preserve the idea of the US and what it stands for is “nationalistic garbage?” I find that a dubious assertion.
It’s juuuust toooooooooo loooooooooooooooooooooooooong.
And the ending is lame. I expected more from all that long slow build up.
I liked the book.
As Argent Towers has indeed noticed, I thoroughly enjoyed The Postman, and the book is one of my all-time favourites.
Of all the Post-Apocalyptic Fiction I’ve read, I think Brin’s novel has the most verisimilitude (look it up, kids!) and the movie build on that with impressive visual
There are some stories that just need a lot of time to tell. The Postman is one of them.
I can understand people rolling their eyes at the “jingoism”, and normally I hate American Flag-Waving, but in the case of The Postman it really is justified- not only that, but it’s necessary that the story be set in the US to make it work.
Imagine trying to set The Postman in Australia (overlooking, for the moment, the fact that it’s already been decided that everyone in Post-Apocalyptic Australia wears a lot of black leather and drives around in a V8 Interceptor with a dog and a sawn-off shotgun).
Australia Post isn’t seen to “tie the nation together” in the way the USPS commonly is, and so the idea of someone showing up with old letters and saying "No, really, there is a Government still functioning Somewhere Else In The Country, and I’ve got a bunch of old letters addressed to your parents to prove it " just wouldn’t work here. That and the Honda CT-110 Postie Bike doesn’t have the “Wasteland Cred” of a V8 interceptor, which wouldn’t help his case either.
The very idea of a wanderer passing themselves off an a bona fide Postman would really require someone who was at least a wee bit full of themselves- or at least a master bullshit artist. And Kevin Costner fits the titular role on-screen perfectly, because people think of him as being a big smug and full of himself after Dances With Wolves and Waterworld.
I could probably write an academic paper-length defence of the movie, but it’s really either one of those films that you enjoy for the story, the cinematography, and “bringing to life” of the book and the concepts it explores- or you hate it because it’s too long as has Kevin Costner in it.
The book is awesome. The movie went a totally different direction.
I liked the movie. I also like Waterworld.