First things first: I think Kevin Costner is our most underrated and unfairly maligned filmmaker/movie star. People seem to conveniently forget that he starred in such popular hits as "The Untouchables," "No Way Out," "Bull Durham," "Field of Dreams," "Dances With Wolves," "Robin Hood," "JFK," and "The Bodyguard." I guess the moviegoing public took such great offense at the price tag of "Waterworld" that they decided en masse to shun him forever. Strange, since "Waterworld" was actually a hit that earned more than $300m. "The Postman" was his first real bomb. And I must say, it deserved to tank.
It's a vanity project, a big, slow elephant of a movie that lumbers just like an elephant from scene to scene, in search of a point. It does not work as science fiction because it's basically too much of a Western. But it doesn't work as a Western because the characters have knowledge of an advanced technological society (dead though it may be). Sorry, Kev, you can't have it both ways. "Star Wars" was a Western at heart, but dang, the Millennium Falcon sure was cool.
Then there's Costner himself. What a bad performance. He's overly sincere, drippingly earnest, cloying, sentimental, childish, buffoonish ... not the sort of heroic figure you want to look up to. As a director, he puts himself in laughable situations. Too much of the time, he just stands inert, his face rigid, impassive. A little of that goes a long way; as a director, Costner can be his own worst enemy.
Then there's the running time. I would gladly have taken a meat cleaver to this thing and chopped it down to a length the story would have supported... say, about 60 minutes.
No question: this is a terrible movie. But it's greatest sin is mere over-sincerity. Costner intends for us to feel really good about all the corny adventure-stuff in "The Postman," and to accept the goofy dialogue as heart-felt. You watch this movie and you don't feel bad, or depressed, the way some bad movies make you feel. You just sort of feel like you've spent a long time watching a movie that climaxes with the unveiling of a statue. Lesson, Mr. Costner: do not bronze your own character again. Not in any movie. Gibson had himself torn to shreds at the end of "Braveheart." Not a bad way to go.
It's a vanity project, a big, slow elephant of a movie that lumbers just like an elephant from scene to scene, in search of a point. It does not work as science fiction because it's basically too much of a Western. But it doesn't work as a Western because the characters have knowledge of an advanced technological society (dead though it may be). Sorry, Kev, you can't have it both ways. "Star Wars" was a Western at heart, but dang, the Millennium Falcon sure was cool.
Then there's Costner himself. What a bad performance. He's overly sincere, drippingly earnest, cloying, sentimental, childish, buffoonish ... not the sort of heroic figure you want to look up to. As a director, he puts himself in laughable situations. Too much of the time, he just stands inert, his face rigid, impassive. A little of that goes a long way; as a director, Costner can be his own worst enemy.
Then there's the running time. I would gladly have taken a meat cleaver to this thing and chopped it down to a length the story would have supported... say, about 60 minutes.
No question: this is a terrible movie. But it's greatest sin is mere over-sincerity. Costner intends for us to feel really good about all the corny adventure-stuff in "The Postman," and to accept the goofy dialogue as heart-felt. You watch this movie and you don't feel bad, or depressed, the way some bad movies make you feel. You just sort of feel like you've spent a long time watching a movie that climaxes with the unveiling of a statue. Lesson, Mr. Costner: do not bronze your own character again. Not in any movie. Gibson had himself torn to shreds at the end of "Braveheart." Not a bad way to go.