As far as I recall I'd never seen it. And to be honest I'm not sure why I watched it now. Morbid curiosity maybe. It just happened to be on HBO late and night, and it's been panned so badly I thought it was going to be the worst movie of all time. And I gotta admit that after watching it I'm kind of wondering what all the bad buzz was about. I've seen way, way, way worse movies. I can't remember much from 1995, but I'm wondering if it was one of those dogpile instances, where dumping on it was just the hip thing to do. I'm not saying it's a great flick or anything like that, but it was entertaining enough to keep me watching the whole time. I was expecting much worse than I got. Something historically bad rather than marginal. [Reply]
My main problem with it was that it was nothing more than a water-logged rip-off of Road Warrior (which is basically the same reason I hate Avatar). Saw it once. There won't ever be a twice. That goes for Avatar as well.
The Costner movie that I think got unfairly blasted was The Postman. That one I actually liked. [Reply]
Originally Posted by frazod:
My main problem with it was that it was nothing more than a water-logged rip-off of Road Warrior (which is basically the same reason I hate Avatar). Saw it once. There won't ever be a twice. That goes for Avatar as well.
The Costner movie that I think got unfairly blasted was The Postman. That one I actually liked.
The Postman was just a ridiculous premise.
Nobody did a bad job in it, I guess, but the whole thing just seemed like a really bad comic book. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
The Postman was just a ridiculous premise.
Nobody did a bad job in it, I guess, but the whole thing just seemed like a really bad comic book.
I didn't find it to be ridiculous at all. A lot of the things that happened in it seemed logical - isolated communities basically surviving at the whim of nomadic raiders. Eventually something sparks them to take a stand.
I think people were expecting Fallout 3 and instead got a simple, no frills survival flick. [Reply]
Originally Posted by frazod:
I didn't find it to be ridiculous at all. A lot of the things that happened in it seemed logical - isolated communities basically surviving at the whim of nomadic raiders. Eventually something sparks them to take a stand.
I think people were expending Fallout 3 and instead got a simple, no frills survival flick.
This.
The setting of "The Postman" appears to be pretty accurate IMO. [Reply]
Originally Posted by frazod:
My main problem with it was that it was nothing more than a water-logged rip-off of Road Warrior (which is basically the same reason I hate Avatar). Saw it once. There won't ever be a twice. That goes for Avatar as well.
The Costner movie that I think got unfairly blasted was The Postman. That one I actually liked.
I hated Avatar as well. Seems to me people liked it because of "Oooh!! Look at all the pretty colors!!" [Reply]
Originally Posted by lawrenceRaider:
Avatar is just Dances with Wolves in Space.
Dances with Wolves + Pocahontas + a sprinkling of Aliens. All the beauty and promise, and in the end it was just another glorious natives vs. evil rich white men movie, made, of course, by an evil rich white man. Gotta love the irony there.
It was so corny, so utterly predictable. Half an hour into it I knew exactly how it was going to end, who was going to live, and who was going to die. No twists, no surprises, absolutely nothing original. They spent $100 million on CGI and $19.95 on the fucking screenplay. How do you do that? It's damned near criminal.
Originally Posted by lawrenceRaider:
You read the book The Postman was loosely based on? Much, much better than the movie.
Never read it. Didn't even know it was based on a book. [Reply]
Originally Posted by lawrenceRaider:
Avatar is just Dances with Wolves in Space.
Avatar, especially at Imax, really pushed special effects for when it came out.
The 3D of that quality and the 'avatar' aspect that everyone takes for granted now, was really something new back then (and semi naked blue women didn't hurt).
But no reason to see it in this day and age. [Reply]
Originally Posted by lcarus:
I hated Avatar as well. Seems to me people liked it because of "Oooh!! Look at all the pretty colors!!"
I liked avatar because it was (to this point) the most immersive movie I've ever seen. That doesn't mean I think that it's the best or that it's my favorite, but there's not yet been another movie where I was more able to completely lose myself in the presentation. Part of that was visual and technological (I say technological because I don't get the same sense from at home as I did in IMAX 3-D) but part of that was the story. Slam on it all you want for being derivative (and frankly, you could argue that every story is derivative; yes, I've read my hero with 1000 faces - but that's another argument), but the fact that it was recognizable is part of what makes it so extremely easy to relate to. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Frazod:
My main problem with it was that it was nothing more than a water-logged rip-off of Road Warrior (which is basically the same reason I hate Avatar). Saw it once. There won't ever be a twice. That goes for Avatar as well.
The Costner movie that I think got unfairly blasted was The Postman. That one I actually liked.
You read the book The Postman was loosely based on? Much, much better than the movie. [Reply]