Giovanni-Ribisi Movie Reviews

Like yesterday, I remember that August of 1973 when the Wesley Parker case hit the news. For those of you who don't know or don't remember, the case dealt with Larry & Lucky Parker. They were a deeply religious family from a California town with four children ranging from age 1-1/2 years to 11. Their oldest, a son Wesley, was diabetic. While attending church as they always did on Sunday, the Parkers brought their son Wesley up to be faith healed by a visiting Pastor. And this is where things turned bad.

Believing their son to have been cured by God, Larry & Lucky withheld his insulin - and 3 days later Wesley died. Though we've heard of these cases before, it was what followed that made this one stand out: Larry & Lucky announced to a stunned world that Wesley would rise from the dead in four days. Four days later, "resurrection" services were held for Wesley, in which he failed to resurrect, and the next day Larry & Lucky found themselves arrested for manslaughter. In time Watergate took over the airways and I never found out what happened to the Parkers. Through the next 15 years, I would remember the name Wesley Parker and what had happened to him. And many times wondered about the parents - what kind of people would let such a horrible thing happen to their own child?

Which is why in May of 1988 I made every effort to watch "Promised a Miracle". I just couldn't believe a movie had been made about this incident because I thought I was the only one who remembered it. With top-notch performances by Judge Reinhold and Rosanna Arquette, an intelligently written screenplay (though liberally adapted from Larry Parker's own book "We Let Our Son Die"), and very tight direction, this managed to swing my opinion around and made me feel real sympathy for the parents. They were NOT horrible stupid people. What they were were misguided. This movie got the point across that Larry & Lucky truly loved Wesley more than anything in the world and truly BELIEVED that God would bring him back. The most heartbreaking scene for me - an hour and 10 minutes into the film - occurs when Larry & Lucky finally have to face a horrible fact: The miracle they so deeply believed in was not going to occur. They let Wesley die and they would have to live with it for the rest of their lives. I defy anybody to get through that scene with their eyes dry. You needn't worry that the movie is anti-God or disrespectful towards religion. It is neither. But it certainly makes it point about people who make a dangerous leap into presumption.

Most definitely recommended.

I think this movie is absolutely true and hilarious. This group of 20-somethings is exactly like people I know. This has a theme similar to Kevin Smith movies and other funny realistic comedies. If you liked this I recommend you see Clerks, Chasing Amy, Dogma, Glory Daze, and Mallrats. This group of people hang outside a convenience store getting drunk and encounters real life issues. You should definitly buy this movie! Ribisi and Zahn are the funniest ever. The scene where Zahn steals the lawn ornament is great. Its an awesome flick. The only character I don't like is the rock star, he is the only reason I don't give it 5 stars. Rent or buy it, its worth it. Its kind of an immature comedy but that is what makes it good. If you like Kevin Smith movies or Glory Daze you'll really like Suburbia.

Jeff, Bee Bee, and Buff are the most realistic characters in the movie. Sooze, Tim, Erica, and Pony are far too exaggerated in their traits. Collectively Jeff, Bee Bee, Buff, Sooze, and Tim are a bunch of losers who are misdirected or completely lacking direction in their lives and waste their time hanging out around a convenience store run by a Pakistani. Pony is a hometown boy done well because he is a rock star and is returning to Burnfield in his limo with his publicist, Erica. Pony and Erica are completely out of touch with the real world because of the LA influence in their lives. Sooze is a deluded girl who thinks her "art" is good and feels she'll make it big in New York while at home it is clear that those who view her performance art suffer through it. Tim is an extremely jealous person and is very defensive because everything he's wanted in his life has gone awry. Tim is envious of everyone in his social group and in his life because they're doing something when he has absolutely no direction in his life and spends his time getting drunk on the corner and making belittling comments. Buff is the idiot in their group of friends, the one who will do anything to get a laugh. Bee Bee, although is exaggerated to a degree, is a realistic character. She is an alcoholic and goes unnoticed by her group of friends and drinking is how she deals with it. Jeff is just there and is aware that his life is passing him by which makes him a malcontent and a cynic. He is upset by the fact that his life doesn't make a difference, which is most evident in his interaction with Pony. I know I'm making this movie out to sound like a depressing piece of garbage but it really isn't. The movie's exaggerations can be overlooked as its downfall and embraced because they are what make it so funny. The extremes of these characters and the whole movie are just hysterical. It is a smart movie that is open to interpretation as to the motives of each of the characters for their actions. It is a wonderful movie that I would recommend to anyone in his or her late teens to early twenties because beyond that age group the film's meaning might be lost. SubUrbia is a look at your hometown, at everyone's hometown, and at the different personalities of the people in your group of friends. It's people at a stage in their life where they're not sure and would rather spend their time just sitting on the corner drinking and eating takeout. It may be too much reality for a Friday night for some people, but it is truly an enjoyable movie.

ok, all in all this was a very excellent movie. it had some downfalls, but then again its a lot of things. It mixes things up, like, jealousy, comedy, drama, romance, racism. A great look at wasted life. It starts out great and it ends powerfully and dramatically. Steve Zahn in the standout in this movie, period!!. The others like Nicky Katt, Giovanni Ribisi and Parker Posey were good, especially Ribisi(though I did not want to see him strip down to his buffness, AHHH!!! my eyes hurt). Then the gang have their friend Pony (Jayce Bartok, who can sing good) who left and became a rockstar come back and complicate things. Relationships break up, relationships begin, friendships break, emotions rise, theres lies, long speeches. To my standards Eric Bogosian should of won a screenplay award or something. I think this is Richard Linklaters best (next to Dazed and Confused and Tape). Good acting from the stars. My favorites scene is when Steve Zahn explains to Gioanni Ribisi about how Pony might be having lots of sex with porn girls and then he humps the car and then tells Ribisi about if he were in Pony's shoes he would do this. Plus it must of hurt when he hit his head of the stop sign, OUCH!!. you all must see it or die, just kidding. Watch it.

I see an alarming trend in the movies these days; a big budget movie with a tremendous cast and absolutely no script. "Gone in 60 Seconds" is one of those films. You look at a movie with Nick Cage, Robert Duvall, Delroy Lindo, and Angelina Jolie, and you would have to think it was going to be good, but you'd be wrong. From a purely visual standpoint the film is slick and entertaining, but in reality it is a poorly written mediocre action movie. Nicholas Cage plays Randall "Memphis" Raines a legend in the auto theft community who is forced out of retirement to save his kid brothers (played by the always strange Giovanni Ribisi) life. Raines must recruit a group of car thieves (Jolie, Duvall and others) who are capable of stealing 50 rare and exotic cars in 72 hours while the crafty police detective (played by Lindo) is hot on their trail. From there the movie goes on to be a disappointing mix of bad one liners and stale dialogue. Duvall's talent is absolutely wasted in this picture, and Angelina Jolie's physical appearance is down right frightening (what ever happend to that pretty girl from "The Bone Collecter"?). As a guy I have to admit that I loved the action and the car chases especially the final chase with Cage, but the ending is so far fetched that you wouldn't believe it. Overall I have to admit that the car chases, explosions and hot cars appealed to the guy part of me enough to say that I liked the movie, but as a movie lover I have to say that I felt a bit cheated.

Great cast. Competent direction. Some very funny dialogue (written by the guy who wrote Con Air-A way better movie). The problem with this movie is there isn't enough car chases or car wrecks like the original. The characters and dialogue was okay but for a movie like this to not have more action is unforgiveable. See 2 Fast 2 Furious if you want a good car chace/racing flick with good pacing.

For all those people who knock this movie so badly, I have to ask. Why do you take this movie so seriously? Gone in 60 Seconds was not meant to be Oscar material. It was meant to be an exciting action movie with impressive stunts. Starring Nicolas Cage, Angelina Jolie, Giovanni Ribisi, Robert Duvall, Will Patton, the movie boasts an impressive cast that is underused. Still the movie is great at what it set out to do. The car chases are some of the best since Bullit.

The plot is a simple one. Memphis Raines, a famous car booster, has to steal 50 exotic cars or else his kid brother(Giovanni Ribisi) will get taken out by a mob boss. It isn't the deepest plot but it works in this movies. Memphis(Nicolas Cage) puts together a team to help him steal the cars. Obviously the plan doesn't go perfectly as Memphis and crew run into rival boosters, police chasing after them, and the ever elusive "Eleanor," Memphis' unicorn.

Gone in 60 Seconds is a fun movie to watch with good performances, exciting action sequences, and an awesome soundtrack. Sure the movie isn't great moviemaking but it succeeds at what it set out to do. The movie has its mistakes but anyone who goes through and makes a long list of them needs to lighten up. It is just a movie. The DVD is great with piles of extras that talk about the cast and the stunts.

"Basic" features one of the great fakeout performances of all time from John Travolta, though it's more deplorable than admirable. If the movie is to be believed, then only the final five minutes feature Travolta's character, DEA agent Tom Hardy, speaking words that could not be considered a con job. Were "Basic" a David Mamet picture, well now. But it's a military movie about a combat accident, then murder, then drugs, then...nothing. There has to be easier ways to ferret out crooked officers than this.

Truth be told, the journey in "Basic," directed by John McTiernan, is pretty entertaining. A "training" exercise in the Panamanian jungle goes awry when a soldier (Who? How? When?) murders the sadistic drill instructor, Sgt. West (Samuel L. Jackson). Out of eight soldiers, two survive, neither is talking, and the commanding officer in Panama (Timothy Daly) has an impending image problem. Hardy is a friend called in to assist the on-base investigator (Connie Nielsen) with the predictable butt of heads ensuing.

A leaner, meaner Travolta has his moments, especially with the first uncooperative solider (Brian Van Holt). The other, wounded soldier is played by Giovanni Ribisi as a mannered, slightly deranged gay man forced to join the military by his general father. Uh huh.

Naturally, the soldiers have alternate stories that implicate one another. Naturally, there's another layer below those stories. And another. And another. The final layer reveals there were no layers; it's like icing, suspended in air, over a nonexistent cake. You can see how this might not be pleasing.

Movies can be, and often should be, clever. Every so often, movies can even fib a little -- flashbacks, for example, are seen in the eye of beholder, and are not necessarily the actual truth. "Basic" goes much further into this territory, toward blatant abuse of the audience's trust. Consider a scene where Hardy discovers that one soldier has been using the name of another; the camera zooms in on Hardy, then cuts to several scenes we've already seen in the movie, only with a different soldier in the role of the previous soldier. The way this scene is cut, it's clear these flashbacks are meant to occur in Hardy's mind; thus, he would seem to be putting together the pieces as we are.

But later, "Basic" reveals Hardy not only had this information, but concealed it. How to explain the previous scene? There is no explanation, beyond the screenwriter, James Vanderbilt, wanting to make the viewer feel like a fool. His clear obsession with a trick ending throws a javelin through the heart of the film.

Judging by the A-list supporting cast -- Jackson, Nielsen, Taye Diggs, Ribisi, Roselyn Sanchez, in a nice turn as a twisted, goofy female grunt -- "Basic" had some heft behind it. What a bitter shame it amounted to nothing.

Anyone who has read enough of my movie/DVD reviews might have noticed that I haven't discussed the work of John Travolta a whole lot. Truth to tell, I'm not a big fan of the star, no matter what he does (save for maybe Broken Arrow). Therefore, I steer clear of having to explain, or repeat myself. Along comes Basic, directed by John "Die Hard" "Hunt For Red October" McTiernan, whose work I usually like and I'm there to give it a shot.

Tom Hardy (Travolta) is a former Army Ranger-turned-DEA agent, who is recruited by Army investigator Julia Osborne (Connie Nielsen) to help investigate the death of much hated Sergeant Nathan West. (Samuel L. Jackson). The evidence seems to indicate that West was allegedly killed, while commanding a secret Special Forces training mission in Panama, during an intense hurricane. Among the survivors of the ill-fated excercise is Kendall (Giovanni Ribisi), who along with others, is asked to recall what really happened. Conficting accounts signal something sinister

Basic follows the same formula of say, Courage Under Fire, another "millitary mystery". Rather than go for anything resembling compelling drama, McTirenan goes full on, with plenty of machismo. I have no problem with that at all. Indeed, Travolta's performance is even tolerable, this time out. What DOES hurt the film for me though, is its poor script by James Vanderbilt. What starts off as a solid story, quickly becomes too interested in misdirecting the audience, that it sort of falls apart. By the time you reach the end, you'll find yourself disappointed and dismayed, rather than be "shocked" by the result.

The DVD has a handfull of extras. Usually I enjoy any audio commentary by director John McTiernan. This time though, like the film itself, he gets bogged down, and what he has to say isn't all that interesting I'm sorry to say. There are also two featurettes. The first called "Basic: A Director's Design," while the second, "Basic Ingredients: A Writer's Perspective" is almost laughable given the script issues I had. Last, but not least, is the theatrical trailer for the film.

What an ironic experience for me...The one thing I expected to be the movie's biggest problem...wasn't after all. Still, It's hard to recommend Basic, as anything other than a rental. And given the lack of worthwhile bonus material, even that, may be quite a stretch

This film is a stylish, military thriller and murder mystery from the director of 'Die Hard with a Vengeance', John McTiernan, that maintains its tension and intrigue from start to finish. By their definition, thriller/mysteries are designed to keep you guessing throughout the tale, and a big part of the entertainment value is the process of determining the identity of the killer. This film indeed keeps the viewer guessing and continues to do so until the end. There are some of us who have that ability to watch any mystery film and deduce the culprit's identity within the first ten minutes of the story. (I'm not one of them) But I would bet anyone my last dollar to figure out this film's ending, the final twist is exceptionally clever and surprising.

It was also a pleasure to see Travolta and Jackson together on the screen again. After seeing this picture, I was reminded of that intense charisma and power these two actor's command on screen; both have that undeniable star quality that shines in every project they do.

Overall this is a well-crafted thriller/mystery that rivets the viewer's attention from the start, and doesn't let go until the final scene - first class entertainment.

"Basic" features one of the great fakeout performances of all time from John Travolta, though it's more deplorable than admirable. If the movie is to be believed, then only the final five minutes feature Travolta's character, DEA agent Tom Hardy, speaking words that could not be considered a con job. Were "Basic" a David Mamet picture, well now. But it's a military movie about a combat accident, then murder, then drugs, then...nothing. There has to be easier ways to ferret out crooked officers than this.

Truth be told, the journey in "Basic," directed by John McTiernan, is pretty entertaining. A "training" exercise in the Panamanian jungle goes awry when a soldier (Who? How? When?) murders the sadistic drill instructor, Sgt. West (Samuel L. Jackson). Out of eight soldiers, two survive, neither is talking, and the commanding officer in Panama (Timothy Daly) has an impending image problem. Hardy is a friend called in to assist the on-base investigator (Connie Nielsen) with the predictable butt of heads ensuing.

A leaner, meaner Travolta has his moments, especially with the first uncooperative solider (Brian Van Holt). The other, wounded soldier is played by Giovanni Ribisi as a mannered, slightly deranged gay man forced to join the military by his general father. Uh huh.

Naturally, the soldiers have alternate stories that implicate one another. Naturally, there's another layer below those stories. And another. And another. The final layer reveals there were no layers; it's like icing, suspended in air, over a nonexistent cake. You can see how this might not be pleasing.

Movies can be, and often should be, clever. Every so often, movies can even fib a little -- flashbacks, for example, are seen in the eye of beholder, and are not necessarily the actual truth. "Basic" goes much further into this territory, toward blatant abuse of the audience's trust. Consider a scene where Hardy discovers that one soldier has been using the name of another; the camera zooms in on Hardy, then cuts to several scenes we've already seen in the movie, only with a different soldier in the role of the previous soldier. The way this scene is cut, it's clear these flashbacks are meant to occur in Hardy's mind; thus, he would seem to be putting together the pieces as we are.

But later, "Basic" reveals Hardy not only had this information, but concealed it. How to explain the previous scene? There is no explanation, beyond the screenwriter, James Vanderbilt, wanting to make the viewer feel like a fool. His clear obsession with a trick ending throws a javelin through the heart of the film.

Judging by the A-list supporting cast -- Jackson, Nielsen, Taye Diggs, Ribisi, Roselyn Sanchez, in a nice turn as a twisted, goofy female grunt -- "Basic" had some heft behind it. What a bitter shame it amounted to nothing.

Anyone who has read enough of my movie/DVD reviews might have noticed that I haven't discussed the work of John Travolta a whole lot. Truth to tell, I'm not a big fan of the star, no matter what he does (save for maybe Broken Arrow). Therefore, I steer clear of having to explain, or repeat myself. Along comes Basic, directed by John "Die Hard" "Hunt For Red October" McTiernan, whose work I usually like and I'm there to give it a shot.

Tom Hardy (Travolta) is a former Army Ranger-turned-DEA agent, who is recruited by Army investigator Julia Osborne (Connie Nielsen) to help investigate the death of much hated Sergeant Nathan West. (Samuel L. Jackson). The evidence seems to indicate that West was allegedly killed, while commanding a secret Special Forces training mission in Panama, during an intense hurricane. Among the survivors of the ill-fated excercise is Kendall (Giovanni Ribisi), who along with others, is asked to recall what really happened. Conficting accounts signal something sinister

Basic follows the same formula of say, Courage Under Fire, another "millitary mystery". Rather than go for anything resembling compelling drama, McTirenan goes full on, with plenty of machismo. I have no problem with that at all. Indeed, Travolta's performance is even tolerable, this time out. What DOES hurt the film for me though, is its poor script by James Vanderbilt. What starts off as a solid story, quickly becomes too interested in misdirecting the audience, that it sort of falls apart. By the time you reach the end, you'll find yourself disappointed and dismayed, rather than be "shocked" by the result.

The DVD has a handfull of extras. Usually I enjoy any audio commentary by director John McTiernan. This time though, like the film itself, he gets bogged down, and what he has to say isn't all that interesting I'm sorry to say. There are also two featurettes. The first called "Basic: A Director's Design," while the second, "Basic Ingredients: A Writer's Perspective" is almost laughable given the script issues I had. Last, but not least, is the theatrical trailer for the film.

What an ironic experience for me...The one thing I expected to be the movie's biggest problem...wasn't after all. Still, It's hard to recommend Basic, as anything other than a rental. And given the lack of worthwhile bonus material, even that, may be quite a stretch

This film is a stylish, military thriller and murder mystery from the director of 'Die Hard with a Vengeance', John McTiernan, that maintains its tension and intrigue from start to finish. By their definition, thriller/mysteries are designed to keep you guessing throughout the tale, and a big part of the entertainment value is the process of determining the identity of the killer. This film indeed keeps the viewer guessing and continues to do so until the end. There are some of us who have that ability to watch any mystery film and deduce the culprit's identity within the first ten minutes of the story. (I'm not one of them) But I would bet anyone my last dollar to figure out this film's ending, the final twist is exceptionally clever and surprising.

It was also a pleasure to see Travolta and Jackson together on the screen again. After seeing this picture, I was reminded of that intense charisma and power these two actor's command on screen; both have that undeniable star quality that shines in every project they do.

Overall this is a well-crafted thriller/mystery that rivets the viewer's attention from the start, and doesn't let go until the final scene - first class entertainment.

Based on a play (which I've never seen), "It's the Rage" follows an ensemble of coincidentally linked characters either perpetrating or victimized by gun violence of all kinds. The ultimate message-a gun is the only thing separating an ordinary but otherwise stressed out person from becoming a murderer-seems reasonable. But the film's flashy and shallow textures undercut its own serious agenda. Or maybe it's the other way around. In either case, "It's the Rage" may be intriguing on its Tarantino-esque surface and commendable for its anti-gun social message, but the film can't help but fail as these two impulses fight it out. Ultimately, "It's the Rage is bloodless in every sense of the word.

This movie ain't that bad as portrayed by the amazon reviwers on this site. I thought all the actors were superb. The shoplifter from X Men showed another dimension I never knew she had. All in all every actor was solid here and I adored them all.

The film, what with being coined as an anti-gun satire or commentary didn't really hit a chord with this viewer. But never the less it did have a strong plot.

I patcularly liked Gary Sinies's character complaining about a common problem in todays society - too much information. Also the special effects in his billionaires house's many TV Screens were great and hi-tech.

There was a couple of times I laughed during this movie btw.

Nine people are somehow brought together by rage. Whether they are victims or the cause of rage, all of their lives are deeply touched by it. The way all of the characters can connect is very similar to Boogie Night's writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson's style of filmmaking. Even though the movie's classified as a drama, it is quite humorous. James D. Stern has made the sad events in the film seem hilarious. Much like Welcome To The Dollhouse and Happiness's writer/director Todd Solondz, Stern has glorified depression. Whether the characters are having ethical problems or they're just plain nuts, we find ourselves chuckling at their misfortune. The "moral" of the movie, being that guns are bad, sucessfully comes across without being preachy. So overall, this movie is excellent. It's honestly one of the best movies I've seen in a long time.

Based on a play (which I've never seen), "It's the Rage" follows an ensemble of coincidentally linked characters either perpetrating or victimized by gun violence of all kinds. The ultimate message-a gun is the only thing separating an ordinary but otherwise stressed out person from becoming a murderer-seems reasonable. But the film's flashy and shallow textures undercut its own serious agenda. Or maybe it's the other way around. In either case, "It's the Rage" may be intriguing on its Tarantino-esque surface and commendable for its anti-gun social message, but the film can't help but fail as these two impulses fight it out. Ultimately, "It's the Rage is bloodless in every sense of the word.

This movie ain't that bad as portrayed by the amazon reviwers on this site. I thought all the actors were superb. The shoplifter from X Men showed another dimension I never knew she had. All in all every actor was solid here and I adored them all.

The film, what with being coined as an anti-gun satire or commentary didn't really hit a chord with this viewer. But never the less it did have a strong plot.

I patcularly liked Gary Sinies's character complaining about a common problem in todays society - too much information. Also the special effects in his billionaires house's many TV Screens were great and hi-tech.

There was a couple of times I laughed during this movie btw.

Nine people are somehow brought together by rage. Whether they are victims or the cause of rage, all of their lives are deeply touched by it. The way all of the characters can connect is very similar to Boogie Night's writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson's style of filmmaking. Even though the movie's classified as a drama, it is quite humorous. James D. Stern has made the sad events in the film seem hilarious. Much like Welcome To The Dollhouse and Happiness's writer/director Todd Solondz, Stern has glorified depression. Whether the characters are having ethical problems or they're just plain nuts, we find ourselves chuckling at their misfortune. The "moral" of the movie, being that guns are bad, sucessfully comes across without being preachy. So overall, this movie is excellent. It's honestly one of the best movies I've seen in a long time.

As a huge fan of David Brin, whose book "The Postman" served as the basis for this film, and the post-apocalyptic genre in general, I was looking forward to seeing this movie. My friends tried to warn me away from it, and after all the negative press I read, it was hard to keep an open mind.

The Postman isn't awful, but it is incredibly overlong. It seems to crawl about as fast as a bulldozer out of gas. Thankfully, the plot develops in that time, but The Postman lacks the sweeping, involving, intricate details that define an "epic" (and David Brin's books).

The problem is that Costner and the editors wanted to include as much material from the novel as possible, but instead of folding plots into each other, it only half-develops different lines, or totally leaves them untouched. The Holnists, for example, while only playing a major role in the last quarter of the book, become a variety of "devolved" enemies and serve as the "main bad guys" in the film.

David Brin's works are extremely complex and intelligent, which Costner and company no doubt recognized, but The Postman was partially dumbed-down for audiences more interested in brainless action-schlock like Mission Impossible 2 or the watered-down "epic" Gladiator. The dumbing-down occured in the wrong places; the editors no doubt assumed that audiences would have the attention span to sit through a three-hour movie but still wanted something substance-less - it just doesn't work. By trying to satisfy the fans who wanted the complexity and sincerity of the book, and attempting to appeal to the wider popcorn-munching audience, Costner strove for a middle ground, the same route he found with dazzling success in Dances With Wolves, and ended up falling off the fence.

The Postman is worth watching for the post-apocalyptic sets and ideas, especially if you are interested in the genre, but I can't imagine this film as much more than an artifact, appealing to the few of us who enjoy the post-nuclear, post-apocalyptic films like The Postman.

DVD dirt -

The transfer is OK - not great, but not terrible. You can tell it was done in the early days of dual layer, because there is a slight hiccup at every chapter change. Some sections of the film seem quite dirty, with obvious splotches and scratches. The sound transfer isn't bad, but the voices and the effects aren't mixed properly; viewers with a center-channel system can simply turn that speaker up, but those without will experience very quiet dialogue with very loud music and ear-blistering explosions that seem almost out of place.

The only extra worth talking about is the "Postman's CGI Route" featurette, which talks mostly about splicing green-screened actors onto computer-touched-up shots of landscapes, or replacing some background scenery with matte images or still frames. Nothing terribly special, and the featurette only lasts for 15 minutes or so.

Dammit, I keep pulling for Kevin Costner. He deals in big, big themes: Waterworld, Postman, and, of course, Dances with Wolves. I like a guy that goes for the big ideas and huge Hollywood productions. But the bottom line is Mr. Costner can't edit a film worth a tinker's damn. Also, he is just plain soft at the center and shockingly politically correct, which leads to some truly god-awful dialogue. This film has, at least, an interesting performance from Will Patton, who plays the movie's villain as though constantly wired to an electric charge. The hell of it is, I have liked Costner in his smaller roles, such as the tiny gem, A Perfect World (which boasted one of Clint Eastwood's most effective and understated performances to date) and Silverado. What the hell. It's worth a rental.

I believe that the reviewers must have been reading each other's reviews instead of actually watching the movie, and Costner-bashing has long been great sport among reviewers. The original David Brin novel has been improved upon in several ways. In particular, gone are the two cyborg/supermen who duked it out in the finale of the novel, a distraction and deus-ex-machina.

I especially loved the internal consistency, lack of impossible battles, and the strong development of a number of believable characters. The Holnist leader (who played a supporting role in "Armageddon") is more than a cartoon bad guy, and Costner's postman is plagued by guilt and doubt as he discovers how seriously everyone takes his "Restored United States". There is almost nothing in the movie that is irrelevant to the plot.

Yes, it is a bit slow in parts, and I was ready to quit watching after 30 minutes because I had heard that it was just another post-apocalyptic bore, but it turned into a sterling movie. Even my wife, no fan of that genre, wanted to watch it all the way through.

As a huge fan of David Brin, whose book "The Postman" served as the basis for this film, and the post-apocalyptic genre in general, I was looking forward to seeing this movie. My friends tried to warn me away from it, and after all the negative press I read, it was hard to keep an open mind.

The Postman isn't awful, but it is incredibly overlong. It seems to crawl about as fast as a bulldozer out of gas. Thankfully, the plot develops in that time, but The Postman lacks the sweeping, involving, intricate details that define an "epic" (and David Brin's books).

The problem is that Costner and the editors wanted to include as much material from the novel as possible, but instead of folding plots into each other, it only half-develops different lines, or totally leaves them untouched. The Holnists, for example, while only playing a major role in the last quarter of the book, become a variety of "devolved" enemies and serve as the "main bad guys" in the film.

David Brin's works are extremely complex and intelligent, which Costner and company no doubt recognized, but The Postman was partially dumbed-down for audiences more interested in brainless action-schlock like Mission Impossible 2 or the watered-down "epic" Gladiator. The dumbing-down occured in the wrong places; the editors no doubt assumed that audiences would have the attention span to sit through a three-hour movie but still wanted something substance-less - it just doesn't work. By trying to satisfy the fans who wanted the complexity and sincerity of the book, and attempting to appeal to the wider popcorn-munching audience, Costner strove for a middle ground, the same route he found with dazzling success in Dances With Wolves, and ended up falling off the fence.

The Postman is worth watching for the post-apocalyptic sets and ideas, especially if you are interested in the genre, but I can't imagine this film as much more than an artifact, appealing to the few of us who enjoy the post-nuclear, post-apocalyptic films like The Postman.

DVD dirt -

The transfer is OK - not great, but not terrible. You can tell it was done in the early days of dual layer, because there is a slight hiccup at every chapter change. Some sections of the film seem quite dirty, with obvious splotches and scratches. The sound transfer isn't bad, but the voices and the effects aren't mixed properly; viewers with a center-channel system can simply turn that speaker up, but those without will experience very quiet dialogue with very loud music and ear-blistering explosions that seem almost out of place.

The only extra worth talking about is the "Postman's CGI Route" featurette, which talks mostly about splicing green-screened actors onto computer-touched-up shots of landscapes, or replacing some background scenery with matte images or still frames. Nothing terribly special, and the featurette only lasts for 15 minutes or so.

Dammit, I keep pulling for Kevin Costner. He deals in big, big themes: Waterworld, Postman, and, of course, Dances with Wolves. I like a guy that goes for the big ideas and huge Hollywood productions. But the bottom line is Mr. Costner can't edit a film worth a tinker's damn. Also, he is just plain soft at the center and shockingly politically correct, which leads to some truly god-awful dialogue. This film has, at least, an interesting performance from Will Patton, who plays the movie's villain as though constantly wired to an electric charge. The hell of it is, I have liked Costner in his smaller roles, such as the tiny gem, A Perfect World (which boasted one of Clint Eastwood's most effective and understated performances to date) and Silverado. What the hell. It's worth a rental.

I believe that the reviewers must have been reading each other's reviews instead of actually watching the movie, and Costner-bashing has long been great sport among reviewers. The original David Brin novel has been improved upon in several ways. In particular, gone are the two cyborg/supermen who duked it out in the finale of the novel, a distraction and deus-ex-machina.

I especially loved the internal consistency, lack of impossible battles, and the strong development of a number of believable characters. The Holnist leader (who played a supporting role in "Armageddon") is more than a cartoon bad guy, and Costner's postman is plagued by guilt and doubt as he discovers how seriously everyone takes his "Restored United States". There is almost nothing in the movie that is irrelevant to the plot.

Yes, it is a bit slow in parts, and I was ready to quit watching after 30 minutes because I had heard that it was just another post-apocalyptic bore, but it turned into a sterling movie. Even my wife, no fan of that genre, wanted to watch it all the way through.

As a huge fan of David Brin, whose book "The Postman" served as the basis for this film, and the post-apocalyptic genre in general, I was looking forward to seeing this movie. My friends tried to warn me away from it, and after all the negative press I read, it was hard to keep an open mind.

The Postman isn't awful, but it is incredibly overlong. It seems to crawl about as fast as a bulldozer out of gas. Thankfully, the plot develops in that time, but The Postman lacks the sweeping, involving, intricate details that define an "epic" (and David Brin's books).

The problem is that Costner and the editors wanted to include as much material from the novel as possible, but instead of folding plots into each other, it only half-develops different lines, or totally leaves them untouched. The Holnists, for example, while only playing a major role in the last quarter of the book, become a variety of "devolved" enemies and serve as the "main bad guys" in the film.

David Brin's works are extremely complex and intelligent, which Costner and company no doubt recognized, but The Postman was partially dumbed-down for audiences more interested in brainless action-schlock like Mission Impossible 2 or the watered-down "epic" Gladiator. The dumbing-down occured in the wrong places; the editors no doubt assumed that audiences would have the attention span to sit through a three-hour movie but still wanted something substance-less - it just doesn't work. By trying to satisfy the fans who wanted the complexity and sincerity of the book, and attempting to appeal to the wider popcorn-munching audience, Costner strove for a middle ground, the same route he found with dazzling success in Dances With Wolves, and ended up falling off the fence.

The Postman is worth watching for the post-apocalyptic sets and ideas, especially if you are interested in the genre, but I can't imagine this film as much more than an artifact, appealing to the few of us who enjoy the post-nuclear, post-apocalyptic films like The Postman.

DVD dirt -

The transfer is OK - not great, but not terrible. You can tell it was done in the early days of dual layer, because there is a slight hiccup at every chapter change. Some sections of the film seem quite dirty, with obvious splotches and scratches. The sound transfer isn't bad, but the voices and the effects aren't mixed properly; viewers with a center-channel system can simply turn that speaker up, but those without will experience very quiet dialogue with very loud music and ear-blistering explosions that seem almost out of place.

The only extra worth talking about is the "Postman's CGI Route" featurette, which talks mostly about splicing green-screened actors onto computer-touched-up shots of landscapes, or replacing some background scenery with matte images or still frames. Nothing terribly special, and the featurette only lasts for 15 minutes or so.

Dammit, I keep pulling for Kevin Costner. He deals in big, big themes: Waterworld, Postman, and, of course, Dances with Wolves. I like a guy that goes for the big ideas and huge Hollywood productions. But the bottom line is Mr. Costner can't edit a film worth a tinker's damn. Also, he is just plain soft at the center and shockingly politically correct, which leads to some truly god-awful dialogue. This film has, at least, an interesting performance from Will Patton, who plays the movie's villain as though constantly wired to an electric charge. The hell of it is, I have liked Costner in his smaller roles, such as the tiny gem, A Perfect World (which boasted one of Clint Eastwood's most effective and understated performances to date) and Silverado. What the hell. It's worth a rental.

I believe that the reviewers must have been reading each other's reviews instead of actually watching the movie, and Costner-bashing has long been great sport among reviewers. The original David Brin novel has been improved upon in several ways. In particular, gone are the two cyborg/supermen who duked it out in the finale of the novel, a distraction and deus-ex-machina.

I especially loved the internal consistency, lack of impossible battles, and the strong development of a number of believable characters. The Holnist leader (who played a supporting role in "Armageddon") is more than a cartoon bad guy, and Costner's postman is plagued by guilt and doubt as he discovers how seriously everyone takes his "Restored United States". There is almost nothing in the movie that is irrelevant to the plot.

Yes, it is a bit slow in parts, and I was ready to quit watching after 30 minutes because I had heard that it was just another post-apocalyptic bore, but it turned into a sterling movie. Even my wife, no fan of that genre, wanted to watch it all the way through.