The Postman (1997) User Reviews

The Postman Delivers

[Fitzy14 · 7/10 · 29 April 2021]

Listen I know that Costner has a rep. For long drawn out story lines and his movies can be on the slow side, but give this one a chance, it makes you feel proud at the end and I tell you that you will not feel like you wasted your time and if you do I will refund your money on this review, with your receipt of course.

It is Post-Apocalyptic, but don't hold that against it, it has some great twists and turns, it has action and even some romance, if you are into that sort of thing and in the end you feel better about the world in general. I enjoyed 2 bowls of Popcorn and a beer with this movie.

Who knows you may want to hug your postal carrier after this movie.

Don't listen to it's critics, see the movie for yourself and come to your own conclusions.

[sol-kay · 7/10 · 20 September 2003]

A Far better movie then it's critics make it out to be. "The Postman" is a good solid film about the end of the world and the chaos and confusion that follows with the unwitting soul that destiny choose to bring those who survived the apocalypse back to a better life and promising future.

Corny yes but in a positive and constructive sort of way. With the cast of Kevin Costner on down giving the film the sort of believability that you just don't see in most of the "End of he World" movies that have been projected on the silver screen since "Things to Come" back in 1936.

"The Postman" unlike most "End of the world" movies carries through the entire movie, which is almost three hours long, a positive and uplifting theme that you rarely get to see in these type of films. The ending of the film, call it corny it you will, was really moving without being obnoxious like it could have been had it been made by a lesser talent then Kevin Costner.

Gunfire, Cannons or Snow... The Mail Must Get Through

[gavin6942 · 7/10 · 4 September 2006]

This film is most popular among women under the age of 18. I can't really fathom why that would be, but maybe there's a whole other aspect of this that I missed.

In 2013, the United States has been destroyed for about 15 years, and only the very basic technology is available. Something like the Civil War, but with machine guns. After escaping an army and pretending to be a postman, Kevin Costner sets out to rebuild America.

The only bad thing I can say about this film is that some of the actors were really poor. Two or three of the minor roles had very hammy actors that ruined the scenes, but overall the acting was quite well done.

The plot is wonderful. Certain plot holes exist if you pay attention (I noticed for example that everyone knows the president is in Minneapolis, although the only time Costner said this was in private to the enemy) but the overall premise of rebuilding through the use of communication is somewhat realistic and a very intriguing idea if nothing else.

The woman playing Abby was great, maybe even greater than she was in "Rushmore" (though that film reigns supreme). The kid playing Ford Lincoln Mercury was a bit over the top, but it seemed to fit his character well. And Will Patton? A dazzling display of pure evil. As he himself says, great men make great men -- his evilness only serves to make Costner a greater hero.

The music was very odd ("Come and Get Your Love"?) and needed more Tom Petty. Petty himself needed a bigger role, and did great with the part that was given to him.

Some people will complain the film is too long (178 minutes). While I agree the film seemed long at first, once I became engrossed in the film, I would have been willing to watch another two hours of this world. You really don't want to say goodbye to Abby, the Postman or even to General Bethlehem. They are powerful and charismatic characters.

Could this film be even better than "Waterworld"? I am undecided, but it is certainly in the running as the best Kevin Costner film ever made.

A much better movie than the "user ratings" would indicate.

[TxMike · 21 November 1999]

I own this movie on DVD, I've seen this movie a number of times, and it is overall better than 80% of the commercial movies being released these days.

Those of you familiar with statistics and "normal" distributions, look at the "user ratings" for this movie. The "1" ratings are bogus. Look at the shape of the distribution, and you'll see that the valid rating for this movie is somewhere between 7 and 8, which are the most "common" ratings, which makes perfect sense. A 7.5 on a 10 point scale is where most people would rate it.

It has such an uplifting story of a reconstruction after a war, and banning together to fight evil, that I don't see how anyone with a heart could give it less than about 6 or 7. See it if you haven't already!

PS - My old college friend Dan von Bargen is in this as Sheriff Briscoe of Pineview, who near the end shouts "Ride Postman, ride!" Unfortunately Dan died in 2015.

Not Epic but Good

[Tweetienator · 7/10 · 19 June 2019]

The Postman got a lot of harsh and bad reviews and for that reason I didn't watch it at the cinema. After a couple of years I got it on DVD and was surprised - yes, The Postman is no masterpiece, but still a very entertaining one, if you like the post-apocalyptic genre.

All in all The Postman got some lengths here and there (no wonder, running time is 177 minutes) and the end (fight) is a little bit disappointing, but all in all, The Postman is a good watch with good production, acting and some good action.

My advice - if you like the genre and didn't already watch The Postman, just take your chances and give it a try.

A nice movie.

[sagar-iftekhar · 7/10 · 17 May 2020]

Cavin Costner is one of my favourite actors. Situation make man a hero. And heroes lead the nation. The journey to build an united nation is not easy. And the post man finally did it. Like this movie much.

Worth watching

[Mattias · 6/10 · 1 July 2008]

I have always heard that The Postman is a stinker but after 11 years I had the opportunity to see the movie for myself. I had my doubts of being able to sit through a 2h 50 min movie but the plot managed to keep my attention the whole way through. This is a post apocalyptic story but I could very easily see this as a 1950s western - set in the Wild West in 1873 with Gary Cooper playing a lone postman, Dan Duryea the leader of a gang of thugs wrecking havoc on a small town without a sheriff and perhaps Ann Blyth as the young widow who reluctantly falls for our hero.

Perhaps the patriotic themes that the film associated with the post service was a bit over the top, it looked like the movie was trying to do with the mail man profession what Backdraft did for firefighting. I'm not saying this is a very good movie and I certainly found Dances with Wolves much better but I think it's worth the time to see it.

See it, then decide

[tony etchells · 9/10 · 15 August 2002]

It's a depressing fact that the moviegoing public is being brainwashed by critics to hate everything involving Kevin Costner. When released in 1997 this breathtaking, thought-provoking epic was largely ignored and limped to a box office gross of $14 million, thanks to some vicious reviews.

Lest we forget, Costner made the magnificent Dances With Wolves, but that was in the days when we were told it was okay to like him. His directorial follow up is every bit as good. He knows about directing. He coaxes great performances from his casts. He has real vision and takes chances. Like Michael Cimino, his efforts are belittled and mocked while directors with clearly less talent are applauded.

So to all those people who stayed away in droves and screw their faces up at the mention of this film, I say watch it before you criticise it. Don't rely on some magazine writer to tell you who's good and who's not. Your brain is there for a reason.

I don't know why the ratings are low?

[djfrost-46786 · 7/10 · 29 June 2018]

I would watch this movie again over Die Hard 2 or Die Hard 3. I don't get why this movie is so low in ratings n the Die hards are so high. This movie has alot of emotion with action. At some points it reminds u of I Am Legend.

Well... I am glad to see that I am not the only person who liked this film

[A-Ron-2 · 8/10 · 19 February 2000]

I truly do NOT understand why The Postman was attacked as viscously as it was by the film media (there films much more worthy of the Golden Raspberry Awards in 1997). I loved this film and was very impressed with the loving amount of dedication that it demonstrates on the part of the actors, writers and director. This was a GOOD movie: it had a strong and intelligent story; excellent and interesting characters; and real feel for the post-Apocalypse genre. I felt that Kevin Costner's everyman act worked beautifully in this film and created a sense of reality for the character and of his situation.

As far as the sci-fi novel by David Brin, this film exceeded it in every way possible. Where Brin had to rely on cheezy sci-fi standards (like supersoldiers) to resolve his story, this film does using only two men, both frauds, and both with radically different understandings of what constitutes a proper society. That is what made this film great (and I rarely use the term great), that this film was essentially an examination of America and what America means. It was a parable of sorts about the types of men Americans are and what they are capable of (notice that the head bad-guy had a traditional, classical education, while Costner did not; he appreciated these things but they were not at the center of his belief system... I wonder why).

While I do not agree with every aspect of this film (I am a Medievalist and a Platonist, so I don't necessarily feel the same way about the Western Canon that the film-maker may have), I still find it to be a beautiful reflection on the psyche of the American everyman. America has a tradition of rejecting the absolutist ideals of the past in favor of the pragmatic relativism of today, and I think that this film is a parable of the divorce of America from the traditions of Europe.

Overall, this is a complex and entertaining film and I highly recommend it to anyone interested in examinations of American culture and tradition, perhaps as a double feature with Citizen Cane (I am not, however, claiming that the Postman was as good a film as Citizen Cane, only that they have a similar theme... what does it mean to be an American?).

First of all...I liked it...I really did!

[gagliano · 13 February 2000]

First of all...I liked it...I really did! It is a film by Kevin Costner, starring Kevin Costner, surrounds Kevin Costner's character, and a movie that is simply...Kevin Costner. But if you liked Kevin Costner in such films as "Dances With Wolves", "Robin Hood", "The Bodyguard", and even slightly in "Waterworld", then you will like this film. I know it is three hours long (I got refills on both the popcorn and super-size soda and still ran out), but I didn't find it as unbearable as those less-than-perfect-movie-critics have claimed. I found the time to go by quite like you would expect three hours to go by and didn't find myself being bored or dozing off. Yes, the story line was a bit predictable and Kevin played the reluctant hero that he is known for...but I liked it. Bottom line...if you want to do something nice for your postman, tell them you are going to go see the film in their honor...because like their motto says...not rain, nor shine, nor sleet, nor nothing...not even the lack of being a country will stop the mail from getting through.

Critics missed the point, there's a gem of a movie in here

[bopdog · 7/10 · 20 August 1999]

"Bum rap" is right-- while this movie does indeed have its flaws (duh-- most do)-- it was considerably better than the Hollywood establishment allowed. In fact, it was unseemly the way those folks sought the movie out for criticism. They chased it, practically, for derision! I became a fan accidentally, innocently. I had a few friends who worked as extras in the filming, and it was filmed on location, mostly, in my home town area in Eastern Washington. Thus, I schlepped my bod over to the theater on Christmas day to see it. I was away at school, and lonesome. I felt cut-off from friends and family-- blah blah blah. Thus I sat in the dark searching the screen for my friends, feeling a bit of "old home" vibe returning as a I saw scene after scene take place in recognized locales. This is what the movie was about-- the re-connecting that takes place after a time of separation. The theme of the movie was about finding the courage it takes to crawl out of our shells, to deny the relative safety of living withdrawn and contracted. It was all about community, and the personal risks and steps necessary to reconnect and reestablish our communities. It was about the virtual death that living without community is, and the inexorable force of human nature and life itself that propels us to-- eventually-- do whatever it takes to reach back out again and find our interpersonal and social relationships. Well, my little episode of homesickness, and the reaffirming activity I was engaged in while trying to find old friends in old familiar places on screen drew me instantly into what I believe was the underlying purpose of the book, and the movie. I was stunned, awe struck, gratified, and immensely happy and comforted by the movie. Only later I was shocked to discover how much the media folks hated it, and how indifferent the movie going public seemed to be to it. A year+ later I saw the movie again, and some of the emotional impact for me had faded. I could see that the evil general and the Holnist Army thing was a bit overdrawn-- but the essential sweetness and power of the core message was intact. As humans, when we live cut off from our fellow folks, we're as good as dead; it is only through exercising and feeding our relationships that we can be human, happy, and alive. If I had a time machine, I'd go back and get Kevin Costner to cut the "army of 8" stuff WAY back. I'd also get him to NOT direct the thing-- focus on the townspeople and their "coming out" relationships and experiences a touch more. And I'd make sure he cut the length down to 135 mins or so. I'd also stick in a reference or three to the "postman" theme-- have some person or other comment on the corny nature, perhaps, of having a postman save the word-- making a knowing joke about it within the story might then have the effect of inoculating the audience against their own cynicism. To paraphrase David Denby of "The New Yorker," it seems as if Hollywood is punishing Costner for making them feel things they didn't want to feel. Over all, I gave it a 9.

Neither Snow, Nor Rain, Nor Descent to Anarchy

[rollernerd · 6/10 · 16 September 2021]

Welcome back to another edition of Adam's Reviews!! **queue in intro music**

Tonight's movie review is the epic war drama The Postman (1997), based on a fictional novel, directed and starring the likeable Kevin Costner who adapts the novel into a flick of epic proportions, both in terms of storytelling in a hefty running time of close to 3 hours.

The film is based in a dystopian world where America has been left in ruins in the wake of a doom war and how a dystopian dictatorship falls at the hands of the United States Postal Service. That's right, in this post-apocalyptic land, the land of the free is represented by postal carriers. The film is based in 2013 and the county has fallen and divided by the hands of some farmer who we never see but constantly hear of, the charismatic Nathan Holn who rose to power with his book 'Seizing the Way to Win." This bloke preaches violence, racism and brings a misogynist populist message. The collective who follows this system and lead by the example of Holn are called The Holness, a ruthless military group, led by the unforgiving vicious General Bethlehem. This militia eventually overthrow the Whitehouse and the United States Government.

We come across a loner drifter who performs Shakespeare plays just he can have food in stomach. This loner drifter is played by Costner - and his character does not have a name. The film at the get go is narrated by his daughter, so this whole story has already happened. The mystery character has his mule friend and sometimes pretends he watches Days Of Our Lives. That is until The Holness find him and attempt to turn him into one of them. After his escape, the mystery man finds a broken-down postal vehicle and steals the jacket plus the hat and starts playing off as a postman represented the Restored United States of America. He is now known as the Postman, who walks from town to town, giving letters, taking letter for his next drop and providing a spark of hope as he lies to the town of how the country is slowly trying to build it self up. This causes a young group of individuals to take up the postman oath and become the new generation of hope.

The movies plays well around the notion of a reluctant hero who is willing to take responsibility which resonates with the timeless phrase "all that is needed for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing." Will Patton's General Bethlehem portrayal may seem over the top, but he does well in reflecting how an average man arose to take the opportunity and will keep hold on power which is demonstrated with his grandiose displays of cruelty and bullying on anyone who stands in his way.

The movie explains the cycle of how different types of charismatic leadership have the capability to bring about change which can shift to turmoil or to progression. This epic softly explains how dictators have a central belief system masqueraded by traditional education and encompassed to the collective. The system itself is tweaked in order to manipulate various communities. The film does well to softly touch on this while explaining how changing the past through eliminating education from the general public will allow this manipulation to be conquered at ease. What's interesting about this film is the communication around the need for revolution to disrupt the current state of dictatorship. What's disappointing is that everything interesting it proposes it discards in favour of cliched drama. We are given a swashbuckling, slow-motion and corny scenes which are set to a thousand strings orchestra. There is a good film struggling to get out from under it all, for now 6/10.

Better Than You Would Be Led To Believe

[damianphelps · 7/10 · 6 March 2021]

This is Costner's second attempt at the 'man who will save us role' and like the first one (Waterworld) I liked it.

The Postman received a lot of criticism (as did WW) again for being a little self indulgent. Its the third film (WW and Wolves) that shows Costner has no idea how to edit. If he shoots it, its in the movie!

That issue aside, the Postman sets up a great 'world' with some nice characters as it explores the denigration of humanity. Another plus is the dealing with a post apocalyptic world without replicating anything Mad Maxish, the same challenge for movies delving in archaeology and Indiana Jones. Its hard not to be accused of being a clone and the Postman does that pretty well :)

Worst movie ever

[kjempeintens · 1/10 · 26 July 2004]

I'm sorry folks, but this movie is bound to be 3 hours wasted if you're planning to see it. The storyline is horrid; the movie is very, very long (I had to take breaks!) and the acting is at best mediocre.

The story has Kevin Costner as the heroic postman, saving the day when restoring the postal system. I'm sure postal workers like it though, as it gives their job a very flattering impression of being important. But if you're not a postal worker - stay away!

Frankly I'm tempted to purchase a copy and destroy, only to feel better about it.

Burn, burn, burn!

Suddenly very relevant again...

[sammyk762-50-470681 · 8/10 · 16 August 2020]

Nothing to add to the other reviews, other than it holds up well after 20 years, and may even be a better movie for our times than the one it was made. Is it long? Sure. So pause it every 45 minutes and pretend it's a series. It's worth your time, especially if your pandemic watch list is running short.

Overlong, but entertaining.

[Mike Astill · 6/10 · 23 January 2002]

Reeling from one post-apocalyptic damp squid into another, Costner's credibility suffered again with this flick. Although Waterworld deserved the panning it received, however, this isn't too bad at all, and actually tells rather an engaging and patriotic story. It's just a shame judicious nipping and tucking didn't take place to deliver a sub-two hour story, as the bloated running time is a major setback.

Costner is as oak-like as ever, but at least he's backup up by some decent supporting players (particularly Patton and Williams) who bring some much-needed humanity to what is a fairly cringe-worthy premise.

The worst film ever made

[Plex Shaw · 1/10 · 2 May 1999]

I cannot believe what I am reading. This has to easily be the worst film I have ever seen and everybody seems to be in love with it. It's three hours of non-stop tedium, the acting is dreadful (Costner is the worst), the script is so lame and predictable it beggers belief. Costner is also so in love with himself in this film that he might as well have written a 3 hour love letter to himself. I cannot think of even one redeeming feature about this film. In fact I can't even be bothered to discuss it any further. It is awful, that's all you need to know about it.

24 years later I still love it

[ssra_25 · 10/10 · 13 October 2021]

I saw this first in 1998 and I loved it. I liked that the central hero was not some hot-shot soldier or special agent killing everything that moved, but an average person, who, without even wanting, started something bigger than himself.

And unlike what many of the people here think, this movie is not about the Apocalypse or about war, but about the power of hope.

Why is it three hours-long? Because the writers and the producers were not shallow. The movie does not come down just to pure action. If you want that, you might want to watch a James Bond movie. This movie also has character growth, many adventures and some witty lines as well. So a two-hours movie would have been too short, while a one-and-a-half movie would have been more of a trailer.

So if you haven't seen it yet, take some pop-corn (but not too much cause it'll spoil your focus), make yourself comfy and enjoy it.

Not that bad of a movie.

[deltadave669 · 6/10 · 25 May 2000]

Coudl've edited out about an hour of the movie. That's what keeps this movie from even better. I don't know what Costner's deal is with making long movies. I guess he likes getting all of the details.

All in all, not bad if you don't mind the length.

Worst movie ever

[lestat-52 · 1/10 · 3 August 2005]

When watching the postman my mood changed from at first outrage: "How could anyone make such complete nonsense" to laughter in the end when it became apparent that some stupid Americans would watch this and think what a great country USA is.

Costner started out directing with style in Dances with wolves, scraped the bottom with the expensive waterworld and then wrote himself into history with the Postman. I've really tried to find a worse movie but i have failed - this is the lowest, crappiest, longest piece of pro-American bullshit that was ever created.

Hopefully it will stay that way....

Not as horrible as all that

[fcfig · 30 November 2004]

"The Postman" is one of those films that has become almost synonymous with the concept of "lousy, awful, horrible, terrible, stinking mess of a movie." Like "Plan 9 from Outer Space," "Ishtar," or "Gigli," it is sometimes invoked in this manner on Internet message boards or in chatter between friends. But is "The Postman" truly such a horrible disaster? I would argue that its bad reputation is overdone.

Make no mistake, this movie is no "Citizen Kane." There is no way, by any stretch of the imagination, that this could be called a "great" movie. But every week B-movies that are orders of magnitude worse come out. What is it about this one that accounts for its enduring lousy reputation? This in itself is an interesting question.

Part of the answer has to do with Kevin Costner. It is hard to imagine now, but at one time (especially in the wake of "Dances with Wolves") his reputation in Hollywood was towering and unassailable. Costner squandered his mega-star status with a series of expensive yet mediocre duds such as this one, and in the end "The Postman's" crime is not that it is a truly terrible movie, but that it is simply a not-great movie that deflated the public's hopes and expectations of what Kevin Costner film should be. The curse of too-high expectations.

The worst aspect of this movie is its occasional pomposity and self-importance, derived from Costner's own enormous mid-90s ego, and it is easy to laugh at the final scene or various dramatic sequences with swirling symphonic music and glistening slo-mo shots. But if you can get beyond this and look at the movie as just a somewhat entertaining way to pass a few hours, it really isn't that bad, especially if you are a fan of the "dark future" genre of films. Will Patton in particular provides a good, convincing performance, as do a number of other minor characters.

And the world of "The Postman" -- a decayed, post-apocalyptic, decentralized

America where the federal government has collapsed -- is interesting in its own right. Remember, this film was borne of the early/mid 1990s, a time that gave us Timothy McVeigh, anti-government sentiment, Waco, and fear about "militias." There was a sense in the air that America could possibly disintegrate and fragment into local areas battling each other in the long run. This world view seems very alien in the post-9-11 era, where there is much more of a consciousness of being an American, "rallying around the flag," and the role of the federal government as a powerful military force, for good or for ill. Nowadays fear of outsiders and terrorism has largely replaced fears of internal anarchy and domestic unraveling. "The Postman" reminds us that not so long ago America envisioned its dark possible futures in a very different way than it currently does, and this in itself is instructive and worth pondering.

The first really positive Post-apocalyptic film I've seen!

[erik_oskarsson · 7/10 · 19 March 2006]

I am a huge fan of post-apocalyptic films, and I've seen many corny underground productions, but until now I've somehow managed to miss out on this little(long) gem.

The movie is really cozy and uplifting, something that i have yet to see in a movie in this genre. However, you have to see beyond the stars and bars of the flag the Postman fights for, and think about what it might mean in a world filled with chaos and despair, otherwise it might feel a bit tacky.

The idea that the young people of the destroyed earth longs for something bigger and "decent" is terrific. I could see myself as a post-carrier in the sinister future that might be waiting for us.

There is no people in ice-hockey armour, no bad-ass cars and no mohawk hair, but i didn't even miss it once during the whole movie (almost 3 hours). Instead Costner has created a sort of wild west world that is fresh and interesting to watch.

So if you like PA movies, don't miss this one!

Ps. This film reminded me very much of a brilliant post-apocalyptic book that everyone who loves this genre MUST read : Lucifers Hammer.

long Costner project

[ksf-2 · 6/10 · 29 April 2020]

Directed by, produced by, AND starring Kevin Costner, who has had his share of Great films and Not so Great films. his oscars were for Wolves, back in 1990. It's pretty much MadMax. After the apocalypse, the last Postman travels the land, trying to deliver (old) messages from one family member to another. he travels through friendly areas, and he travels through hostile lands, where Bad Things happen... Co-stars Will Patton as "The General"... Patton had worked with Costner in 1987 in No Way Out. The Postman is pretty good. nothing too new and exciting. all about survival. Gotta mention Tom Petty; he's in here as "The Mayor". it's LONG... almost three hours. yeesh. needed to chop here and there to shorten it up. would have moved the action along a little faster.

Wholly Underrated - Would've Been A Huge Hit In 2002

[themightyservo · 7/10 · 19 May 2012]

The Postman suffered from its release date. Had it come out the first couple years post-9/11, it would've been seen as an uplifting epic and been a huge hit.

Instead, it came out in the middle of a period of relative discontent with the US, where there was no threat of anything to be lost, where therewas no threat of stability lost, where there was no greatness to see, as people were absorbed in their own lives and oblivious to the wonders of having such a great country. (Yes, the movie is very focused on the US.) As a national epic, it just came out at the wrong time.

There are plenty of bad elements to the film, and the reason why it's a good film and not a great film. The theme is sometimes missing and then returning in a heavy handed way that makes for inconsistency that could've been done better, but it's still a good film. There are cheesy lines, there are characters or their actions that sometimes seem to be a bit forced, but there are others who are completely within the realm of possibility, and some that are very, very believable.

Larenz Tate as Ford Lincoln Mercury is one of the most uplifting, motivating, idealistic characters on film in a long time - his spirit by itself is inspiring. There are several scenes in which he really shines, as his character takes responsibility for his actions.

Will Patton does a truly outstanding job as General Bethlehem. The character is portrayed every bit as you'd expect a character with his backstory to be - done well, and a character whose occasional seeming overacting would be consistent with how the character - a megalomaniac - would really act. Some small touches towards the beginning really set down who the character is.

Kevin Costner is just pretty good. His low-key attitude sometimes comes off as disinterested and not terribly into the role. Costner does have the physical presence to carry off the role, but on occasion he seems just out of it. Sometimes the movie sometimes seems to dwell on Costner too much, even though he is the main character, the changes in the world that he sets in motion are fascinating. He's not bad, he's just good, not great. The other options for leads that were considered would've been far worse. Costner does pull it off well, but he could've put more effort into his own role. Once in a while his own stated motivations (notably at the end) don't seem to have been developed, and it's possible there was something left on the cutting room floor. This goes to the theme as mentioned above and below as well - there may be some scenes that just didn't make the cut that would've expounded on how the theme developed better.

Olivia Williams is excellent through most of the movie, though her role becomes a bit conventional at the end, limiting what she can do. (Incidentally, she's great in "Below", which I highly recommend as a WWII sub movie - but it's best watched without any reviews, and even without looking at the box - it's best viewed totally fresh, with zero foreknowledge. Seriously, don't go look it up, just cue it on Netflix or order it online and don't read about it. It's really, really, really good.)

Tom Petty's role is fantastic. His first few lines, "I was..." are rather haunting, when you sit down to think about it; they convey a lot of the atmosphere of the film, and go far towards reminding you the world of the Postman is very different.

Daniel von Bargen is excellent, and provides a very good foil for Costner to play off towards the beginning of the film. Almost every scene he's in he manages to convey a seriousness and depth that helps ground the film.

Ron McLarty is fantastic. His character is great, and the way he plays into it is great. He's another of the supporting cast that provides atmosphere to the film, conveying the setting even more; he also sets up some great lines that foreshadow a lot of action in a way that is just subtle enough that it's not cheesy at all, but clear enough that the audience can see something big and satisfying is on the way.

The scenery is majestic, the setting is made to be truly epic - often it is, the score is fantastic (though sometimes a bit heavy-handed, but that's okay), editing is good, lighting is used well, and there's some subtle symbolism tossed in every so often to go along with the overt themes. Some of the costuming stands out positively (especially the improvised uniformity of the Holnists and the carriers), while the costuming for pretty much everybody else is slightly overdone - you can tell there was work put into it, but sometimes almost too much.

Overall, the theme is one that may be lost on many folks, and was especially lost at the time. It's a wonderful, patriotic flick that was released at the wrong time. Just remember it's good, not great.