Man oh man!! I can't WAIT for this to open.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dantoris:
Neither have ever done a movie they should be embarrased about

---

You've obviously never seen Sizzle Beach U.S.A. (1986) starring Costner. It was a low-budget beach-bimbo Troma flick. Costner actually tried to buy the distribution rights to it so that he could burry it in hopes that no one would ever see it. He didn't succeed... the movie is readily available on video and DVD.

As for people who've actually seen it ... well, the numbers are pretty bad. Most people I know never even bothered with it.

I'll be giving it a shot soon enough, just to be contrary, which as you all should have noticed is among my principal hobbies.

Okay. Here we go . . .

First, Costner balances the story out nicely, concentrating just as much on the characters as anything else. He gives us characters who are life-like and totally believable. Bethlehem is no different from you or I, a normal person who is just mis-guided in that he happens to believe in the wrong things. And him being a former Xerox machine salesman makes him all the more realistic. He's just a normal guy who thinks he's right.

Second, Costner gives us a hero who wants to be anything BUT a hero. He'd rather find peace with himself and live in the quiet paradise of St. Rose than pick a fight over an insult. Rather than rapidly transform this "mind-my-own-business" guy instantly into yet another Mad Max clone, he handles the transformation delicately, as The Postman eventually realizes he has no choice but to live up to the image of him placed on all of America. Quite a challenge, and Costner does it nicely.

The length of film is perfect because something like this couldn't happen in a weeks' time. The resulting reaction isn't necessarily a result of him, but more of what he represents, a return to a time when friends, families, loved ones, whoever, were in touch with the people they cared about most. The Postman, in fact, doesn't care about the reaction at first, and he certainly wasn't planning to begin delivering mail. He was simply going to use it as a ruse to get a better meal and welcome at the next village. But then he discovers just how much hope he'd given the people at that first village. He still doesn't want to go through with it, but ultimately has no choice.

The end of the movie is very well-done, seeing these two men - The Postman and Bethlehem - fighting each other, attempting to defend what they believe in. Obviously, The Postman believes in what is right, and Bethlehem's own men come to realize that as well.

And the final scene of the movie is very uplifting, with the audience on the beach. Civilization has been restored, technology has been brought back to life again, and we have the satisfaction of knowing that no matter how dark a situation starts out, it can end in the best way possible. And just an ordinary man can be the person who makes everything right, or, in this case, starts the path that the people of America take in order to get life back to normal.

The movie is Costner's best to date, a remarkable achievement, and a true masterpiece in every sense of the word. Everything he handles is done with the most careful touch as not to overblow everything. He gets the most out of everything: direction, production design, story, acting, visual effects, cinematography, and James Newton Howard's magnificent score. This film deserved all the Oscars Titanic got, but in my mind, it did.

This review has actually turned a few people I know on to The Postman, people who had, up until then, avoid the film, simply because some hack film critic said, "It sucks." And the trailer, I think, is one of the best ever created, and it shows just what a terrific piece of work the film is.

So if anyone wants to say they don't like The Postman, that's fine, if there's a "reason" for not liking it. And "because it sucks" or "because Kevin Costner's in it" isn't a reason. It's just an excuse for not wanting to take the time to sit down and see for yourself if the critics were wrong (which they were).

The critical and public trend it to trash the movie based on early press alone. A movie goes over budget, and people act like it's their own money the director is spending.

I never like to say "best" picture...in my own opinion, it was one of the greater movies of 1997--and I'm behind "Titanic" on this, too.

What can I say about it? Well, I think I've never seem such an uninteresting and boring movie such as this in my life. I realy tried to watch it all the way, but after the first 20 minutes my finger was in despair searching for the FF buttom.

I still can't understand why Costner decided to make a sequel of "Waterworld". I mean, it's almost the same movie, only some years in the future. "Mariner" decided to leave the water and is now on the wasted land (that isn't even so wasted as they tried to make you think it was).

I really can't say what's worst: the shallow characters, the laughable "villain" and his army of idiotic neo-nazys, the nauseating patriotic bablings, the cliche quotations of Shakespeare, Kevin Costner love scenes with his donkey, the bombastic-fussy patriotic music score...
No, maybe it's the conclusion. The restoration of the "American Way of Life" was too much for me. And I think it was even for the citizens of USA, since the movie was a complete failure even there...

Thanks God I didn't see it on theaters. I would never forgive myself...

"Costner does make some really great films--"Wyatt Earp" is a classic western drama."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andre Lux:

. . . the nauseating patriotic bablings . . .

[This message has been edited by Andre Lux (edited 18 April 2000).]

---

Hmmm. That must mean you're an . . . un-patriotic person, and don't like hearing people talk who are patriots?

Oh yes, the funniest thing about WATERWORLD: that it finally cost upwards of $175 million, and the script was originally commissioned twenty years ago by Roger Corman, as a cheap knockoff of the MAD MAX films.

NP: late night television

all the above you wrote is true, but I must point out: WATERWORLD did make a huge amount of money worldwide -- but it also cost at least $175 million to produce and distribute, and that's just for the US market. If it ever broke even, I'd be amazed. (I think its worldwide take is roughly $300 million, but one must also factor in the marketing costs for each region in which is was shown. This movie cost too much for what it ever was going to make back.)

And yes indeedy, Lawrence Kasdan wrote his first version(s) of THE BODYGUARD for Steve McQueen. Kasdan kept (and still keeps, I think) an anthology of the MANY dozens of rejection memos he received for it.

About "The Bodyguard" sequel - Now that you mention it, yeah: she probably would've played herself. I didn't really care that much for the first (I just liked Kevin Costner in it), and I really hated the way Whitney Houston butchered Dolly Parton's "I Will Always Love You." (Parton did sing it first, right?) But that sequel concept would've been very interesting.

And this is just my own weathered opinion, re: certain recent boxoffice hits, but -- any moron can scare up a mammoth boxoffice gross for any movie at all. It's called "promotion," and the only reason ANY movie takes off is because it's been promoted properly. Last year, THE SIXTH SENSE skyrocketed in LARGE part because of an ingenious marketing campaign. (Yes, it did brilliantly because of the word-of-mouth of movie fans in general, but people had to KNOW about it FIRST, didn't they, and be coaxed into the theaters, whatever it took. THE SIXTH SENSE is practically an art film, when it comes down to it, arguably the most successful of such since CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andre Lux:

Too bad that in the last half of it the main character was transformed in "Rambo".

---

So what if he does, dex?
Sure Sandler's comedy is incredibly primitive and totally stupid, but it makes a lot of people LAUGH!
What's that got to do with Kevin Costner?
Don't try to insult someone you don't agree with, OK?

Rocco: That story about Reynolds & Spielberg re: Waterworld is interesting, because I read it the other way around. In an interview with Reynolds, he said in retrospect that he was very sorry to have filmed at sea, and wished that his former producer Spielberg had warned him.
Spielberg was reported to have commented that he would have found such a warning to be "presumtuous". He said that Kevin could've called him about it, but didn't.

I wonder which version of this tale is the true one?

Costner's intervention in Robin Hood, Prince Of Thieves was due to two factors, (if what I read at the time is true):

1.) Costner's "British accent" was a failure, and he knew it. This was a source of personal embarrassment for him, specifically because he was going head-to-head with:

2.) Alan Rickman, whose most interesting and dynamic scenes fell to the cutting room floor, under Costner's face-saving knife.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dex:
Well, gee . . . that's exactly what "The Road Warrior" did. Wouldn't you want to turn into Rambo if somebody was trying to control you and everything around you?

---

Sorry dude, but I think you must see "The Road Warrior" again. Max never become Rambo. He was morose from begining to end, and just helped those people because he had no other choice.
In fact he was in terrible shape when accepted to drive the truck. And he did nothing more than try to stay alive and run from all the marauders. I don't remember seing Max doing bumg-jump with a rope from a ballon to save everybody and flying like Superman...

quote:

---

Originally posted by dex:
And I'm not a dude. I'm a chick!
I HATE this damn flood control!!

---

Ups... sorry lady! But how could I know that anyway?
I don't know what "flood control" means, sorry again.

I know two girls who go to ALL the Van D's movies,
my twin daughters. When they were in high school and
a Van D's movie played locally, about 10 of these teenage
girls were first in line. Oh how I wish I could tell you it
was for the music, but alas, it was because they thought
he had a great body. Pretty normal, I guess.

I hope you don’t mind me saying this; I mean this with the
greatest respect for your opinions. You can refer to your-
self as a “chick” if you want to. You have that right which
I will respect. I, on the other hand, hate that term. Girl for
youngers, lady, woman, female are all
terms that are okay with me; however, to me a chick is
a little yellow fuzzy baby chicken. “Broad “and “chick” are terms
that I feel personally degrades women. Of course far worse R or
X rated terms are also attributed to females. I’m always nagging
our local movie critic for using the term “chick flick”, reminding
him that would mean it wasn’t suitable for any human beings, just
minuscule birds. O.K., I’ll climb off my towering soapbox
now..at least for a little while. Hope you don’t mind my
opinion.

NP Three Musketeers

Oh, well. Enough with this pointless bickering. I love "Waterworld," I love "The Postman," and I love (and appreciate) Kevin Costner, so that's all I care about.

joan - I love all Van Damme movies. Well, most, anyway. As a girl, I'm constantly being confused for the type who like (though you don't like the term) 'chick flicks.' "Emma" and "Clueless" come to mind. I hate those. I love action. In fact, I'll watch any type of movie EXCEPT a period romance or a film with Gwenyth Paltrow.

As for the other think you mention, I've got no problem with them. I'm kinda like the character Kate on "The Drew Carey Show." Most of my friends are guys, so I'm used to talking 'guy talk.' Though I agree that there are R-rated and X-rated terms used to identify women (which I, too, dislike), I don't find any offense in being called a 'chick' or a 'broad.' In fact, I usually just laugh when someone says it. Maybe that's just me, but I understand and respect your opinion.

Joan Hue:

"Peep": A yellow, fuzzy baby chicken.
"Chick": A sizzling female (any age).
"Broad": Any woman who hangs with the Rat Pack. If she wants Sinatra, she deserves it.
"Kid": My affectionate term for my wife. (You'll NEVER guess what she calls ME!)
"Babe": My affectionate term for my wife when she's not wearing anything. (Not to be confused with the famous movie swine. I used that word decades prior to the pig's arrival.)
"Honey": What everybody calls my mother.
"Mom": My affectionate term for Joan Hue.

Now, what's the problem?

O.K., Chris, what DOES your wife call you? Fess up? Right
now. You told us what you call her (without clothes).
Shouldn’t we read her terms of endearment for you? (clothes
or otherwise.) I think you asked me a question at the end of your
post. All I can say is
that each of us bring certain connotations to various words.
To you “chick” means a sizzling female of any age. (Oh, I
hope I’m still sizzling ) I tend to call that female a “siren”
or “bombshell.” For me “chick” connotes warm blooded
vertebrates that sprout golden feathers and wings, and
are certainly at the nadir of the intelligence spectrum. That’s
how the word “feels” to me, so I’m not crazy about it.
(Where is vt in this?)

To each his/her own. (But I am “mom” Chris, so doesn’t
that make me always right? Get used to it! )
And fess up!

Oh, come on now...do you REALLY think Bonita would call me "STUD MUFFIN"?

So if you want to know, drop me a line and I'll reply via E-Mail