A Very Pro-Gun Movie: "The Postman"

[Sebastian the Ibis]

It was sooooo bad I don't even care about the favorable view of guns or field artillery.

They didn't even show the final fistfight. They replaced it my violin music mush. Quite possibly the worst movie I have ever seen.

Heat was a much better gun movie.

 

[brentn]

I liked it, and have seen it a few times. Its a pretty good story, and I love trying to see how people can adapt to a post apocolyptic society. Another pretty good one was water world, the costumes were just great.

 

[WC145]

Read the book, it's waaay better than the movie.

 

[22-rimfire]

I have liked "The Postman" movie. I never cared for "Water World". If you like this kind of stuff, check out books by S.M. Stirling.

I never really considered it a "gun movie". I don't consider war movies "gun movies" either. The guns are just a necessary part of the story development.

"Red Dawn" and "Rambo First Blood "come closer to being "gun movies".

 

[Neo-Luddite]

Costner opened his gob in the media last year, blathered elitist nonsense about how his shotgun is OK because he owns it for sentimental reasons, and now we don't watch his movies in my home anymore.

I USED to like his earlier films (loved NO WAY OUT, DANCES WITH WOLVES, etc). Then, like all monkey hollywood people of a certain stripe, he had to decide break the fourth wall by gushing his 'politics' about guns.

 

[buck00]

Too many people perceive "Postman" as simply another version of "Water world"- it isn't. I'm not saying its on par with "Goodfellas" and "Patton", but it is a good movie for a lazy Sunday afternoon.


I thought it was interesting how General Bethlehem created a pseudo-feudal system and a fascist-type militia to enforce rule. The use of horses made sense as it provided them superior mobility to regular people running around on foot.

It makes logical political-science sense that in a post-apocalypse world, security and authority would be lacking- so different groups would compete to fill the vacuum. So yes, you could end up being predator or prey depending on the scenario.

As the movie shows- while guns are important in such a scenario, the biggest trump cards would actually be organization, communication, and cooperation. The "homeless army" was better organized and motivated than most of the survivors, which is why they dominated the small towns and individuals they came across. Power perceived is power achieved.

 

[Harley Quinn]

What about Open Range !? nobody can say its a bad movie ! actually it's one of my favourite !

Very good movie (Open Range)...
I have read so much negative about "Postman" I never watched it. I guess it is time to see it
Or NOT!

 

[VARifleman]

I liked this when I saw it, but that was a number of years ago. I should probably rent it sometime soon.

 

[poet]

in these types of movies, have you ever wondered where they get their ammo from? They are really free with their ammo and you got to know that they must be hard to find since logically everyone went for the firearms and the food. They can reload but then the question is still there.

 

[Mr White]

Sorry. The guns and the message of hope for America just couldn't overcome the terrible screenplay and acting for me. Tom Petty was the highlight of the movie IMO. I rate it one drip above Waterworld.

Open Range on the other hand... Excellent movie! THE best gunfight scene of any western, ever IMO.

 

[searcher451]

It seems illogical, if not somewhat disingeneous, to react to this post with "I hate Costner" comments or "I hate/love the movie" comments or "I hate/love some/all Costner films" comments. If you don't like Costner for one reason or another, fine; if you love/hate his movies for one reason or another, this one included, fine again. But the point of the post was that this particular movie provides a pro-gun message; it wasn't requesting comments about our personal views of the actor or what he's been in previously or whether we liked the film in question. For a wide variety of reasons, gun people like to jump on Hollywood types in the same way that they like to jump on antis: hard, and with big boots. But really, who cares? Costner appeared in this movie, and it has a powerful pro-gun message. I for one don't give a hoot in Hades about what he does in his off-time or what he says at the supermarket or his opinions on virtually anything -- from politics to gun issues to golf. Why should anyone, outside of his mother or his wife or his agent?

 

[Zoogster]

The book was much better, though it has some parts and views some might not agree with, life is like that.

It was a great book and the movie was pretty poor in comparison. I am glad I read the book before ever seeing the movie.
If I had read the book after seeing the movie and had to picture the characters of the movie while reading the book it would not have been as good of a story.

Costner is a confused person. Many of his movies, even those directed by him show a longing of freedom and great things happening in the midst of that freedom. Yet he is from a very left area that shaped his views. So the messages his movies give are in great contrast to his political views.

How the same person that not only stared in (relatively inactive role in shaping the movie, actors hardly know what the finished movie will even look like while acting after editing and removal of most material and scenes shot out of order are put together, they just act well or poorly based on thier talent) but actively directed (directors know exactly what image they want and what the finished product will look like as they actively create it) the Postman, Dances with Wolves, and Open Range can at the same time favor restrictions in contrast with the freedoms expressed in the atmosphere of those films is beyond me.

 

[Shung]

two sided persons.. can happend to all of us..

 

[nwilliams]

As bad as this movie was I actually kinda liked it. I hated the epilogue at the end though, that was freaking horrible. As far as guns go, I did get the impression that it was pro gun in some ways. Waterworld was a worse movie, not much worse as far as movies go but still worse than The Postman. Costner's movies are an enigma sometimes, they are sometimes horrible but still enjoyable to watch. Still you got hand it to him he pulled off playing Robin Hood without a British accent

 

[Dienekes]

Take Costner or leave him--that's not the point. The movie itself is thought provoking in that it portrays a time in which centralized government is weak or lacking entirely. The resultant vacuum is one that criminals, warlords, or any successful thug with a following might fill. Not a pleasant scenario.

Back in the 1930s Sinclair Lewis wrote a similar potboiler titled "It Can't Happen Here" about a fascist government in the US. Not great literature, but something to give you pause. He definitely had his finger on the pulse of the American public, and it's somewhat spooky, if dated. I reread it every few years.

Fast-forwarding, a military historian named Martin van Creveld theorizes that the nation-state is in decline, and that we might well see this sort of semifeudal thing occurring more and more in the future. One reviewer commented on this, saying that "you will not like his conclusions".

So the movie is probably worth watching if it does no more than make us appreciate the freedom and stability we still have...

Never say never.

 

[Waitone]

The quality of Costner's movies appears to be inversely proportional to the amount of money he has to spend. Water World was grandly expensive while Open Range was done on a shoestring. Duvall also helps.

 

[harmonic]

That movie sucked big time and was seriously anti gun. Tom Petty, "We don't allow guns here." He said it while the official (govt) sniper was on the wall to enforce the rule.

Postman. Waterworld. Message in a Bottle. His movies keep getting worse and worse.

 

[Libertarian52]

That movie sucked big time and was seriously anti gun. Tom Petty, "We don't allow guns here." He said it while the official (govt) sniper was on the wall to enforce the rule.

That's the one scene that stuck out for me in that movie. When Tom Petty came out and said, "This is (whatever the name of the town was) where we don't allow guns." right after the guy armed with an M1A told Costner to put his M4 down. I practically yelled at the TV(I saw it on cable), "Hey Tom! Your enforcer there isn't carrying a pixie stick! You pot smoking fascist."

My family hates watching TV with me because I always point out these kind of things.

 

[Golden Hound]

I think that scene with Petty was supposed to be sort of ironically humorous - after making Costner put his rifle on the ground, Petty picks it up and slings it over his own shoulder, while smiling sarcastically. I think the audience is supposed to realize that the guy's a hypocrite.

Even if that weren't the case, that one scene wouldn't make the whole movie anti-gun, just that one character. Who isn't a major character at all.

 

[K-Romulus]

The book was totally anti-gunowner.

It seemed at every turn Brin talked up how the Holnists were a bunch of "survivalist militia types" armed with things like an "M249 squad automatic weapon with flash suppressor." The said Holnists had used their privately owned guns to destabilize society, with the resulting anarchy as the backdrop for the book.