Waterworld is worse because of the annoying Exxon Valdez gag at the end.

I'm going to be a tad contrarian here, but I do not believe The Postman to be as bad a film as everyone says it is.

First, I think "post-apocalyptic" films should be graded on their own curve. It's one of those categories that is best done in book form, wherein exposition is more easily done. [See: Lucifer's Hammer, Niven & Pournelle.] The film genre really genuinely stinks, on the whole; any that don't absolutely suck should be given some credit.

Second, I think too many people bought into the critics' reviews and then either never actually saw the movie, or when they saw it went in with a "this is gonna suck" mindset.

Third, The Postman does have its problems, which when pointed out tend to reinforce the viewer's idea that "this is going to be a bad movie." [The whole Tom Petty thing? Puh-leeze.] The biggest problem, however, is that the movie is almost three hours long. There's too much non-essential material in there. A tighter script would have done wonders for the movie.

On the subject of Costner himself, ya, he sure has made his share of stinkers -- just like every other actor. I think his mistakes tend to get far more attention than they deserve... and I do have to wonder if his past reputed Republicanism had anything to do with some of the criticism he has received.

On the other hand, his recent Open Range was pretty good. Worth checking out.

Waterworld, on the other hand, just plain sucked. (See my first point, above.)

Ooh! Ooh! Mister Kot-ter!

Maybe it's best to compare them based on the few nuggets of any value in each. On the one hand, you've got Dennis Hopper, who's always entertaining as the villain. You've also got a good bit of Jeanne Triplehorn in the water and/or nekked. On the other hand, who can forget Tom Petty as the, like, mayor dude. I'd vote for him. And those references to the "Battle of Georgetown" always fill me with dreamy visions of firing quad-mounted .50 cal machine guns down M Street whenever I come into town across the Key Bridge.

Man, what a dilemma. I'm going to refuse to make a choice, because each of the movies reeks in a splendidly distinctive fashion, IMHO. Waterworld was a fairly trivial little movie with Titanic-level production values, while The Postman was a fairly simplistic little tale that was torpedoed by its bloated script and running time. I say, enjoy each trainwreck on its own demerits.

Their one common feature was Costner acting and directing, and for me his appeal as an actor is a mystery. The man's been in some good films--The Untouchables and No Way Out are two of my all-time favorites--but he's never been the best thing in the film. I don't think he's got much range, and some of his performances have been flat-out awful. Robin Hood? John Wayne was more convincing in a costume epic. For that matter, Tony Curtis was better in a costume epic.

I have to go with Waterworld because it's monumental stupidity was pure. It was not interstitially spliced with diversions such as a Tom Petty playing the world's largest ventriloquist doll, or home-grown American nobility or the fun of seeing a GOV job for Newman's elevated to something trying to approach majesty.

No - what we got in Waterworld was a special olymics version of Mad Maxx on water withough Mel - or his pecs. Arg! I will never forget the scene where we are supposed to be trembling in our seats when someone on screen shouts, "SMOKERS!!!" And here come the SKI-DOOs!!! Save me from the SKI-DOOs!!! I had to laugh out loud. A personal note to Kevin Reynolds: Dude, seriously, there is nothing scary about SKI-DOOs.

I've never been able to sit through either. I will say, though, that as films in the post-Apocalyptic world category go, both of them make "Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome" look like Casablanca.

I have seen Waterworld three times, but The Postman only once.

I'm not sure, though, what that says about their awfulness ranking. Nor the fact that the viewings included a night where I rented both the have a post-apocalyptic Costnerpalooza.

You forgot an early Costner movie that was excellent. It's called Fandango and starred a young Costner and Judd Nelson.

You left out a couple of other Costner dogs including Bodyguard, Revenge,Message in a Bottle and Wyatt Earp.

There is one ofther Costner movie where he plays a criminal on the run in the 1960's. Clint Eastwood and laura Dern are in it and it's actually pretty good too.

That one with Eastwood & Laura Dern was "A Perfect World", and I would agree - it's one of Costner's best.

As far as comparing these two movies within their "apocalyptic" genre goes, they don't rise to the level of "Mad Max". Heck, they don't get much above "A Boy and His Dog" or "The Mutants of 2027" (the joke movie-in-movie at the beginning of "Strange Brew"). With the massive budgets that were sunk into these stinkers, you'd think they would at least approach "The Omega Man", but Costner is sure as heck no Heston.

I flipped a coin & decided on "Waterworld" as the stupidest movie of the two. The deciding factor was the physics of the movie. The whole surface of the earth was covered with enough water that Mount Everest only extended a couple thousand feet out of the water? Wouldn't "Island K2" be somewhere in the vicinity of Everest? I didn't realize that the polar ice caps held enough water to cover the surface of the Earth with 25,000 plus feet of water....and now that I think about it, if the water has risen that much, how the heck does Costner's character dive deep enough to salvage items from wrecked cities? I know he has gills in the movie, but I must have missed the part where he explains how he grew a titanium exoskeleton as part of the mutation. The pressure and cold temperatures at ONE THOUSAND FEET are daunting, how the heck could Costner survive a dive to 20,000 feet?

Oh crap, see what you made me do? I'm going to have to go home & watch "Caddyshack" again tonight just to get the taste of these movies out of my mouth.

Costner's script showed some stones in "Bull Durnham", when presented with Susan S.'s middle age come-on to get him to the majors if only he would try out (with Tim Robbins as the competition). Crash Davis' response was to leave with the parting shot "I've been in baseball for eleven years, and I don't try out for anything".

I have to go with Waterworld, if only because the critics were able to dub the disaster with the perfect mock-title: Fishtar.

Dances with Wolves was the only Costner movie I ever saw and it was by far the worst. Treacly, new age tripe, full of revisionist nonsense. I thought the Crow tribe should have sued the producers. For a better view of the times, read Tough Trip Through Paradise by Andrew Garcia, a guy who was there. A real guy, too, not some halfwit girly man like Costner's character.

When are you going to get to Lawrence of Arabia so I can bitch about the pitiful character of Peter O'Toole?

By the way, your content filter thinks the number eight followed by at is obscene. Cheap thrills.

Gills, future hillbillies auctioning off their daughters, you have to go with Waterworld. Costner another water themed picture, Rapa Nui, which had something to do with a Polynesian themed egg race.