We were given the opportunity to screen an early release of No Postage Necessary and we took it. Anytime you can watch a potentially charming love story, you always take it. As Sleepless in Seattle, Love Actually, and Breakfast at Tiffany’s has taught us, a good love story can’t be enjoyed enough.
That said, while the intention of a good love story was strong with the making of this film, as was the religious undertone, the execution of No Postage Necessary suffers from individual moments of spontaneous entertainment. Ultimately, that means the whole does not equal out to the sum of its parts. Let’s dive right into it, shall we?
Official Synopsis
In No Postage Necessary, Sam (George Blagden) always seems to make the wrong decision. A convicted computer hacker, he’s single, jaded and barred from using the internet. Forced to crash on his brother’s couch, he makes ends meet by working at the local Twistee Treat and stealing mail while disguised as a postal worker. Then, a single pink envelope changes everything. Handwritten by a heartsick Josie (Charleene Closshey) to her late husband and fallen Marine, the tender missive awakens something in Sam. Desperate to be worthy of such love, he conspires to meet the beautiful, young war widow, longing to become a better man. As the two grow closer, she warms to the idea of a new chance at love, but not before Sam’s past comes knocking in the form of an FBI agent looking for missing bitcoins.
The first part of the film starts with Sam, our antagonist, who was a hacker that spent time in prison for some federal crimes he committed on the keyboard. Sam’s agreement upon being released from prison entails never touching a computer while he is on probation. Bored and chomping at the bit to do something worthwhile, outside of working at an ice cream shack, Sam finds a new line of work by dressing up as a mailman and stealing other people’s mail. While stealing, Sam runs into a pink envelope from a broken-hearted widow named Josie, who is still writing letters to her late husband who was tragically killed in action. Josie is lonely and hopelessly lost, which makes Sam want to do something worthwhile with his life and help her out.
That’s a tough first act to swallow. I get the idea that Sam just wants to do something in life beyond working at an ice cream shack and that he is a smart character, but he honestly doesn’t deserve a lot of redemption, at least to this point. He isn’t quite the Scott Lang from Ant-man, who helped expose corruption and got caught, rather Sam is a hacker that got caught and probably doesn’t need to be given redemption — he needs to earn it. To boot, the first act also introduces him as a person that clearly didn’t learn his lesson because he steals mail/money from unsuspecting people. He is basically digging himself a deeper hole. On top of that, the movie really doesn’t account for Sam’s current criminal activities, which is impersonating a USPS carrier (6 months in federal prison/fine) and/or stealing mail (5 years in federal prison / $250,000 fine). The opening act for a person on probation that involves federal crimes being committed should send Sam back into prison for at least six years. The guy basically is a criminal on multiple levels, which makes the transition from criminal to caring individual a tough thing to buy.
The second act has Sam building towards asking Josie out to see what he can do for her. He tries his best to set-up snagging her attention through multiple acts, including getting a friend to try and run her over with a car (not really), which helps to open the door for him. A majority of the second act involves Sam getting in good with Josie. The second act also introduces the subplot of the film, which will most certainly collapse all the social capital that Sam is building with Josie. That subplot involves a rogue/corrupt FBI agent setting up Sam and trying to threaten him with the federal pen, if Sam doesn’t deliver millions of dollars worth of bitcoin that the FBI agent claims Sam stole in his original hacker heist. By busting Sam, it will ruin everything he has built with Josie, as well as send him into the bad graces of his probation officer, thus resetting his life back to zero. Heavy stuff.
The second act still hasn’t given much redemption to Sam’s actions. He isn’t remorseful of his actions, nor has he completed that turn into an anti-hero. At this point, Sam is only still after what Sam wants, which isn’t heroic, even if it is to help a suffering widow out. His motivation isn’t convincing, nor is his reasoning perfectly bridged with the first act actions. It’s like a completely different movie that carries no motivation for the viewer to feel good about who Sam is as a person. Again, at least Scott Lang in Ant-Man reluctantly committed crimes so that he could see his daughter again. That’s worthy of a crime committed, but Sam isn’t like Scott at all. He is essentially walking the path of Darth Vader, where you have committed so many crimes that the moment of redemption is more surprising and shocking, rather than just expected and redeemed. That would be like if Darth Vader killed all those kids in Revenge of the Sith and then was welcomed back by Obi-wan after defeating Palpatine. Seriously, you can’t just come back to the light side because you did something nice. You have to earn that redemption and Sam is not earning it in the second act. In fact, he’s just gaining more for himself, which puts a bit of damper on Josie’s story. It’s odd, though I see what the story was trying to do through Josie for Sam, it still seems disingenuous.
Now, that doesn’t mean that the second act isn’t good, as it’s certainly the strongest part of the film, if it was an act one and the movie balanced frustration of not getting back on the straight and narrow with temptation of getting on the easy path. But the movie just wasn’t built that way, so the second act, when connected with the first, doesn’t hold up very well. It doesn’t give a good reason for Sam to be trusted, and might even magnify more distrust because he is trying to help out this widow, who is clearly vulnerable. Up to this point, we simply don’t know if Sam is being genuine or not. That is tough to tell. As for the subplot, the FBI agent is just a patch for Sam’s character to look better next to when you’re trying to find the villain of the film. It’s like saying, “To your left is a man that murdered people. To your right is a man that hacked computers and violated federal law on multiple occasions. Clearly, the right side is much better.” Yeah, maybe, but they’re both criminals. Regardless of their actions, it’s tough to trust one over the other.
Anyway, in true DC fashion, we won’t talk about the resolution in the third act. I think the ending is certainly endearing to a point, but the mismanagement of characters in the first and second acts, including the random FBI agent, really doesn’t bring it all together by the last act. I wanted to like this movie, as I’m a sucker for good love stories and character redemption, but it was difficult to get there by the end. Maybe you’ll enjoy it better than me, but as of right now it’s a tough sell.
