Nicole Lee4 said:filing a claim is free, so there's really no reason to pay someone else to search for something they shouldn't have lost in the first place. However, there isn't any compensation for "careless" shipments—or to put it more accurately, if I sent it via standard mail, I won't get reimbursed regardless of whether I file a claim. If I understood correctly, quietviper has the receipt, but lacks the actual shipping confirmation. It's a shame, truly.😢
I actually came across a post recently from someone dealing with this exact same headache. They detailed how they managed to resolve it, so I thought I'd pass those insights along. While it’s absolutely true that you shouldn't have to pay for a claim, the reality is that you might still be forced to pay if they demand it. When you send a standard package through the USPS, you always receive that little slip of paper with all the tracking details—basically the official receipt you fill out at the post office. If a package like that goes missing, the reimbursement covers both the value of the contents and the postage fees.
I sent off a package and I have the receipt to prove it, but it hasn't arrived at the destination address yet. It wasn't sent as certified mail, though... is it actually possible that someone at the post office just swiped it?
My advice is to head down to your local USPS branch and present the receipt you received when you dropped the package off. They should be able to contact the receiving post office directly. If the package is truly lost, you'll need to file a claim (I believe there's a small fee, maybe around $2.00). If they still can't locate it, you should be compensated for the value you declared on the form plus the shipping costs—or something along those lines, I don't recall the exact specifics regarding the postage reimbursement.
Jose Ramirez36 said:I have a quick question: is it possible for me to send a package COD (cash on delivery), but have the funds sent to an address where I won't actually be located? It’s just not very practical for me to receive the money at my place in Washington, D.C. right now since I'm renting, so I’d much rather have it sent to my family back home.
Basically, does the person sending the package also have to be the one to pick up the cash, or can I designate someone else to collect it?
I believe someone else can certainly do it. When you go to the post office, they give you that little form you need to fill out for COD shipments. Just list the address where you want the money delivered under the sender's information; that should work without any issues.
Elizabeth Hughes88 said:My apologies if this has already been asked. How would one handle a product swap via mail—say, trading smartphones? Specifically, how do you guarantee you actually receive the item? A direct trade, product for product.
In my view, there isn't a foolproof method for this, at least not if you're trying to ensure both parties act simultaneously—like sending your phone first and waiting for them to send theirs back before they release it. That starts looking a lot like a ransom situation! The reality is that the USPS can only facilitate the return of funds, not physical goods. You essentially have to rely on mutual trust. If you aren't comfortable with that level of risk, the only real option is a cash-on-delivery style arrangement: you ship the phone via a service where they pay upon receipt, and vice versa. In the end, after all the math is done, you’ll likely both just end up spending about $5 or $10 on shipping fees, which effectively means you were just swapping money anyway.
Amanda Lopez52 said:Is it possible to send this via standard mail or as a certified shipment? I've never actually sent anything like this before, so I'm feeling a bit lost on how the whole process works.
If you're just sending a letter, then yes, you certainly can.
Nancy Ramos66 said:What if the buyer doesn't want it delivered straight to their door, but instead picks it up at their local post office? Does that change anything regarding those extra fees$3.25?
Those "extra fees" amount to $2.75, and you'll have to pay them regardless of the delivery method. Basically, if you're doing COD (Cash on Delivery), the total cost is just the standard shipping rate + $2.50 for the COD service + $2.75 for those miscellaneous fees. If you opt for the post office pickup, you actually save some money because you aren't paying the doorstep delivery premium—you'll save $0.67 on packages up to 2 kg, $1.75 for the 2-5 kg range, and so on. In short, sending a COD package under 2 kg ends up costing $10, whereas it would be $11 if you chose home delivery.
darkmaker94 said:I finally received the reimbursement for the package I sent back on May 14th, but I’m still staring at an empty inbox regarding the one from May 7th. It's a bit frustrating to have such a gap between the two.🤷
Have you had a chance to swing by the Post Office yet? If I were you, I’d just show them that receipt you got when you first dropped off the package. That should give them exactly what they need to track down where the holdup is.
I headed down to the local Post Office today to drop off a few printed documents, only to have the clerk tell me they don't even handle print mailings anymore. Now, I am aware that they recently phased out certain types of certified mail services, but telling me I can't even send standard printed envelopes? That honestly sounds completely absurd to me.
I found the first installment to be incredibly engaging and genuinely fun. However, I have to say the subsequent two sequels felt significantly weaker. You can tell immediately that a different director took the helm for those. That said, one thing is certain: Noah Wyle is absolutely fantastic in the lead role, which definitely helps salvage the overall experience.
Elizabeth Brown90 said:How much does it cost to send something COD? With that kind of shipping, do I pay when the package actually arrives?
It’ll run you about $11 (once everything is tallied up). Honestly, I think that option only makes sense if you're shipping something quite valuable. Even then, if someone is trying to pull a fast one on you, the whole "pay on delivery" thing doesn't really protect you—you can't exactly inspect what's inside the box before you've already handed over the cash for both the item and the shipping fee.
vividhawk65 said:I just realized I missed half my message🤷...I was actually trying to ask if anyone knows how much shipping would cost if a package were coming from a Banjaluka-based location😕 if anyone happens to know
If I recall correctly, a package coming from the USA or other nearby countries will run you $31 (assuming it stays under 5 lbs; every extra pound adds about $2.75)...I've included the price list below
velvetcrane57 said:I honestly doubt that would be a smart move. It just isn't the same without Columbo, and there are so many mediocre crime series and TV movies out there already that it really wouldn't be worth the effort. Columbo was the one and only P. Falk; let’s just leave it at that. They were some of the best crime TV movies ever made.
Well, what can I say? Not long ago, I went through almost every single Columbo sequel, and now I find it hard to enjoy any other crime shows or movies. I end up zoning out whenever I watch those shows where they dive deep into chemical formulas like COOH or NH3+ in a lab setting just to track down a suspect—you know, those typical CSI-style procedurals. They aren't necessarily bad shows, but they just don't capture that magic that Columbo had. His approach was so much more engaging. You're absolutely right, though; it's probably better if they don't film any new sequels. Given the quality of what's being produced these days, I highly doubt anything could come close to the caliber of Columbo from the 70s, 80s, or even the 90s. Honestly, they'd likely just end up ruining the legacy of everything that came before.
Scott Moore7 said:Ever since Friday the 13th got its remake, I can only think of about eight installments—including Jason X, Jason vs Freddy, and Jason Goes to Hell. I haven't heard a peep about this specific remake yet; is there actually any info out there about it???.
And honestly, they really ought to keep Columbo going... but I suppose Falk probably doesn't want to play him anymore, given he's in his 80s now. It would be fantastic if they could just spin it off into something like Son of Columbo and keep the momentum moving forward.
I completely agree—it really feels like there’s a perfect opening for a new Evil Dead installment now that things have settled since the third one. Of course, there is one non-negotiable condition: Bruce Campbell absolutely has to return as Ash Williams. If they cast anyone else, it just won't be the same movie. That said, I’m not holding my breath, considering it's been about 15 years since that third entry. It seems like American studios would much rather churn out endless sequels for franchises like A Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th, or Halloween, which honestly gets exhausting because they rarely bring anything fresh to the table. That’s exactly why we ended up with a Friday the 13th reboot and a Halloween remake instead of actual sequels; at this rate, I wouldn't be surprised if we see an A Nightmare on Elm Street remake popping up soon too. I see them making the same mistakes with Final Destination as well, pushing out a totally unnecessary fourth film that adds zero value. The first two were fantastic—the first for its sheer originality, and the second for those even more insane death scenes—but that was really where they should have drawn the line. In another six or seven years, I bet that franchise will end up just like Friday the 13th and the others.
The only movie that immediately comes to mind is Mr. Brooks. I actually read somewhere once that it was originally intended to be a trilogy, though who knows if we'll ever see anything happen with that now... honestly, it’s just great to see Costner pull off a comeback like that. In his role as Brooks, he proved once and for all that he still has plenty of gas in the tank, despite what a lot of people might have thought over the years.
I have to admit, I didn't quite wrap my head around that movie, but even so, I still consider it one of the better Westerns we've seen lately. That being said, I can't help but feel the film would have landed much more effectively if they had cut out all that psychedelia—just like my namesake above mentioned. Still, I suppose it isn't such a bad idea to trim the fat, especially when I recall how poorly that psychedelic approach worked in another Western, >. Honestly, I nearly smashed my DVD player right after watching >.
I remember watching this movie with some friends; we hadn't seen the trailer, but we were all expecting a solid horror-thriller. Honestly, we just sat there waiting and waiting for something interesting to happen, and after about 40 minutes, we completely lost our patience and walked out. I ended up finishing it the next day, purely because I didn't have anything better to do. The core concept William Friedkin had for this film isn't actually a bad idea, but the execution? It's a mess. While he manages to build a certain atmosphere, it’s constantly undermined by piles of useless, incredibly stupid scenes—the kind I call "insane/confused" moments. For instance, that sequence where the guy is jumping all over the apartment trying to convince Ashley to look at the Bug... it absolutely destroys the overall impact of the film. If it had been shot more effectively—specifically if they had trimmed at least 15 minutes off those first 60 minutes of aimless pacing—this could have actually been a good movie. Furthermore, the segment where Friedkin focuses on building the relationship between Ashley and that guy—which ends up making Ashley's ex jealous—gives off the vibe of a romantic drama or, heaven forbid, a soap opera, rather than what should have been a tense horror drama. That’s largely why everyone gave up on the movie; people just stopped caring before they could even reach that well-conceived climax. I’ll say it again: the premise is quite well-thought-out and could work, but the way it was realized makes it feel like just another failed attempt. As mistyseal11 mentioned, the idea behind the film is fine, but the film itself just doesn't hold up. But hey, that's just my two cents. It’s honestly hard to believe that a director who has delivered such phenomenal masterpieces like The Exorcist, To Live and Die in L.A., Rampage, and The French Connection can stumble into nonsense like Jailbreak, Jade, the Job of the Century (or whatever that comedy was called), and most of these Kukci.
Richard Wilson4 said:Look, man, personally I really dig Costner, but unfortunately, you just can't today say he's part of that A-list American actor crowd... 👎
Is it true that between roughly 1987 and the release of Waterworld, he knocked out a massive string of absolute classics—think No Exit, The Untouchables, Perfect World, and even Dances with Wolves? It really feels like his career hit a bit of a slump afterward, largely because of Waterworld, and then as a director, because of The Postman (though, in my honest opinion, The Postman wasn't actually that bad). I’ll admit, I actually removed him from my list of all-time great actors for a while there. However, about two years ago, I sat down to watch Open Range, and I was genuinely impressed by how much he brought to the table, both behind the camera and in front of it. Then I watched The Guardian, and once again, he was just excellent. To top it all off, after seeing Mr. Brooks—which, quite frankly, might be the best thriller I've seen in the last year or two—I'm officially putting him right back at the top of my list.
redowl90 said:Has anyone else actually considered that we might just be talking about bad movies here? Waterworld has a disastrous story and a plot that makes zero sense. Most importantly, it’s just plain stupid. It features one of the most irritating villains ever put on screen and the acting is pretty terrible. Not to mention the lead character being a mutant, and that forced attempt at some kind of failed unhappy ending.
I didn't see The Postman in theaters; I caught it on VHS. Before watching, I had heard nothing but the worst things imaginable, so I think my brain just created a reverse effect, making the movie seem less bad than it actually was. But if you really think about it, the story told in that film is incredibly naive. It might fly for the book it's based on, but for a movie, it's a bit much. Plus, it has a terrible villain who feels way too forced.
These two films are actually quite similar and they really tanked Kevin Costner's career (which sucks, because I've never thought he was a bad actor), so it's no surprise both were flops.
Everything said above is an exaggeration... though I will say Costner did bounce back later as a director (with the Western Open Range) and as an actor (he was great in Mr. Brooks, and I heard there might even be a sequel)... To me, Costner is like Nicolas Cage, who also had massive failures (like The Wicker Man) but also huge hits throughout his career... either way, both of them remain right at the top of my list of best actors.