The Postman Always Rings Twice (1946) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
181 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
Slightly Softened from Cain's 1930's Novel but Still Holds Its Own as a Noir Classic
classicalsteve27 April 2008
The original book published in 1934 by James M. Cain (author of "Double Indemnity") was a gritty unsentimental story of a low-class drifter and bum, Frank, who is taken in by a German immigrant, Nick, who owns a roadside café and his beautiful wife, Cora, who turns out to be much darker on the inside than the facade of her pure white skin. Cora, we learn, is dissatisfied with her life married to this older immigrant and the drifter becomes her catalyst to change her situation. The movie adaption of twelve years later is a slightly sentimentalized version of Cain's noir classic. That said, the movie still holds its own as a noir tale of betrayal and murder, but doesn't quite have the edge of Billy Wilder's adaption of "Double Indemnity".

Still, the movie works very well under its own terms, particularly because of the outstanding chemistry between the leads John Garfield and Lana Turner. In fact, the star of the show is really Turner who turns in a tour-de-force performance. Turner continually shows us the many faces of her character Cora Smith who is sometimes weak and vulnerable and other times resolute and stubborn, even unsympathetic, and yet oozing with unrealized sexuality. We gather that Cora is no ordinary woman, or at least not the soft sentimental Doris Day type. More like a cross between Eva Peron and Madonna. Sometimes hard and mean and other times sweet and feminine, she is the complex epitome of the Cain femme fatale of this era. She remains enigmatic from beginning to end which is I think what Cain would have wanted. Garfield, in probably the role of his career, is equally superb, at first rejecting the murder scheme and then later embracing it. Although lacking the enigmatic complexity of Cora, Frank is equally ambiguous and ambivalent to his life choices, and Garfield well conveys the multi-sidedness of Frank.

The story concerns a young man looking for work, finds a roadside café up a few hours north of Los Angeles, probably up the 101 freeway, and becomes the hired help. He is employed by Nick, a simple German-stock older-than-middle-age man, who simply wants to make enough money to be comfortable and occasionally play his little guitar. His wife, Cora, is about 40 years younger and wants to make something of their café instead of just eking out a meager living. But fleeing with Nick and beginning from ground zero is not what she wants. She would like to have the café and make something of it. And when the hired help Frank falls for her, she realizes he is the perfect means to get both of them out of their hellish existence.

A fine example of 1940's film noir with many of the stylistic considerations, such as the camera panning from feet-to-face when we first meet the woman Cora, the many unexpected twists and turns, and of course the dark desires of the leads. Every series of scenes leaves you guessing as to what will happen next. A couple of scenes were contrived that were superfluous to the book. Unfortunately, the film suffers slightly because of the stringent ethics codes that started to be imposed on films of that time. Probably film noir offerings suffered more than most because of their probing the darker sides of human nature. However, Postman still ranks as classic film noir.
40 out of 50 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
What a classic
Kingslaay2 January 2022
A great black and white film from start to finish. The twists and turns keeps you engaged. Just when you thought you had the film figured out, it surprises you. Enjoyable and entertaining. They don't make movies like this anymore.
6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
She's funny that way....
jotix1009 June 2006
Those movie audiences who think that explicit sexual scenes shown in movies these days make a film sexy, should take a look at this 1946 steamy MGM picture. "The Postman Always Ring Twice" made an impact on the way movies looked at the time, when the censure of the Hays Code dominated what could be shown on the screen for general consumption.

James M. Cain's novel of the same title was adapted by Harry Ruskin and Niven Busch, two writers that clearly caught all the nuances of the book. Ty Garnett direction made this film a surprise and a star out of the gorgeous Lana Turner, who was at the height of her beauty when the movie was shot. The great camera work of Sidney Wagner made this movie a classic for its sensual look it focused on its female star.

Nick, the older owner of the roadside diner, has married Cora, a woman much too young for him. Cora, who clearly has found her meal ticket, is happy in the way her life has changed. When Frank Chambers arrive at the diner, Cora realizes the mistake she made in marrying Nick; Frank stands in sharp contrast with Nick. Cora's sexual needs awaken when Frank pays attention to her. As lovers, we realize they are doomed.

Because both Cora and Frank are amateurs, they botch the well laid plans they have for getting rid of Nick. Everything conspires against them because it's too clear what they have done. They will not be able to get away with the crime, or a life together because unknown to them everyone had seen through them from the beginning.

Lana Turner, whose whole wardrobe is white, made a great Cora. She is heartless, but she is all sexual whenever she is around Frank. This was perhaps was one of the best things Ms. Turner did in the movies. John Garfield, who is so sure of himself, at the start, loses all his will because Cora smolders him and he doesn't think rationally. Cecil Kellaway is good as the older Nick. Leon Ames, Hume Cronyn are seen in small roles.

"The Postman Always Ring Twice" is a classic of this genre thanks to Ty Garnett's direction and a brilliant appearance by an inspired Lana Turner.
48 out of 66 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Atmospheric story of lust, desire and murder
bob the moo18 February 2002
Drifter Frank Chambers applies for a job at a road side café belonging to Nick Smith, only to fall under the spell of Nick's wife Cora. He falls into desire which leads to deceit and eventually murder. Too late he falls in love but by then things have gone too far. He tells his story to us with the hindsight of a condemned man.

A classic bit of noir light. Based on Cain's sexual novel this underplays the explicit references but turns the subtle stuff way up - the film opens with a `Man Wanted' sign, while Cora is so well played that there's no doubt what she's offering. Without the explicit sex of the remake this story is a lot freer to be interesting rather than explicit. The court case and the mistrust between the lovers is as good as the early desire giving rise to murder.

Lana Turner is excellent as the femme fatale, she is smouldering and very, very desirable. Garfield is also excellent as the man trapped in her web. The two are the very center of the film and are both superb. If the film has any weakness then it may be that modern audiences need more than very subtle stuff, but that's probably our problem rather than the film's.

Overall this is very enjoyable, it has a great sense of mood and builds well to the inevitable conclusion.
71 out of 83 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Totally Noir
fsquared-7852621 April 2020
If you are a fan of Film Noir, this is a must see. Beginning to end the noir penchant for uneasiness is celebrated and, surprisingly, Hume Cronyn gives a stellar performance as an amoral lawyer.
7 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Awesome film noir!
SonOfMoog12 January 2004
Warning: Spoilers
The Postman Always Rings Twice is simply the best film noir ever done.

Lana Turner, who got billing above John Garfield in this movie, and deservedly so, is stunning as Cora, the most alluring woman I've ever seen on screen, the quintessential femme fatale. John Garfield gives a bravura performance as Frank Chambers, the drifter, who can't keep his hands off another man's wife. The story is by James M. Cain, whose Double Indemnity is another memorable film noir adapted for the screen. Cain's stories are a mix of lust and crime and deceit and double-dealing.

But, this movie belongs to Lana Turner from the moment we and Frank the drifter first see her to that fateful moment .. and I won't say when that moment arrives .. when Frank's and Cora's dreams and schemes are forever dashed. Frank says several times in the movie, "I just wanted to look at her..I just wanted to see her..It was horrible to be away from her.." and Frank wasn't the only one who had those feelings.

That first time we meet Cora is simply one of the most erotic, powerful scenes ever filmed. Frank is sitting at the restaurant counter, Cora's husband, Nick, has gone to see a customer, and we see a tube of lipstick rolling on the floor. The camera follows Frank's gaze from the lipstick, to the path it took on the floor, to its owner and the reason it fell to the floor. The camera stops - as Frank's gaze does - on Cora's shapely legs, shown in all their splendor from mid-thigh to heel, because Cora is wearing shorts. We see Cora's face, and then Frank's, and we can literally see Frank's breath being taken away. Ours, too.

It doesn't take long before nature takes its course with Frank and Cora, but that creates the problem of what to do with Nick? First, they simply decide to leave him, but that doesn't work, because of the three of then, Nick is the only one with money. There is a botched murder attempt which Nick recovers from. Nick isn't the brightest bulb in the array since he never realizes that his wife and the drifter he hired just tried to kill him. Some parts of this first attempt are masterfully done, and some aren't. Frank and Cora's sexual tension builds, along with the fear that they'll be found out for what they tried to do.

They succeed in killing Nick on their second attempt, but are soon caught. These aren't master criminals, you see. Cora and Nick are played against each other by the Prosecutor, and we soon see them for their true selves, as they turn on one another. Hume Cronyn plays Cora's attorney here in a role evocative of Billy Flynn in Chicago some 55 years later. This defense attorney has it all under control. He manages to razzle-dazzle the prosecution - and the court, and get both Frank and Cora off! Cronyn is so good here he nearly steals the movie!

It's not necessary to say more about the story. We know in a film noir universe that evil schemes never succeed. Frank and Cora will never get away with Nick's murder. Even though they are free, things soon begin to unravel for them. Their relationship is undermined by all the deceit and legal manuevering of the prosecuting attorney and Cora's lawyer. Neither trusts the other. Things go from bad to worse, and ultimately both Frank and Cora pay for killing Nick.

This movie is not perfect. There are some plot points that do not hold: Nick's stupidity, the sudden discovery of the life insurance policy, a stupid housecat, and others. It is tedious in spots, especially the middle.

The botched first murder attempt is not essential, the legal wrangling takes too long, and the tension that builds between Frank and Cora after they are free takes too long to build. Frank has a dalliance with a waitress that either should have been cut or expanded. But, for all its faults it is quintessential film noir. Frank and Cora for all their good looks are rotten at their core, and that's why we love them. We love the movie because in the end they get what they deserve: justice triumphs over hormones and greed. 9 out of 10.

A footnote: the newly released DVD has a bonus feature on the life of John Garfield. He died in 1952 at the age of 39, a victim of the House Unamerican Activities Committee. Garfield was a prominent target, whom the committee sought to discredit and destroy, in an attempt to gain credibility with the American people. How very sad that so many lives could be shattered with such implacable malice emanating from Congress itself. Let us pray it never happens again.
56 out of 80 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Very oddly structured movie
Itchload23 January 2003
I was not expecting a classic film noir along the lines of "Double Indemnity" or "Out of the Past" when I put this movie in, and for awhile, I thought I might have been wrong. Maybe the cover was too cheesy, I'm not sure, but I didn't have extra high hopes for this movie. Then my mood brightened when it actually started to become very entertaining. I wasn't being blown away, but I did start to enjoy the film noir 101 plot. The reviewer who noted MGM's dramatic lighting of Turner is right, it's ridiculous, but it does come with the territory I guess. Other than that, things seemed to be moving in place very smoothly.

Then an odd thing happened. The movie refused to end. It wasn't that the pace was slow, it moved speedily. Something was always happening, and there was plenty of suspense/overblown MGM music blaring out of the speakers at any given moment. But the plot was way too top-heavy. They get caught doing the murder. Okay, time for trial, some final irony, then the movie's over. But it's not! It just kept going. New subplots turned up, bribes, plot twists, double crosses, it just kept happening and happening. It was too much. I was literally standing up sweating by the final scene, wanting it to end so much. The problem was, nothing of any substance was given to the events that kept happening. It was like the screenwriters noted "okay, this happened in the book, but we have to trim it a bit, so we'll make a small 2 minute scene including it in the movie" and suddenly the movie is full of these large occurrences given very brief sketched out screen time. Garfield runs off for a weekend in Tijuana with some random women? What just happened? Things just grew too implausible. I realize that complaining the movie went on too long and claiming that not enough screen time was given to all the events in the second half is hypocritical, but there must have been ways to flesh things out. I haven't read the book, but I suspect it's much better than the movie, just based on other reviewer's comments.

During the final embarassing "what does God make of all this" speech to the priest (hey, I thought film noirs where supposed to be existential!), I happened to look at the video case and glance at the title. Realizing it hadn't been referenced in the movie yet I stared at the screen and muttered "out with it" and in return got some over-reaching ramblings concerning how "he always rings twice, always rings twice" ext. Yikes.

I have to say though, the movie had some very good irony and employed a load of classic film noir tricks (the final outcome must have influenced the Coen Brothers with "The Man Who Wasn't There"), but I can't help believing the book must have been a lot better. I'd chalk this one up for noir completists and Golden Age MGM enthusiasts only.
75 out of 123 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Superior film noir
LDRose29 July 2004
Lana Turner and John Garfield generate sparks in this excellent crime thriller. Turner plays Cora Smith, a restless young waitress married to a much-older man who runs the roadside diner. Garfield plays Frank Chambers, a drifter who turns up at the diner and is captivated by Cora. Cecil Kellaway is great as Cora's naive husband Nick, whose main concern is the diner. The fact that it is filmed in black and white helps create the suspenseful atmosphere and highlight Cora's striking cream outfits. This is far superior to the 1981 remake, for although it was made under a strict production code, it smolders with desire and tension and is an unforgettable classic.
56 out of 83 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Weak-ish Noir
watkins396 May 2006
This film has all the ingredients of classic noir without actually being a very good movie.

The biggest problem I had with the film was that the characters are an unconvincing blend of naivety and cunning. One minute they're suckered by an old man running a burger bar, the next they're foiling a blackmail plot hatched by corrupt lawmen and wielding guns like they're hardened gangsters.

The ending is equally unconvincing, with the protagonist happily latching onto his death sentence as some kind of salvation that gives him moral certainty in the amoral noir world he's been floundering in. It's as if this is a noir made by people who were anti-noir.

Noir will always involve a clash between innocence and experience but it's not convincingly handled here. It isn't the first noir I'd make that complaint against, either - things like SHadow of a Doubt and Night of the Hunter have a similar unreal atmosphere.

In my opinion the best noir is both believable and hellish; like The Third Man, Double Indemnity, Notorious or Chinatown.
47 out of 82 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A solid murder mystery with star power
NewEnglandPat7 February 2004
Lana Turner and John Garfield are great in this classic tale of deception and murder and its hard to imagine that another actress, save Barbara Stanwyck or Joan Crawford, could have played the role of the wayward wife as well as did Turner. Cecil Kellaway has a thankless role and it's hard to believe that he was as clueless as he was about the fires burning around him as Turner and Garfield carry on their affair. Kellaway seems more preoccupied with pinching pennies than noticing how his young, attractive wife is bursting with sexual energy. Turner is as beautiful as ever but she and Kellaway don't make a credible married couple. Hume Cronyn is good as the smug attorney but the courtroom drama is a bit of a letdown. Garfield brings a restless energy to his role and matches Turner's smoldering sexuality.
26 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Excellent, if watered-down version of James M. Cain's steamy novel
moonspinner553 February 2008
Hard-bitten drifter comes upon a diner run by a friendly, middle-aged coot and his glamorous, sinister-eyed spouse; soon, the dangerous femme fatale is conspiring with the handsome stranger to bump off her husband. Glossy but still potent film noir was--due to the times--a softened variation on James M. Cain's bestseller, yet is helped by the exciting star-performances from John Garfield and Lana Turner. Occasionally overwrought, but tightly-wound, absorbing and enjoyable. Remade in 1981 as an R-rated noir featuring Jack Nicholson and Jessica Lange in the leads, and who proved to be a surprisingly dull screen duo. Stick with the taut original. *** from ****
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
books v. movies
zygimantas7 May 2005
Funny, the comment there about the title - it's the strangest part of the adaptation because at least it IS mentioned in the film, but nowhere in the book. It's an absolute mystery to me how this title made it through intact when great titles like "Farewell My Lovely" were dumbed down to "Murder My Sweet" for the sake of Hollywood audiences. James M. Cain originally submitted the story to Alfred Knopf with the title "BBQ" (which makes sense in context) and was asked to change it; he considered "Black Puma" and "The Devil's Checkbook" before settling on the mystifying title by which the novel and both adaptations are well known.

Anyway, I like the film and think it's a great straight adaptation of the book, though the dialogue in the beginning seems a bit hurried (for the sake of the quick establishment of character and story) - the book does a better job of painting the hobo/gypsy lifestyle Frank embraces, and I think it's pretty central to the eventual conflict between him and Cora, so it's a shame it wasn't better depicted in the film.

Lana Turner is good, but probably just a bit mis-cast - she's a little too "glamorous" for Cora, which is also established immediately in the famous opening shot of her legs and lipstick (in contrast to the book, where she was introduced in an apron, working hard for the business like she always says she wants to.)

One note for femme-fatale buffs: Cora and Nick in the film are surnamed "Smith," which in the book was Cora's maiden name. (Nick in the book was Greek - "Papadakis") Is this a statement on marriage in general, or perhaps a desire to eliminate the racial implications in what happens? Seems unlikely; it is what it is, for smarter people than me to unravel.

"So long mister, thanks for the ride!"
23 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Noir Noir Noir
gavin694216 November 2015
A married woman and a drifter fall in love, then plot to murder her husband... but even once the deed is done, they must live with the consequences of their actions.

Surprisingly, this version was actually the third filming of The Postman Always Rings Twice, but the first under the novel's original title and the first in English. Previously, the novel had been filmed as Le Dernier Tournant (The Last Turning) in France in 1939, and as Ossessione (Obsession) in Italy in 1943.

Bosley Crowther gave the film a positive review and lauded the acting and direction of film, writing, "Too much cannot be said for the principals. Mr. Garfield reflects to the life the crude and confused young hobo who stumbles aimlessly into a fatal trap. And Miss Turner is remarkably effective as the cheap and uncertain blonde who has a pathetic ambition to 'be somebody' and a pitiful notion that she can realize it through crime." Despite the multiple versions, this is probably the "definitive" one. It certainly is the one that went on to be influential. I even recall such an unlikely place as "Sesame Street" making a parody of it, which is bizarre considering this was probably not a movie that appealed to kids.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
I was flabbergasted by this soap opera
zwrite223 February 2008
Warning: Spoilers
As a child in the 1970s, I cringed whenever I viewed a television soap opera that my mother insisted on watching. Every soap opera I ever, involuntarily, watched was shockingly bad.

"The Postman Always Rings Twice" is like a forerunner for those horrible soap operas. The innumerable plot turns are often unbelievably absurd, the dialogue is very shallow, the characters are stupid, and everything is melodramatic. The fact that the Lana Turner character is one of the hottest movie characters I've ever seen can't save "Postman."

The first half of this 1946 movie deserves a 5 or a 6. I often love movies that focus on a few characters, but I just wasn't interested in this film's three main characters. Turner's marriage to an unattractive small-time restaurant owner old enough to be her Dad is not credible. It certainly wasn't Cecil Kellaway's brains that appealed to her because he is oblivious to an affair that occurs right under his nose. Turner and John Garfield's behavior around Kellaway is abnormal.

More importantly, the affair between Garfield and Turner – which begins when he attacks her – is uninteresting. They say nothing to each other about their hopes and dreams, nothing in depth about their love for each other, nothing intelligent, and nothing that reveals who they are. I know virtually nothing about their backgrounds and there is little character development.

Despite the flaws, the plot is interesting enough that I can understand why people like the first half of "Postman." The second half of "Postman," however, just flabbergasted me. The stupid plot turns include:

* The district attorney who prosecuted Turner for killing Kellaway was the closest thing to a WITNESS to the murder because he was the FIRST one who saw the crashed car.

* After witnessing and prosecuting the murder, the D.A. decides to let Turner off on a prison-free manslaughter charge after a 30-second conversation with the defense attorney.

* Several minutes earlier, the defense attorney ignored Turner's objections and entered guilty pleas for murdering Kellaway and trying to murder Garfield.

* Shortly before the two guilty pleas, the D.A. and defense attorney bet on whether Turner will be found guilty of murder – in front of the other suspect.

* After the guilty pleas, Turner and Garfield are placed in the same room in a courthouse and are allowed to move freely although she has just plead guilty to trying to kill him and he has signed a complaint saying he witnessed her murdering Kellaway.

* In the room, Turner implicates Garfield in the Kellaway murder in a confession that is made right in front of him – and typed by someone impersonating an officer of the court.

* After trying to put each other in jail for life, Garfield and Turner decided to live with each other.

* The community is so unbothered that a convicted killer is serving no jail time that it flocks to her restaurant to solicit her autograph, but it is outraged that two unmarried people live together. Thus, Garfield and Turner marry.

* The impersonator tries to extort Garfield and Turner for the paper with the confession he typed although they certainly knew he could have made copies of the paper.

* The police suspected Garfield and Turner of an earlier attempt on Kellaway's life, but they stopped probing because he recovered. Essentially, they negligently allowed Kellaway to be murdered.

There are other plot twists. They occur approximately every 30 seconds. I kept getting the impression that the writers were aware a plot twist was illogical so they wrote another one to try to explain the previous one. With each plot twist, they dug themselves into a deeper hole.

This movie is so stupid that I'm probably being generous in giving it a 3.

ZWrite
57 out of 93 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Garfield and Turner are terrific...steamy version of the James M. Cain novel is still the best...
Doylenf16 April 2001
Someone previously questioned the meaning of the title. In my view, it refers to the double twist imposed on the story's ending by the author--especially once the legal wrangling between opposing lawyers (near the conclusion) is exposed. Then, finally, after winning a victory of sorts, the unexpected happens--thus, the irony of the title. Anyway, this is as good as it gets--you won't find a better version of this story than this 1946 film. I'm always amused to read that someone on these posts "never looks at black-and-white films", a total putdown of all the great classics that came before color was even possible. How dumb can you get? For fans of complex, hard-bitten murder yarns with gritty background and suspense that tightens slowly like a knot, this is for you. Watch as the two leads get more and more entangled in their own web of deception and lies. Turner established herself as a strong actress who could play a role to the hilt when she identified with it. Garfield, of course, was always at his best in tough guy roles. Watch for my article on Lana Turner in an upcoming issue of FILMS OF THE GOLDEN AGE--much of the inspiration for it came from this particular film noir.
19 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Those Late John Garfield Blues
Hitchcoc17 December 2016
One of the greatest of the Film Noir classics. This is the story of an unhappy woman who enlists the aid of a drifter to kill her husband. It begins with what appears to be a mere flirtation and escalates to a torrid love affair. Lana Turner is sumptuous, and John Garfield has that masculine edge, a dark man, somewhat mysterious, and truly clueless as he gets into more and more trouble. The two begin a sophisticated plot to do in her old man. He can't believe his good fortune to have this beautiful woman want him. Oh well. The best laid plans. The desolation of the place and the use of fine black and white cinematography enhance the danger.
9 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Great
aratron-0039114 October 2021
Greed and lust corrupt . I like movies with this theme. Great story and acting was superb. Lana is beautiful. Moral of the story if you trust to much it could cost you big time. The remake was also well done.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
This Postman Had To Ring 3 Times
ccthemovieman-124 December 2005
It took me three viewings before this postman finally delivered for me. Giving that many opportunities for a film is not normal but my film noir friends all liked this so much, I thought I'd missed something on previous viewings, so I kept trying.

My patience was rewarded on the first viewing of it on DVD. Maybe the clearer picture helped. At any rate, if someone else viewed this and found it boring - particularly the first half - I would understand. Finally, however, I, too,I found it interesting all the way through.

Hume Cronyn, not the stars of the film John Garfield and Lana Turner, sparked my interest. He gave a fascinating portrayal of a lawyer and I wish his role had been bigger. Cecil Kellaway also is good as Tuner's husband, and I enjoyed Leon Ames as the district attorney.

The film almost makes the two low-life leads into sympathetic characters, which is just plain wrong and probably also why twisted critics all like this. They prefer to side with the criminals rather than the victims. Both Garfield and Turner's characters are morally bankrupt. Garfield even jokes early on in the film about how fooling around with another man's wife "is nothing."

The ending was a bit strange. Once again, the first two viewings I didn't like it, but on the third I thought was happened was appropriate.
18 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
The postman always rings twice review
Molly047 April 2010
Although I didn't get to watch this film with the rest of the class; i'm almost tempted to say my review was more enjoyable and personal, making it a totally different experience for me. This face paced and thrilling film-noir from 1946 is certainly a classic... one of my favorite films from class, to date. Many elements of film making went into this piece. Great lead role acting, particular camera angles, and appropriate mood lighting make this film the high quality that is. For example, Lana Turner's character Cora is unforgettable, her excellent acting skills allowed her to be enticing on screen but not carnal or even just too dramatic. John Garfield's character Frank Chambers is a strong supporting role and I really liked his sense of humor and the way he portrayed his infatuation with Cora, I felt the passion between those two after that infamous lip lock. The camera aids her in this smooth sense of seduction as well. Lighting throughout the film also helped to make the mood suspicious (in the way of her careless husband Nick) yet captivating and sensual (Cora's form fitting outfits and intense kissing scene) I thoroughly enjoyed this movie and enjoyed it all to myself this time too!
9 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Man Wanted
AAdaSC25 May 2010
John Garfield (Frank) drifts into a small town and gets work at a café/diner run by an unlikely husband and wife team, Cecil Kellaway (Nick) and Lana Turner (Cora). Garfield and Turner have an attraction for each other that reaches a dangerous level and we follow the consequences of their actions...

The cast are all good - my favourite is Hume Cronyn who plays "Arthur Keats", a very cunning lawyer, and he steals the show in every scene that he is in. Lana Turner is also a very cool customer and one of her best moments occurs after she has just been kissed by Garfield for the first time. Instead of the customary slap in the face that we are all expecting, she just re-applies her make-up and walks past him. How cool is she?

As for the story, you need to suspend belief on a few occasions. First of all, it is just completely impossible to believe the marriage between fat, old Kellaway and young, attractive Turner. Even less difficult to take in is the willingness on Kellaway's part to encourage the much younger, better-looking and better suited lover for Turner to spend as much time possible as he can with her. WHAT!!? This Kellaway character is INCREDIBLY stupid. Another corker of an idea is to have Garfield and Turner plan to kill Kellaway by throwing some marbles under him so that he will slip and kill himself. This is getting pretty stupid now, isn't it?

There are some memorable scenes but the ending is rather too convenient and the final scene has some rather forced dialogue to try and justify the film's title. Overall, it's an entertaining film that is a little long but deserves another look.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Noir is poetry
laurentsaletto12 January 2022
Tay Garnett. Not exactly a household name in directors heaven. Tay was an MGM director who did pretty much what he was told but this is his claim to eternal recognition, no less. A fantastically tightly directed movie. I won't get into what it's about, plenty here have done already.

For those here who dont understand the style or the era, I would suggest they stick to the usual mindless output of Netflux et al. To understand and love noir, you just have to suspend disbelief a while. And have a sense of poetry borne from nostalgia and great books. The story is fabulous, Turner never better. Garfield is still the best actor of his generation... The images keep on coming...When that lipstick rolls across the floor.... still wow. For those who dont understand plots yes Cora is married to an old man yes... to escape a worst life. Before you judge people, LISTEN closely. This ain't a pop video, needs a brain cell to enjoy to the full.

If you can, watch it close to watch Double Indemnity made 2 years before. Similar plot changes such as the murder happening halfway through the film and the other half about doomed lovers destroying themselves are in evidence. Love DI, love Wilder but prefer Postman.

I have watched postman a hundred times and I hope to watch it a hundred more in my lifetime. Yes, it is THAT great.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
The postman didn't ring for me
maraudertheslashnymph23 July 2008
I watched this movie when it was on TV recently, knowing it was a classic movie. I didn't have any expectations, seeing as I barely knew what it was about - I just figured it would be good.

"The Postman Always Rings Twice" is never boring, but it's too long by half an hour, if not more, and it's hard to believe that Frank and Cora would risk so much for each other when their relationship is based purely on physical attraction. Perhaps Cora, stuck in a loveless marriage, could realistically fall for a handsome man who showed an interest in her - but why does Frank plot murder for the sake of a woman he barely knows? Surely he could continue on his travels and find another, equally sexy woman in a less complicated and dangerous situation? Cora and Frank are devoted to each other because the plot requires them to be, not because they have any sort of plausible emotional connection. I believed they were strongly sexually attracted to each other, but I didn't believe that they were connected on any other level.

Throughout this film, I kept thinking of ways that it could be a better movie. I didn't try to, it just happened. At one point I was convinced that Nick had figured out Cora and Frank's plans and was telling them various things just to see them squirm, but no such luck. The movie drags on and on in the last hour, with Frank and Cora going from one melodramatic plot point to the next without really thinking or reflecting on any of them. I got sick of Frank and Cora. I wanted them to be smarter, to do unexpected things - oh, and I wanted Frank to stop successfully punching out guys who look like they could crush him with one arm tied behind their backs.

The acting is good. Once you accept the plot dragging on and on, the script is fairly decent. Still, I wouldn't recommend this movie except perhaps to hardcore film fans, and I wouldn't watch it again.

A note: There is no postman in this film, and the significance of the title is not revealed until the last scene, where we find out it's a lot more boring than we were expecting.
11 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
SHE'S FUNNY THAT WAY...
tcchelsey3 February 2021
What a tangled web.

THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE, perhaps one of the greatest film noirs of all time. One film you cannot and will definitely not get enough of, no matter how many times you see it.

Human nature at its very worst, defined.

Credit the chemistry between John Garfield and Lana Turner who, actually, had a brief affair during production. No question this classic inspired so many similar screenplays, but none to capture the perfect storm as displayed here. The cleverist thing about it all -- you may even catch yourself secretly rooting for the bad guy and girl, and ain't that the kicker?

Author James M. Cain had a sly sense of humor.

Great support from Leon Ames, Audrey Totter and especially crafty Hume Cronyn, in a role he defined. Masterfully directed by Tay Garnett, who began his long career in comedy films. Ames and Totter also co-starred in LADY IN THE LAKE.

There has been a long debate, comparing this version and the 198l remake starring Jack Nicholson. But you can't top Garfield and Turner. Bette Davis summed it all up, stating "It's highway robbery, Lana Turner did NOT win an Oscar!" Her next starring film would be GREEN DOLPHIN STREET opposite Van Heflin.

Forever on dvd and remastered blu ray for a new generation.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Superior film noir emerges slightly tainted
funkyfry29 October 2002
This film packs sadistic humor and a nice murder with no mystery into a solid punch (the suspense of waiting for the inevitable "second ring" of justice supplies the necessary force to move the plot to its conclusion). Garfield makes the movie with his convincing portrayal of a drifter drawn into murder by femme fatale Turner.

What kind of bugs me is Lana Turner's bad acting and MGM's usual insistence that the character she plays be shown in the best possible light -- as if Turner could play a murderess, but only as long as she wasn't unlikeable or unglamorous.

Still, a good suspense film well photographed and directed. Audrey Totter makes a brief appearance (she should have been allowed to steal the movie).
13 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Descends into absurdity
JamesHitchcock10 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I was surprised to learn that this was the third film version of James M. Cain's 1934 novel "The Postman Always Rings Twice", earlier versions having been made in France in 1939 and (remarkably) in Fascist Italy in 1943. The American version was eventually made by MGM after three other studios (RKO, Warner Brothers and Columbia) had considered filming the novel but had abandoned the idea because they feared possible objections from the Production Code Authority. Neither the French version "Le Dernier Tournant" (The Last Turning) nor the Italian one "Ossessione" (Obsession) actually used Cain's enigmatic title, which is never explained in the novel itself. (No postman appears in it). This film does attempt an explanation, but it is not very convincing and too complicated to set out here.

The plot has something in common with "Double Indemnity", another film noir from the mid-forties based on a Cain story. (It was the success of that film which finally persuaded MGM to go ahead). Both films feature seductive but evil women who conspire with their lovers to murder their husbands. Here the lethal seductress is Cora Smith, the beautiful young wife of the owner of a diner just outside Los Angeles. Her lover is Frank Chambers, a drifter who stops to eat at the diner and ends up working there. At first sight Cora's marriage does not seem particularly unhappy; her husband, Nick, is much older than her and physically unattractive, but he is a kindly man who clearly loves her. He does, admittedly, have a drink problem, but he is an amiable drunk, not an aggressive one.

Cora, however, feels trapped in a marriage to a man she does not love, and soon after Frank starts working at the diner they begin an affair. Frank's original suggestion is that the two should run away together, but she does not want to exchange a life of comparative affluence for one of poverty. Nick may not be a particularly rich man, but neither is he a poor one like Frank, and Cora does not want to become a "tramp". (She is using the word in its British sense of "hobo", not its more common American one of "sexually immoral woman"- she already is that). They decide that Nick should die so that Cora can inherit his money. The film tells the story of his murder and its aftermath.

Like some of her contemporaries, Lana Turner was not so much a Great Actress as a Great Star, although she was capable of giving decent performances as in the later "Imitation of Life". Here as Cora she looks supremely seductive, but this is not really a great performance. To be fair to her, a great performance is not really required as Cora is written as a rather one-dimensional character, a sexy villainess and not a lot else.

According to one story, Turner remarked "Couldn't they at least hire someone attractive?" upon learning that John Garfield was to be her co-star. According to another story, her initial reaction did not prevent the two from having a brief affair during filming, but I think that in one respect she was probably right. Garfield never really invests Frank with the sexual magnetism which would be needed to explain why Cora, a woman so attractive that she could have virtually any man she wanted, should have given herself to a penniless drifter. The best acting comes from Cecil Kellaway, who makes the hapless Nick an amiable slob who does nothing to deserve his ruthless treatment at the hands of Cora and Frank, and from Hume Cronyn as the shyster lawyer Arthur Keats.

Despite its thematic similarities to "Double Indemnity", one of the all-time great noirs, I have never regarded "The Postman Always Rings Twice" as being in anything like the same class. The first half, dealing with the build-up to Nick's murder, is not too bad, but in the second half, dealing with the trial of Frank and Cora, it starts to descend into absurdity.

A lawyer who was a witness (indeed, the only witness apart from the perpetrators) to a crime is permitted to act both as investigating detective and attorney for the prosecution. The same lawyer acts for both defendants, even though each is trying to blame the other for the crime, and tricks one of his own clients into signing a confession. The prosecuting attorney in a capital murder trial agrees to accept a plea of guilty to manslaughter on the basis of virtually no argument at all- it is not even explained whether this is voluntary or involuntary manslaughter. The judge agrees to accept that plea and then allows the defendant to go free on probation, without having to spend a single day in prison. You don't need to be a lawyer to realise that, legally, the whole thing makes very little sense, although the ending is admittedly an ingenious piece of plotting.

During their heyday in the forties and fifties films noirs were often regarded as little more than money-making potboilers; "The Postman Always Rings Twice" was a big box-office success. They were not always looked on with favour by the more high-minded critics and, generally speaking, they were not the sort of films which won Oscars. Their star began to rise when they were taken up by the French New Wave directors of the sixties, which explains why a predominantly American genre should have a French name, and today they are often regarded as masterpieces of the cinema. There are some, such as "Double Indemnity", which do indeed deserve such a description, but not every noir was a great film, and the overrated "The Postman Always Rings Twice" has always struck me as one of the lesser ones. 5/10
21 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed