The Postman Always Rings Twice (1981) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
68 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
Underrated, but still not entirely realized
DennisLittrell10 July 2002
This remake of the 1946 film which starred Lana Turner and John Garfield is significantly better than its reputation. The script, adapted from James M. Cain's first novel, is by the award-winning playwright David Mamet, while the interesting and focused cinematography is by Sven Nykvist, who did so much exquisite work for Swedish director Ingmar Bergman. An excellent cast is led by Jack Nicholson and Jessica Lange, whose cute animal magnetism is well displayed. Bob Rafelson, who has to his directorial credit the acclaimed Five Easy Pieces (1970) and The King of Marvin Gardens (1972), both also starring Jack Nicholson, captures the raw animal sex that made Cain's novel so appealing (and shocking) to a depression-era readership and brings it up to date. Hollywood movies have gotten more violent and scatological since 1981, but they haven't gotten any sexier. This phenomenon is in part due to fears occasioned by the rise of AIDS encouraged by the usual blue stocking people. Don't see this movie if sex offends you.

Lange is indeed sexy and more closely fits the part of a lower-middle class woman who married an older man, a café owner, for security than the stunning blonde bombshell Lana Turner, who was frankly a little too gorgeous for the part. John Colicos plays the café owner, Nick Papadakis, with clear fidelity to Cain's conception. In the 1946 production, the part was played by Cecil Kellaway, who was decidedly English; indeed they changed the character's name to Smith. Also changed in that production was the name of the lawyer Katz (to Keats). One wonders why. My guess is that in those days they were afraid of offending Greeks, on the one hand, and Jews on the other. Here Katz is played by Michael Lerner who really brings the character to life.

Jack Nicholson's interpretation of Cain's antihero, an ex-con who beat up on the hated railway dicks while chasing any skirt that came his way, the kind of guy who acts out his basic desires in an amoral, animalistic way, was not entirely convincing, perhaps because Nicholson seems a little too sophisticated for the part. Yet, his performance may be the sort better judged by a later generation. I have seen him in so many films that I don't feel I can trust my judgment. My sense is that he's done better work, particularly in the two films mentioned above and also in Chinatown (1974), One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975) and such later works as The Shining (1980) and Terms of Endearment (1983).

The problem with bringing Postman successfully to the screen is two-fold. One, the underlying psychology, which so strongly appealed to Cain's depression-era readership, is not merely animalistic. More than that it reflects the economic conflict between the established haves, as represented by the greedy lawyers, the well-heeled insurance companies, the implacable court system and the simple-minded cops, and to a lesser degree by property owner Nick Papadakis himself, and the out of work victims of the depression, the have-nots, represented by Frank and Cora (who had to marry for security). Two--and this is where both cinematic productions failed--the film must be extremely fast-paced, almost exaggeratedly so, to properly capture the spirit and sense of the Cain novel. Frank and Cora are rushing headlong into tragedy and oblivion, and the pace of the film must reflect that. A true to the spirit adaptation would require a terse, stream-lined directorial style with an emphasis on blind passions unconsciously acted out, something novelist Cormac McCarthy might accomplish if he directed film. I think that Christopher Nolan, who directed the strikingly original Memento (2000) could do it.

For further background on the novel and some speculation on why it was called "The Postman Always Rings Twice" (Cain's original, apt title was "Bar-B-Que") see my review at Amazon.com.

(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon!)
67 out of 80 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Grubby film noir
Leofwine_draca25 July 2011
This novel adaptation was the second after a first movie in the 1940s. This one retains the period setting but ups the ante in terms of sexual content, featuring one of the most explicit sex scenes ever shown in a mainstream film which goes far further than any film before - or since.

The plot is simple in the extreme: the wife of a Greek man who runs his own diner, bored and neglected by her husband, begins a torrid affair with a drifter her husband employs as his mechanic. From there on in, the story gradually develops in often fascinating ways as the two lovers realise that only one thing's stopping their happiness: her husband.

The film is shot through with a grim and gritty emphasis, best realised by Nicholson's grubby mechanic. He's nobody's idea of a sex symbol, although Jessica Lange is quite ravishing as the object of his attentions. This focus on realism over Hollywood fantasy is what makes the film so watchable and, in places, uncomfortable as it becomes clear that the lovers have something of a sado-masochistic relationship.

Things move into courtroom-drama territory later on (featuring some terrific acting work from Michael Lerner as the lawyer) whilst handing a number of blink-and-you'll-miss-em minor parts to familiar faces (John P. Ryan as a blackmailer, Angelica Houston as - bizarrely - a circus owner, cult favourite Don Calfa as a circus hand, Brion James as a thug and Christopher Lloyd as a salsman).

I found the film to be sometimes compelling and never boring. It's one of those films you watch to find out just what happens to the central characters, a curiosity bolstered by the feeling that they're never going to unentangle themselves from this mess. Come the surprise climax, well...you'll have to see for yourself.
24 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
The fourth version of the James M. Cain novel...which is itself a reworking of Zola's "Thérèse Raquin".
planktonrules8 April 2021
"The Postman Always Rings Twice" is the second American version of the famous James M. Cain novel and the fourth overall version. In addition, Émile Zola's story "Thérèse Raquin" clearly was more than just the inspiration for Cain, as it's so similar, too similar, to be coincidental. And the Zola novel has been made at least twenty or more times! So in other words, this 1981 film is a version of a story that's been made over and over and over again....to the point where you wonder why they keep making it!

As I watched this 1981 film, I was pleasantly surprised by one thing...it really does stick very closely to the novel. In many, many ways the characters are nothing like the overly sanitized Lana Turner/John Garfield version. Jack Nicholson's version of Frank is far nastier than the drifter played in the 1946 film. He has a prison record and isn't likable in the least. As for Cora, she's a lot kinkier than she was in earlier versions! In fact, in 1946 they simply couldn't have stuck too closely to the novel due to the tough Production Code...which prevented nudity and kinks from being included in films...and Cora really has some kinks in this film! So, at least it is a much more faithful version of the story...albeit still yet one more version of the story. And this leads me to the important question...is it any good? Well, yes and no. The acting and production are pretty good and the story engaging...but it also is familiar (I know I've mentioned this OFTEN already) and the courtroom scene where Jessica Lange has her outburst is absolutely absurdly overacted. Still, not a bad little film.
14 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A movie well worth seeing
silly-721 July 1999
I must admit I was quite impressed with Bob Rafelson's adaptation of the depression era novel, "The Postman Always Rings Twice". Jack Nicholson plays Frank, a vagabond who eventually falls in love with a sexy waitress named Cora,played by Jessica Lange, who reciprocates this love. However, there is one problem standing in the way: Cora is married, unhappily married, but married nonetheless.

Aside from an intriguing story, "The Postman Always Rings Twice" is a wonderfully put together film, as Rafelson does a splendid job delving into the characters and their relationships, as well as examining the problems associated with forbidden love. As a viewer, you truly feel the passion between Lange and Nicholson,(who both won academy award nominations), and you almost feel for their pain. In the 1930's women in America were at quite a different position than they are today. They were expected to stay with the husband no matter what the circumstances, as divorce was quite uncommon. Lange was very convincing as this trapped 30's woman who eventually broke free the only way she knew possible..

I definitely recommend "The Postman Always Rings Twice" for any fan of entertaining and thought-provoking movies. Although the character development is not quite as extensive as some of Rafelson's early work, particularly the 1971 classic "Five Easy Pieces", the movie combines an intriguing screenplay with superb acting to make its own statement.
26 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
She's tired of what's right and what's wrong...
JasparLamarCrabb27 April 2006
Immensely watchable, this remake of the 1940s classic is sexed up by writer David Mamet and director Bob Rafelson. Jack Nicholson is a drifter who ingratiates himself into the lives of roadside diner/gas station owner John Colicos and his impossibly sexy wife Jessica Lange. Soon Lange and Nicholson are having sex EVERYWHERE...and plotting to bump off Colicos. Aided by great cinematography by Sven Nykvist and very evocative production design by George Jenkins, Rafelson manages to capture James M. Cain's ironic novel and all it's sordidness. Nicholson is terrific but Lange gives a career making performance...this is the movie that put her on the map after the KING KONG debacle. There are times when she acts Nicholson off the screen. Colicos is fine, if a bit old for his role and Michael Lerner is in it too. Anjelica Huston has a really odd cameo as a lion tamer!
20 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Raw, Gritty & Explicit
seymourblack-126 April 2012
Warning: Spoilers
It's easy to understand how attractive it must have seemed to make a 1980s movie of "The Postman Always Rings Twice". James M Cain's famous depression-era melodrama had already been successful as a book (1934) and a movie (1946) and a 1980s version could obviously benefit from the advantages of being made in colour and at a time when censorship constraints would be far less strict than they had been in 1946. The result is a production in which this story of lust, adultery, murder, blackmail and "the hand of fate" is told in a style which is far more raw, gritty and explicit than the 1946 movie.

Frank Chambers (Jack Nicholson) is a drifter who stops for a meal at a remote countryside diner / filling station somewhere outside L.A. and decides to stay a little longer after catching sight of the establishment's attractive cook called Cora (Jessica Lange). Cora's the wife of Nick (John Colicos) who's the considerably older Greek proprietor of the business. Nick offers Frank a job as a mechanic and soon Cora and Frank are involved in a passionate affair.

After the couple fail in an attempt to run away together, they decide to murder Nick. They succeed at the second attempt but soon Cora is put on trial for the crime. The prosecuting attorney succeeds in getting Frank to betray Cora but some slick work by her lawyer results in her being acquitted. After the trial, Frank and Cora resume their relationship and a succession of surprising developments culminate in a tragic conclusion.

Frank is a man whose misfortunes don't simply emanate from his weakness or the consequences of making a wrong turn in his life. He's a violent, petty criminal who's driven by lust, but nevertheless, seems more in control of his destiny than is typical of a noir protagonist. In this version of the story, in an interpretation which is probably more realistic, he's more cynical and brutal than John Garfield's 1946 incarnation and as a result is a far more unsympathetic character.

Jessica Lange's Cora is also different from Lana Turner's as she seems much too strong and spirited to be as trapped as she claims and also doesn't have the kind of mystique or ambiguity which makes it seem credible that she could've been harbouring dark thoughts about killing Nick for some time.

The ways in which the characters of Frank and Cora have been changed is interesting to watch but the same can't be said of the changed ending which lacks both the irony of the original and its significance to the story's title.

This movie is strong on atmosphere and intensity and convincingly evokes the period in which the action is set. Jack Nicholson and Jessica Lange are excellent in their roles and the supporting cast (particularly John Colicos) is also very good.
8 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
The Studio always makes twice (at least)
JoeytheBrit28 June 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Wasn't there some significance to the title in James Cain's novel and the 1946 movie version? It's a long time since I visited either so I can't be certain, but I seem to remember the postie's propensity for ringing twice was at least referred to. Unless I missed it, it gets nary a mention in this lethargic 1981 remake of the original, making the title somewhat meaningless.

Anyway, Jack Nicholson reins in his trademark rakish, devilish attitude to play the role of the drifter (previously played by John Garfield) who conspires with luscious housewife and gas station-diner cook Jessica Lange to do away with her annoying Greek husband, Nick. Nick takes his wife for granted; he has a Stavros accent and buys himself silk nightgowns and so deserves to die. Jack and Jessie make a convincing couple – probably more so than Garfield and Lana Turner, although that's the only respect in which this version surpasses the original. Their attraction is animal, their love-making more of an adversarial duel than a demonstration of intimacy as they tear at each other on the diner's kitchen table. It's easy to see why Cora falls for Frank, even as his ardour cools. He offers a way out from the drudgery of her life with Nick. But for Frank you always get the impression (until the end at least) that it's more about the sex, and that he never really knows what he wants.

The story is slow in unfolding, but drags fatally once the killer couple get away with their crime. Perhaps that's deliberate, to demonstrate the aimlessness of their relationship – or of any relationship that isn't fuelled by love. The couple blow hot and cold with each other as they wait for Cora's brief probation period to be over so that they can move away from the scene of their crime. You get the impression that, if Cora's life hadn't been cut short, they would have ended up either destroying one another or drifted aimlessly through life long after any love they feel has been extinguished, wondering why the hell they stay together. Either way, you don't really care that much whether their end is happy or tragic.

If you have a choice, watch the original (or the Italian movie, Ossessione, another version). If you don't, this one's OK but it's nothing special.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Jessica Lange is hot as F
Genkinchan3 January 2022
Warning: Spoilers
Let the review begins. It is not good as the original but still manage to shine through Jack Nicholson.. to be fair Jack and Jessica play a huge part to the success of the movie... this movie mostly credited to them in a way no other movie can do so

Firstly the movie shows what the original could not do.. it's show the the side which is quite erotic where else the original could not do for me is good enough

The chemistry between Lange and Nichloson is too believable adding to that both of them potrays the movie like it's a love story unlike the original which is felt more like scheming each other

Both have those virtues and characteristics

But the things I don't like about this movie is the ending which is definitely very weak.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Postman is right, the second time around
jeffcoat23 January 2004
Twice is nice. Hollywood had to try twice to get this story right. Lana Turner was beautiful in the 1946 version, but Jessica Lange was something to kill for opposite Jack Nicholson.

Such raw sensuality would easily persuade a man to lose his very soul. Nicholson's part is certainly unscrupulous to begin with, but in Jessica Lange he finds a confederate with even less scruples. The legal loose ends that dangled in the earlier version are avoided this time with a more plausible chain of events... and the story ends when the story ought to end, instead of being dragged on.

Wonderful character and situation development, intriguing and engaging, even when you know the story. Nice twists of the story from the Lana Turner and Italian ("Ossessione" 1943) versions.
39 out of 51 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A good movie with great interpretations
ruimsl5 March 2015
The story of a drifter working on a by the road dinner, and the owner's wife, disenchanted with her marriage sets upon herself to seduce the drifter in the hopes of a more satisfying relationship.

This is the base of the script, in which Jessica Lange and Jack Nicholson shine in their performances bringing different dimensions to their characters and, in true, bringing them to life.

Frank Chambers (Jack Nicholson) is a bored drifter, with some jail time under his belt not looking for anything in particular. He gets enchanted by Cora (Jessica Lange) and ends up doing everything for them to be together.

I think Jack Nicholson is an outstanding performer and it shows here some glimpses of what he will put in The Shining later on.

I also particularly liked John P. Ryan in the small supporting role of Kennedy where we can see in him the double-stabbing typical that he will show in later roles.

All in all it is a good movie, but I don't consider it as being erotic. Maybe for 1980's standards, but even so I doubt it.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
My big fat Greek murder
Lejink4 July 2011
Warning: Spoilers
A travesty of a fiasco of a disaster. A simply awful 80's remake of one of the toughest, sexiest and above all best acted noir thrillers. Yes, I know Garfield and Turner would be hard to beat but Nicholson and Lange aren't even in the race. You can see old lumbering Jack thinking his lines before he speaks them, while Ms Lange's acting goes right off the scale, rarely to return.

The film has no pacing to speak of and no dramatic arc at any point in the story. It also makes unaccountable narrative jumps which if I hadn't seen the original would have made little or no sense at all. Then there's the downbeat epilogue the point of which I'm still trying to fathom, right alongside Angelica Huston's appearance (I won't elevate it to cameo status) as, get this, a circus lion-tamer who promptly beds the errant Jack before depositing her pet puma on Lange (no, I don't know why either).

As for the infamous sex-scene on the kitchen table, it comes out of nowhere with no hint of sexual chemistry between the couple beforehand and I found the fact that Nicholson pretty much half-rapes Lange to make his point, as offensive as it was gratuitous. As for Lange's dimwitted husband, Nick, he leaves no impression at all so that you don't care when he meets his end at the lovers' hands.

I've rarely seen such a poorly edited, acted and scripted so-called major Hollywood movie. Without trying to be too much the Minister for The Bleeding Obvious, by-pass this mess in favour of the black and white original every time.
28 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Inconstant Nymphos.
rmax3048232 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
*** This comment may contain spoilers *** It's the story that James M. Cain might have written if the period had permitted it. Here is Jessica Lange, sensuously kneading dough on the baking room table and practically radiating oestrus. Here is her husband, Nick the Greek, oily, drunk, spitting his plosives all over everybody. And here is Nicholson as the reckless drifter who eases himself into Nick's confidence and forces himself into Lange's pants.

The engine behind the plot is raw sex that turns to a rocky kind of love affair and then to murder and tragedy. Cain couldn't write the sex scenes in this movie, not even in Snappy Stories pulp magazines, the kind with covers showing some gorgeous doll with the shoulder of her dress ripped and a bra strap showing and some goon with a gun lurking in the shadows behind her.

You can't help comparing it to the 1946 version with John Garfield, Lana Turner, and Cecil Calloway. The earlier movie is much sleeker, more compact, and brought up to date, and the characters are sketched in with greater simplicity.

This one is a period picture. The time is the 1930s and the production design is just fine. They're always tooling around in cars. What cars they had in those days -- that yellow Model A convertible roadster with the rumble seat! I loved the one I once owned, even though I could never find replacement parts for it. The old days are gone forever. (Sob.) Anyway, neither Nicholson nor anyone else loves the cars as much as Nicholson winds up loving Lange, and vice versa.

There is a slight problem in this bond between the two of them, namely Nick the Greek. He's a nice enough guy -- trusting, not too bright, has ties to a vibrant Greek community which we don't see much of. As a matter of fact, except for some occasional run-ins with the law, this curious trio seems to live all alone at the Twin Oaks Roadside Stand.

Nicholson is required to show some range and he does a splendid job -- by turns dumb, sleazy, and horrified. Lange doesn't quite do the job that Nicholson does but she's more than adequate. When she finally gives in to Nicholson on the butcher block table she makes us believe it. The writers, though, have given her a strange and unanticipated quirk. After she's just watched Nicholson bash in her husband's head with a giant socket wrench, and she's just been severely punched in the face (twice) and knocked to the dirt among the shrubbery, she gets a case of the hots and invites Nicholson to join her in an al fresco romp. It just doesn't belong. Neither does Nicholson's brief tryst with Angelica Huston as a comic circus lion tamer. And it IS a little hard to swallow the notion that Lange is converted into a law-abiding, pregnant, willing Hausfrau because of her mother's death -- given that, until then, we didn't even know she had a mother.

But those are relatively minor issues. Overall, this is a superior movie, "gritty", as they say. Nicholson, unlike Garfield in 1946, looks like he really works at his job. What filthy hands. Not much can be said for his mind either. By the time he and Lange are reformed, the postman is at the door again.
12 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Decent neo-noir
bellino-angelo201418 October 2022
Before I talk about the movie, I have to warn you that I have never seen the original THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE (the 1946 version) nor any of the movie versions of THERESE RAQUIN. Then why did I saw this adaptation? Well, I really like Jack Nicholson and having already saw 29 of his movies, I wouldn't have minded to see another one with this immensely talented actor.

In the beginning Frank Chambers (Nicholson) takes a lift and goes to a tavern. Once there he has to go to the bathroom accidentally leaving his jacket on the counter and his driver (Christopher Lloyd) takes it and leaves him without his wallet. Money-less, Frank is forced to work as an handy-man for the tavern owner and some time later he ends involved with his wife Cora (Jessica Lange) and have a one-night stand in the kitchen. Soon Cora has a plan to murder her husband with the help of Frank and marry him instead. She succedds in murder the husband, but this will have some consequences. Frank and Cora manage to get free up until the tragic ending...

Bob Rafelson directs nicely and got the 1940s look well. Jack Nicholson as usual gives a nice performance and Jessica Lange was more on the gorgeous side. As for the plot, it reminded me a lot of the noirs of the 1940s-1950s and I appreciated it.

So, according to most of the reviews is the most loyal cinematic version of the novel, but still, it's good also for those who haven't read the book nor seen the previous movie versions.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
I didn't hear him ring once.
TOMASBBloodhound20 June 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Disappointing is the first word that comes to mind after sitting through this sexed-up noir remake of a 1946 film of the same name based on a popular novel. This critic has neither seen the original, nor read that novel, so he is forced to take this film on face value and evaluate it on its own merits. That said, The Postman Always Rings Twice failed to come close to my expectations. You won't care a lick about drifter Jack Nicholson and bored housewife Jessica Lange who start a torrid love affair behind the back of her husband, and then look to kill him off. These two amoral jerks are all dressed up with nowhere to go in this script, and once the deed is done, the story really jumps the tracks. This was an intriguing premise, but the many talented people who made this film have all done much better things.

The biggest selling point for this film was its steamy sex scenes, and there are indeed a few. But something is missing. Something that should be fairly obvious to those of us who have had sex in our lives. Nobody is ever nude during them! Save for one brief scene where we see Nicholson's rear, there is a jarring lack of nudity. At times these people seem to be having intercourse right through their clothes! I've heard Nicholson is a legendary lover, but is he strong enough to.... I'll stop there. What happened? I'm sure they at least negotiated with Lange about perhaps a topless scene or something. I guess she said no. Look, one does not need nudity for a sexy scene. The only interesting scene in Random Hearts is a testament to that. But when you advertise your picture as a steamy, sexy thriller, you pretty much have to go all in, or the whole thing is a waste.

Aside from the sex scenes, this film seems confused about what its characters are supposed to do once the husband is out of the way. And the conclusion is so abrupt, its almost like they ran out of money and just decided to kill one of the leads off and call it a wrap. The acting isn't bad, but thats about all the film has going for it. Lange is her typical self... not great, but not bad either. Nicholson is born to play this type of character, and he doesn't disappoint. You may remember John Collicos from TV's Battlestar Galactica. Angelical Huston is on hand for a cameo that they probably just gave her when she was hanging around the set to be close to her main squeeze Nicholson. This film is really just a waste of your time when you consider all of the better pictures these people have made. Avoid it. 4 of 10 stars. And what does the title have to do with the movie, anyway? The Hound.
14 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Bitter Disappointment
Michael_Elliott15 February 2013
The Postman Always Rings Twice (1981)

** (out of 4)

Considering the talent in front of and behind the camera, there's really no way to look at this adaptation of the James M. Cain novel as anything but a disappointment. In the film, Jack Nicholson plays drifter Frank Chambers who enters the lives of Cora (Jessica Lange) and her much older husband Nick (John Colicos). Soon the drifter and Cora start up a sexual relationship, which leads to them planning the murder of the husband. This here would be the fourth version of the classic story and the second one filmed in America. Unlike the previous versions, director Bob Rafelson didn't have to worry about censors but even so this version isn't nearly as hot as the earlier one with Lana Turner. Outside a rather intense sex scene towards the start of the picture, this thing really never takes off, which is too bad because they've got a terrific cast and some beautiful settings but in the end the film is just flat. I think the first forty- five minutes are the best thing in the film as we see the love triangle set up and there's no question that the director has the look of the era down perfectly. I thought the setting really added a lot of atmosphere but sadly very little else happens. Nicholson was the perfect choice to play a drifter but the screenplay really doesn't give him too much to work with. Lange is clearly the best thing in the movie as she delivers a sexual charge to the thing. Colicos is also extremely good as the husband in a strong supporting performance. What really hurts the film is the second half because the director never really makes us believe or feel anything for the two leads. Are we supposed to hate them for what they've done? Are we supposed to be rooting for them to get away with the murder and live happily ever after? The entire second half of the film features way too many dialogue scenes that lead no where and in the end the "romance" that starts to bloom towards the end just never fully works. The film isn't nearly as bad as its reputation but at the same time there's no question that it's a major disappointment and a bitter feeling takes over when you think about what could have been.
13 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Missing Something!
mandagrammy23 February 2023
This film clearly shows why most remakes of classic films should not be made. Although the film is not bad, per se, it is missing the magic of the original. First of all, the casting (although they are super talented stars) feels off. Lana Turner, for instance, had a dangerous quality to her that Jessica does not. And John Garfield had a semi-naive quality to him that Jack definitely does not. Let's also talk about the sex. In the original, the sexual tension between Cora and Frank was palpable and didn't need the graphic display shown in this movie. It made it easier to believe that Frank and Cora eventually fell in love. With this movie, it felt more like the characters had fallen in lust. This movie also seemed far too long, with many superfluous scenes (aka the party after the husband is out of the hospital). My final quibble is the ending of this movie. It felt unfinished. I far prefer the ending of the original.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Frank and Cora, Oh My!
sbox30 August 2001
Warning: Spoilers
Hapless Frank Chambers happens into the Papadakis roadhouse and mayhem ensues. Apparently, Frank discovered and exploited the lusty Cora into a disturbing affair. Remarkably, the ex-con, yet low key Frank is taken aback when Cora decides it's time to rub out the husband, played expertly by John Colicos.

Colicos' Papadakis is everything that Frank and Cora are not. He is hard working, simple, and foreign. Our malevolent protaganists are homegrown, lusty, and starwandering. However, when they decide to rub out Papadakis, they do it in such an imbecilic way as to warrant failure. Despite initially feeling remorse for the botched job, their supposed "love" is worth a second try.

After succeeding, Frank and Cora end up in the slammer, for a time. A sharp lawyer, Mr. Katz, played well by Michael Lerner amazingly gets them from facing the gallows. In fact, they walk.

You would expect a happy ending at this point. Well no, not exactly. It seems trouble follows Frank and Cora like the plague. Of course, all of this trouble stems from their own poor decisions. I had to keep reminding myself, "hey don't root for these folks, they are killers and conspirators." Unfortunately, they are so pathetic, compelling, and desperate for happiness that I could not help but rooting for these rotten apples.

The thirties atmosphere is shot exceptionally well and adds to the positives of this film. Also, look for a very exotic looking Anjelica Huston in a brief appearance. I rate this film at 6 of 10.
7 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
is it a remake or just another version of Cain's text? you decide
Quinoa198428 August 2006
I say that one-line statement having yet to read James M. Cain's original (short) book, or the 1946 film starring John Garfield and Lana Turner. So I have now seen the Postman Always Rings Twice directed by Bob Rafelson and starring Jack Nicholson and Jessica Lange twice now, and see it on its own terms without much to really compare it to. Perhaps my perceptions could change once I see the older Hollywood film (even though Luchino Visconti's own version of the book, Ossessione, is one of his masterpieces), but for the moment this is a fairly competent, sometimes exciting, and usually sensual story of lust, murder, thick plots and a few tight twists and turns. Nicholson's Frank Chambers is a sort of blue-collar wanderer who wanders into the life of Cora (Lange, rarely been sexier), who is married to a gregarious, overbearing lug, Papadakis (John Colicos, perfect in a character-actor bit), who with his wife run a little restaurant. Chambers works his way into not just Papadakis's good graces as a worker, but Cora's undergarments as well, so to speak. Soon a plot thickens between the two lovers over what to do with the other. Right out of the best film-noir, there's quite a sequence that spins as their scheme unfolds, which includes money as well as each other. That everything doesn't go quite to plan makes this film both captivating and cool, while sometimes frustrating.

Here Rafelson has his cast really locked in place like it can't go wrong. Nicholson as a street-wise tough guy who falls for a woman with whom there's immediate, sexual magnetism, but also has some flaws that come with the package- almost too easy for him but not a bad performance. Lange brings some dimension to a character that could be either a real prize or a true femme fatale. And character actors like Michael Lerner (only better in Barton Fink) and even featuring Angelica Huston in an early performance, add some good weight to the cast. The sex scenes years later are still enticing, and the ending is a true whopper that is part of the story's best catharsis, though in its own formula still tragic. If then it doesn't feel really as successful as the best noir of the 40s and 50s its almost hard to say. Sometimes scenes kinds of come and go, and the flow of the story sometimes gets jammed up after the midway mark goes by. It turns more into a domestic drama than something more exciting in the suspenseful turns early on. Just when Rafelson has his crew working to put life into some scenes, a few are a little flat in comparison.

Still, even if you have seen the original 40s takes on Cain's novel, it's never less than interesting what goes on thanks to the nature of the story. It's a look at very flawed, psychologically cruxed people who attempt at happiness in ways that change them for worse and for better (possibly more the former). Occasionally the sex could be in danger of veering off the more stylish side of the lust in the 40s noirs into soft-core land, but it's balanced out by its general professionalism and the acting randing from so-so-to-better-than-average. It's a like it or hate it film.
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
This gat misfired
NORDIC-213 June 2014
Warning: Spoilers
In March 1927 Long Island housewife Ruth Snyder and her lover, Judd Gray, joined together to murder Snyder's husband, Albert, for the insurance money. Both were caught, tried, convicted, and swiftly executed. A notorious case, the Snyder-Gray affair became pop culture legend when Thomas Howard, a New York 'Daily News' photographer, surreptitiously photographed Snyder's death in the electric chair at Sing Sing Prison. Published in the 'Daily News' on Jan. 12, 1928, the photo caused such a sensation that the newspaper had to print an additional 750,000 copies. Six years later James M. Cain's novel, 'The Postman Always Rings Twice', fictionalized the Snyder-Gray case to critical and popular acclaim. In 1946 Cain's book was brought to the screen by M-G-M with John Garfield as Frank Chambers (Judd Gray's counterpart), the glamorous Lana Turner as Cora Smith (the Ruth Snyder figure), and Cecil Kellaway as Nick Smith (based on victim Albert Snyder). In Cain's novel, Nick is Nick Papadakis, a swarthy, rather venal Greek greasy spoon proprietor. Interestingly the 1946 film version softens Nick's personality and elides his Mediterranean ethnicity but retains the fact that he is considerably older than his wife (at the time of filming Turner was 25 and Kelloway was 52). Bob Rafelson's remake, written by playwright/screenwriter David Mamet, is a more faithful adaptation of Cain's novel and—15 years after the collapse of the Hays Code—is also vastly more sexually explicit. In Rafelson's version Jack Nicholson is cast as dissolute drifter Frank Chambers, Jessica Lange is the bored, oversexed wife, Cora Papadakis, John Colicos plays Nick (restored to his full, greasy ethnic unattractiveness), and Angelica Huston appears (gratuitously) as Madge, a circus tamer of big cats who has a fling with Frank. With solid acting, sure direction by Rafelson, superb production design by George Jenkins ('The Parallax View'; 'All the President's Men'), and outstanding cinematography by Ingmar Bergman stalwart Sven Nykvist, the 1981 version of 'Postman' should have been a neo-noir classic. Unfortunately something fails to click—most probably the chemistry between Nicholson and Lange, which depends too much on simulated high-octane animal attraction and not enough on real simpatico. While quite good, Rafelson's version is strangely flat and uninvolving; we end up not caring very much what happens to Frank and Cora. VHS (1993); DVD (1997).
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
an original remake
RanchoTuVu30 September 2005
A remake of the 1946 film, this version features Jack Nicholson and Jessica Lange, with a momentous white hot chemistry that can't possibly sustain itself but affords a memorable scene in the restaurant kitchen about ten minutes into the film which leads to the eventual plot to do in her older Greek husband. A story wherein neither would have the nerve to do such a thing alone, but together they make a job of it on one of the darkest nights and darkest rural roads ever. The trial for the murder features another couple of great performances by Michael Lerner as the resourceful to a fault defense attorney (if you were on trial for your life, you'd want this guy for a lawyer), and his investigator who becomes a menacing presence later in the film, played by John P Ryan. Very nicely photographed in color, it's set in the coastal hills and valleys north of LA, dotted with live oaks and capturing the rich earthy tones of the late afternoon golden hued hillsides that nicely contrast with the desperate story of the two lovers.
15 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A Crazy Classic!
namashi_13 January 2010
Bob Rafelson's 'The Postman Always Rings Twice' is a crazy classic from the early 80's. A strange film, with lust as it's priority. Honestly, what was this! 'The Postman Always Rings' starts off as a hardcore horny film, then it suddenly turns to a courtroom drama for a while, and a finally a love-story.

This is a remake of a film that was made in the 40's, with the same name. Though I haven't seen that yet, I am sure it's better than this!

When I say the word classic, I don't really mean it. If there is anything that really works in this film, it's the performances by it's lead cast. Jessica Lange steals the show a sultry performance. An Icredible performer, who's body of work goes down as remarkable efforts in the history of filmdom. Jack Nicholson is, as always, superb. The actor who has excelled in each & every film really needs no mentioning.

If you dare to watch this crazy classic, watch it for Lange & Nicholson, who not only deliver killer performances, but also deliver first-rate sex-scenes. That's about it!
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Poorly cast and dull
preppy-35 April 2007
In the 1920s drifter Frank Chambers (Jack Nicholson) starts doing odd jobs for an alcoholic cafe owner Nick (John Colicos). He then meets Nick's sexy young wife (Jessica Lange). Sex and murder follow.

The 1946 version was perfect so, naturally, Hollywood had to redo it. They claimed the original had to be toned down because of the Hays Code (this is true). This version is true to the book--but bad casting and a SLOW pace destroy it. For starters Nicholson is far too old for the role--they needed someone in his 20s or 30s. It seems ridiculous that Lange would fall for someone like him. Also Lange was, at that point, still learning as an actress. She's not terrible but not as good as she usually is either. The sex scenes (which were promoted nonstop during the films production) aren't much. They're more violent than erotic and seriously--do YOU want to see Nicholson nude? Also the story is morbid and slow-moving--I was seriously bored and depressed halfway through. Nicholson manages to throw in one of his worst performances and, as I said before, Lange isn't that good.

This was a major bomb (for some reason the studio chose to release this around Christmas!) and has rightfully been forgotten. A 1.
19 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Passionate movie!!
vinniejo28 November 2007
Warning: Spoilers
'The Postman always rings twice' can qualify as a very under-rated movie. Despite its flaws, it's one of those movies which have touched my heart. The complex relationship between the two leading characters is one of the most intriguing relationships that I have observed. The movie is about a bond which is formed between Jack Nicholson & Jessica Lange. Jack is a vagrant who visits a highway hotel owned by Jessica Lange's husband, an old commoner. He ends-up seducing Jessica Lange who falls for his charm & his attractive demeanour. They carry their relationship, the same way till a point, where they decide to kill Jessica's husband.

After his murder they, they undergo an investigation & later realize that their relationship is not as rosy as it used to be due to their oversight of each other's shortcomings. But they still manage to hold on to each other due to a bond between them & because of their affection. It ends in a tragedy with the death of Jessica Lange, which is sort of an anticlimax, but it is presented in an original way. The movie gave me the same feeling which I got from reading the novel 'Love Story' by Eric Segal. The best aspect of the movie is the performance of Jack Nicholson & Jessica Lange which are astounding. Their love making scenes are the most passionate love making scenes I've ever seen in movies & their chemistry is simply awesome. Jessica looks like a million bucks in this movie. It is one of those rare movies which is definitely worth watching for someone who is a fan of character driven movies with complex relationships.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
With pleasant performances, but a bit uneven
BeneCumb13 December 2013
I have not seen the "original" from 1946 but anyway - I am not into black-and-white movies, with the exception of those with Chaplin and Lloyd perhaps. Thus, I decided to watch the one in question, besides, Jack Nicholson (as Frank Chambers) and Jessica Lange (as Cora Smith/Papadakis) are much more known and admired by me than John Garfield and Lana Turner... Their performances were really good (although not among their best), they had sizzling mutual chemistry, but it seems that the topic/script has become timeworn, seen at present as a rather trivial crime thriller, as the main theme - lovers trying to get rid of (rich) husband - has been exploited a lot. The plot does not run smoothly and the inclusion of e.g. Anjelica Huston as Madge Gorland did not provide any additional value; on the other hand, bigger inclusion of past history of the protagonists could have been interesting. The ending was also too abrupt and when the end credits appeared, one could feel confusion about the meaning of the title.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Cain must be turning in his grave..
tilak6 April 2011
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is an insult to Cain's famous novel.Despite being based on the novel it does not seems to have any real plot.All you get to see is hot steamy sex scenes,which producers thought were enough to draw in the audience. Even without comparing to the original classic this movie is waste of time.It starts out great but after half an hour later it wonders around aimlessly. What annoys me the most that things happen almost spontaneously without much explanation,while in the novel the attraction between the two leads is clearly elaborated.Here just 20 minutes into the movie and both of them jumps on the kitchen table ,makes passionate love as if they knew each other for eternity. The worst thing is ending,which left things unexplained.In the original classic the ending was so beautifully explained,making sense of the title.Whats the use of watching the movie if you have to ask ,what the title means. If you want to see couple of hot passionate scenes this movie if for you otherwise avoid it like plague.
13 out of 25 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