Customer Reviews

Postman Always Rings Twice [VHS]

5 star:		(15)
4 star:		(13)
3 star:		(10)
2 star:		(6)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

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.

As much as I love this faithful version of James M. Cain's classic novel, this DVD is flawed and useless. Warner Brothers, who released the DVD, failed to include a letterbox side...

What gives?

Wasn't the whole point of creating DVD to make EVERYONE happy: the Pan And Scan People, as well as the Letterbox People?

Wasn't it about choice?

We've already seen what POSTMAN looks like Pan and Scan: LOUSY. The film was shot anamorphically(2.35:1 aspect ratio), so that means approximately 42% of the picture is still hiding inside your TV somewhere...

POSTMAN hasn't ever been released in a letterbox format. So until it is, I wouldn't reccomend this DVD to anyone...

... unless NOT seeing what the director intended is your bag... END

Jessica Lange and Jack Nicholson star in a very dark tale of two lovers who sought freedom from their grim, quietly desperate lives in each other's arms. Unfortunately, their quest to remain together leads to the destruction of several lives, and quite possibly their own. The movie is primarily set in a rural area, where Lange's character works at a small roadside diner owned by her husband, a Greek immigrant. One of the most important elements of the film is that it never really demonizes the antagonists, and this is true with respect to the husband character - he has his faults, but he doesnt appear to be overly domineering or abusive. In any event, as fate would have it, one day a drifter appears at the diner, Nicholson's character, and soon he and Lange are making love on her kitchen work table, in one of several extremely graphic sex scenes which are peppered throughout the movie. Now, only Lange's husband stands in the way, and Nicholson and Lange decide to get rid of him. The rest of the movie depicts their attempts on the husband's life and the consequences of their actions, without judgment from the filmmakers, as the story moves to its ultimate, and ultimately shocking, conclusion.

The movie does drag at points, and some of the characters seem unnecessary, but the point is never lost on the audience - both fate and lust, while they draw two people together magnetically, can spell disaster.

Had I known this was not widescreen I would never have bought it. I knew it was a flawed film, but I wanted to see the performances AND the artistry of cinematographer Sven Nykvist--which is ruined in this cropped version. Apparently the film has never been released on DVD in its original format. Also, for those who refer to the Lana Turner version as the "original" version, you should see the Italian film that preceded the others, called "Ossessione" by Luchino Visconti.

Jack Nicholson and Jessica Lange star in this remake of the James Cain novel, first filmed in 1946 with John Garfield and Lana Turner. Lange seems miscast as Cora; she walks around with a vapid grin on her face most of the time - only when she screams does she seem to show any signs of life. Nicholson is excellent, though, as Nick: when he's acting sadistic, especially with Lange, it looks like he means it. Lange, however, who is supposed to exude her sadistic streaks in a sexual way, seems unable to get beneath the surface. The movie after the trial, where the two get off after some sneaky dealings by the lawyer, loses its intensity and gets soft. (Cain was anything but soft.) For that reason the second half seems to drag. The 1946 version, though obviously less explicit in the sex scenes, is probably more steamy and explosive. Not a bad movie, but the original was better.

I saw the 1981 "Postman" when it first came out. The period recreation and photography are excellent. Moreover, the performances are convincing and the sexual heat can be felt. Lange, who hit major stardom the following year with "Tootsie" and "Frances," has been a top notch actress ever since her arrival in Hollywood. Here, she gets her first high profile dramatic role. In her prime, Lange was an incredibly sexy woman. Hot with a capital "H." In this version, Rafelson and company are true to the ethnicities of Cain's characters. Nick is Greek not English and the lawyer is Jewish not Irish. Another reviewer, Dennis Littrell, suggested that 1946 Hollywood was afraid of being offensive. Littrell is mistakenly applying modern PC concerns to the past. Unflattering and even offensive potrayals of different races and ethnic groups were commonplace at the time. Even though Jews of European descent largely ran Hollywood, they were convinced that many audience members didn't want to watch anyone that might be a little different from them. Of course, John Garfield was Jewish but he wasn't playing a Jewish character. Although certain forties films like "Gentleman's Agreement" addressed the issue of bigotry, it wasn't until the fifties that people of different races and ethnicities were up on the screen more often. Nonetheless, the 1946 version with sultry Lana Turner and ruggedly handsome Garfield really captures the era and the tragedy of these doomed characters.

Director Bob Rafelson reunited with his "Five Easy Pieces" star Jack Nicholson on this film, which also stars Jessica Lange, Anjelica Huston, and briefly Christopher Lloyd (also reunited with Nicholson from "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest"). When Rafelson set out to make this film (which had already been adapted from the novel into a 1946 film starring Lana Turner), he wanted to take a detour from the original. In 1946, you weren't really allowed to show sex so the film had destroyed the whole vision of the novel. So, Rafelson has been adamant about not calling this a remake. I've never seen the original or read the book, so this is my first exposure to the material. Having said that, there's something about this film that's kind of funny...There is no postman. When we meet drifter Frank Chambers (Nicholson), he just scammed a restuarant owner named Nick (John Colicos) out of a free meal. About to leave, Nick offers him a job and Frank accepts. Problem is, Frank can't contain his feelings for Nick's wife Cora (the beautiful Jessica Lange). After Nick and Cora begin having an affair, Cora tells Nick that the only way they continue is if Nick is killed. After a failed attempt, they cool off for awhile...But eventually realize that it's something that must be done. The first hour of the film is spectacular, it sags a little in the second hour (causing me to almost give it 4 stars). But the performances are so good and the ending is so beautifully done (some complain it's abrupt, but it works to suit Nicholson's character). I don't know how this film is compared to the book and movie that inspired it, but it's a great movie. For people just looking for nudity, this isn't your movie. The sex scenes are pretty graphic, but the only nudity is Anjelica Huston side-boob.

GRADE: A-

This 1981 version of "The Postman Always Rings Twice" reunites Jack Nicholson and director Bob Rafelson. Unfortunately, despite the fine performances and excellent production values, including the impressive recreation of a 1930s America, the film simply rings hollow. Despite all the drastic events that occur, the film rolls along through scene after scene, failing to build momentum. Character development and dramatic tension are both painfully lacking, and in the end you're left to wonder what the overall point of the movie is supposed to be. There's no real payoff anywhere. In the end, despite the technical expertise, this film is a big disappointment, especially considering the eternal greatness of the landmark 1970 film "Five Easy Pieces" which was directed by Rafelson and starred Nicholson.

He's true to form. His leading lady holds her own also. If you love devilish Jack, then this won't be a let down. There is nothing this movie is absent. A great plot. There are some steamy scenes, let me tell you. Not a lot of nudity or drug use. It's is a thriller and it will keep your attention throughout the entire movie.I'm glad I bought this one.

This was a very good hard-boiled noir movie. I'm surprised by all the complaints about this movie. People watch an R-rated hard-boiled noir movie then complain about the violence and sex? Duh? What did they think they were getting? Beauty And The Beaat?

And by the way, for everyone who doesn't understand the title: It refers to the fact that Satan (or a reasonable fascimile) always comes twice; that no bad deed goes unpunished. I don't want to spell it out and ruin the story for those who haven't watched the movie, but I think you can figure out the title's meaning from that.