Steineded How sad is this?

Intcatinfo A Masterpiece!

Numerootno A story that's too fascinating to pass by...

Anoushka Slater While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

gab-14712 The Postman Always Ring Twice is a noir-thriller that reminds me of the film noirs made in the 1940's and 1950's. Ironically enough, this movie happens to be a remake of the 1946 film with the same name starring John Garfield and Lana Turner, which was previously adapted to screen by the immensely popular 1934 novel written by James M. Cain. This movie was brought more explosively to the screen when compared to the movie that came out nearly forty years prior. With less censorship this time around, the movie is told in a style where murder, blackmail, and lust lurks around every corner. The movie wants to be shocking, and it mostly succeeds by the standards of 1980's. Frank Chambers (Jack Nicholson) is a drifter and an ex-con man who stops at a roadside diner one night. He decides to linger when he puts his eye on the very attractive cook, Cora (Jessica Lange). She so happens to be in a loveless marriage with the Greek owner of the restaurant, Nick (John Colicos). Frank takes on a job as a mechanic, and immediately starts an affair with Cora. After they were caught, the duo plans to murder Nick. Can they pull it off? Are they aware of the consequences if they were successful? I liked the majority of the film for what it is. The film relies upon atmosphere and vivid cinematography by Sven Nykvist, who rose to fame handling camera duties on Ingrid Bergman films. I also liked how the characterization was changed when compared to the original film. Frank is more seedy, more violent, and generally not a very nice man. Cora is more strong-willed, and way more attractive. I thought Nick may have been a little old for the role, but John Colicos delivers a simple, but strong performance. Jack Nicholson rose to big heights with his performances in films like Chinatown and The Shining. He returns to the noir genre here, and once again delivers a committed, nearly flawless performance. He plays these kind of roles so well. Then there is Jessica Lange, who first came to the audiences minds with 1976's King Kong. She is a strong-willed woman and she masterfully commits as she is pulled away from the monster that is Frank. There were moments that I found less impressive. The ending for one left me a little dry, but the actual story itself was strong enough that I can slightly forgive that. Another moment was the character of Anjelica Huston. She played a lion tamer that is quite weird and it felt like she came from a different movie. The movie was expertly directed by Bob Rafelson, and it has an underrated screenplay by playwright David Mamet. These men gave the 1946 classic a sexy update, one that was not beholden to the constraints of censorship. Sex is prevalent, as well as violence which increases as the film goes on. This movie is a sly wink to the noir films of old and any movie that pairs up Jack Nicholson and Jessica Lange is a good one. My Grade: B+

brchthethird While it is a well-made film on a technical level and all of the performances were excellent, there was a certain something missing from this remake that left me wanting. Based on the novel by James Cain, the story is about a drifter, Frank Chambers (Jack Nicholson), who visits a rural diner run by Nick Papadakis and his wife Cora (Jessica Lange). Frank and Cora begin an affair and then attempt to kill Cora's husband, but fail. In true film noir fashion, fate eventually gets its way and tragedy befalls the two lovers in an unexpected way. For me, the 1946 film adaptation starring John Garfield and Lana Turner stands as one of the best film noirs ever, and there was almost nothing this 1981 remake could have done to really live up to that. The only new or different thing this adaptation does is ramp up the sexual content and violence, and mixes them in a way that was kind of off-putting at times. Perhaps it was this way in Cain's novel, but the way in which sex and violence are intertwined in this film was more than a little disturbing. With that, and a slight adjustment to the ending (and of course, being in color), it hews fairly closely to the story as presented in the 1946 original. One might ask, "What was the point?" and you'd be perfectly justified in asking that. I have no idea what possessed them produce this remake, but for what it's worth it's not a bad film. However, if forced to choose between this and the 1946 version, I'd pick the 1946 version every time. This one was just a little too nihilistic and lacked emotional depth.

Bene Cumb 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.

jc-osms 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.