I went to see The Postman Always Rings Twice at the Film Forum "Essential Noir" retrospective, and I want to warn people that this is a lousy movie. Lana Turner looks wonderful and acts as if she knows that she is only required to look wonderful. Hume Cronyn's character is so ridiculous that it probably isn't fair to criticize his acting. But he was lousy, so what if it isn't fair to say so. The plot is convoluted and totally incredible. The only asset here is John Garfield and he doesn't/couldn't save the mess. Director Tay Garnett was later blacklisted, I guess for his politics rather than his lack of talent, but one does wonder. the direction here is lousy. OK, that is off my chest. This movie is a silly waste of time.
I completely disagree buff. Postman is a great example of film noir. This was during the time of the Production Code, which stated that ‘no sympathies shall be aligned with those committing a crime’, considering that they both get away with it (twice) and then finally with its ironic ending, surely audiences of the day loved the twists and turns. The way they danced around the Code is remarkable. Sure the acting and directing isn’t as top notch as they could be today, but that’s half the fun of these kinds of films. This is an essential American movie.
I know, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but yours suck! This is easily one of the greatest movies ever made.
You mean to tell me you couldn't sense the dynamic, sexual chemistry between Turner and Garfield? That alone is worth the price of admission.
Who can forget their initial meeting: lipstick rolling on the floor, and into the frame comes two of the most beautiful legs you'll ever see. Later on in the scene, she turns her profile to the camera, applies lipstick, and you can see she has a great ass too. She looks at Garfield for a moment, and slams the door as if to say "looks good, doesn't it, but you'll never get none of it." With the sign outside saying "man wanted," there is incredible symbolism in that early scene. There's not one bad frame in this film. "Shockingly bad," you must be nuts!
I will not be as immature as some people by mocking a differing opinion, but whilst I thought this was a great story I was very disappointed by the acting. Only Cecil Kellaway showed he was a decent actor. Lana Turner was miscast and overacted and John Garfield was just shocking, IMHO.
I personally felt not enough time was spent for them to fall in love. It was all too quick. If more time could have been spared for this then I feel we the viewer would have felt the love even more. (I mean, these people murdered for love so we needed to feel it. All I felt was John Garfield attracted to a miserable yet beautiful woman who had zero personality and I don't think before we got into the court room Lana Turner ever exhibited a real loving feeling and then we're supposed to believe she's been in love!). Everything after the murder was great, except the acting as much from the minor players as the stars. Watching the lawyer's ex-heavy in the bribe scene and the fighting was very B-list. Almost like watching TV's 'The Adventures of Superman' with George Reeves type of stuff.
Far from the best...but far from the worst. C+ grade
1. A district attorney is the first one on the scene? A district attorney following people?
2. Having a man who just survived a near death accident with a head injury sign anything.
3. The Hume Cronyn character, stupid.
4. Why was the lawyer Hume Cronyn handing out a life insurance check? It is none of his business.
5. Double Jeopardy, an attempt to extort $15,000 for a confession that is worthless. She was already charged with manslaughter for the crime.
And then all the things before that. A business that is never open. That type of business would be open 12 hours a day 7 days a week but they never work.
A husband who can't tell the obvious that his wife has feelings for this man. 50 year old men are retarded invalids? If anything he would be hyper jealous of his wife.
There are many good and tense things about the film but these things ruin it.
@Iceman Obviously you sat through the DVD commentary. You repeated it almost word for word. This is an extremely famous B&W movie, right up there with the Third Man and a few other noirs. I watched dozens and dozens of crime noirs before finally catching up with this one. I was sorely disappointed. I thought it was terribly contrived the way the DA conned him into signing the complaint against Cora. From that point on the plot just seemed forced. That plus the film ran long two hours is too long for these kind of films.
I've seen much better movies that most people never heard of. Some of the cheapest poverty row crime noirs are the best.
Whoops! I just realized I responded to an 11 year old post. Still with us Iceman?
EXACTLY! This isn't as horrendous as a few have stated, but it isn't the astounding flick many claim it to be. Every defense seems to be "It's great considering the era it is from." The test of a great movie for all-time is whether or not one can say it's great with out having to add "considering..." after the statement. There's a few goods scenes here and there, as well as a few bad. Overall it is not all that memorable.
The movie is a timepiece.It shows lust and sexy 1940's style.My fave movies are from the mid to late forties,the time period was unique.Yes,the legal mess didn't make sense and garfield would of never been convicted of Cora's death,if it was properly investigated by police.It was obviously an accident.Kudo's go to Lana's hair and outfits,I just wish they weren't all white.Also the setting of the inn was comfy and cozy.Loved the song menus and jukebox.The story delivered on love at first sight,and a hot affair and the complications,plus consquences, when your married.Cora's older easy going lush husband,really loved her,also.I hated to see such a nice guy dealt with in such an evil way.He had been so good to Cora.It was a little ridiculous to see Cora strutting around like a model ready for a photo shoot,I thought.All in all I enjoyed the drama...
Everybody IS entitled to their own opinion,yes. This is my favorite movie in the whole world, so I'm sorry if I sound agressive from here on... This is the best version of the film yet. Nobody could have played Cora like Lana Turner. Yes, she looks great and for that reason people seem to enjoy b*tching about her and questioning her acting ability(*cough* JEALOUS *cough*)Who would believe someone who looked like Bette Davis in that kind of role? Femme Fatales ALWAYS have to look good. Personally, I really enjoyed watching Hume Cronyn's character "handling" everything. At least the plot of this movie can be easily followed, unlike other film noir classics such as The Big Sleep. Each scene in this film is geart to watch because of the sizzling chemistry between Turner and Garfield, and the sexual presence that Lana projected was amazing. All in all- GREAT movie! I especially agree with El Presidente: if you don't like The Postman Always Rings Twice, you don't like film noir.
Lana Turner made a lot of lousy movies. She was a competent actress most of the time, a horrible one when unmotivated, but when given a great script, role and director (and Garnett was wonderful), she was extremely effective. I think her PERFORMANCE (not just Garfield's) is terrific. If you watch Turner, she LISTENS - to each word - of the other actor's line and subtley reacts. She's shaded, coy, frustrated, overwhelmed with guilt, and underplays wonderfully.
It's one of the best examples of the glories of black-and-white film.
The only thing wrong with this film is the colorized version.
I agree with those for this film. It is great. It is essential original noir, a highly stylized genre of film, not only in camera work, but also in acting. Witness Sunset Blvd, Double Indemnity, Mildred Pierce, etc. All beautiful to look at, but all containing highly stylized performances. But I realize, unlike some here, I am sorry to say, that this style can be frustrating to current audiences. However, I would recommend Out of the Past if you want to see a seminal film noir that is less stylized in acting. But again, I do feel this is a great film.
Gee whiz folks, if this was a bad movie... why was it remade ? Good movies and great movies get remade. Bad movies don't even get message boards. I just watched another Nicholson flick, Five Easy Pieces. I think it deserves to be remade/ updated. By the way, is 'Five Easy Pieces' a post-noir film ? Does that term exist ? And if so, what are some other post-noir classics ?
I think this is a super movie. The chemistry between Turner and Garfield is excellent. Lana Turner just sizzles in this movie. As the above poster said they don't remake bad movies, only the good ones. I like Jessica Lange, but she could not hold a candle to Turner.
I'm sorry but I'm going to have to agree with buff-29, theconservativeliberal and maad0301 on this one. To say a ridiculous sweeping statement like "if you don't like this you don't like film-noir" is idiotic and shows your ignorance of the genre. This is not a seminal noir (unlike its Italian counterpart, Ossessione, an adaptation of the same novel). Nor is it essential noir, or essential anything. It doesn't have the importance of neo-realism (ossessione), or the expressionistic qualities of true film noirs that were made by immigrants (Fritz Lang, Billy Wilder etc.). It is simply not an important noir, it is a completely indifferent film that doesn't care about the genre or the material, but not in a good deconstructionist way like with Aldrich's Kiss Me Deadly.
The sort of people who argue that this noir is seminal, are the people who haven't seen many noirs. Save your time and go and watch the noirs of Lang, Dassin, Wilder, Borzage, Hitchcock, Aldrich or even Wyler, Vidor, Keighley, Huston, Hawks and Kubrick. I wager that the people who are saying this film is important, haven't even seen one film from each of those directors.
this is like the hottest movie i've ever seen! both lana turner and john garfield are hot, and this is a perfect example of film noir and this movie got me to watch all the other noir films...
I am new to the 'boards' but I do like reading them. On this topic I have to agree. This movie is so totally improbable, as it was made, as to be ridiculous. First; Who believes that a Cecil Kellyway type could ever wind up with a Lana Turner? And then pay no attention to her! Then second; Picture Lana frying a few burgers in that get up she is wearing in the first scene where she appears. And third; This is the first time Lana really gets into the whole Ice Queen persona she displays throughout the rest of her career. Beautiful, yes. Approachable, not to this little black duck! Belief is just totally suspened here. We are supposed to believe that this gorgeous woman is going to kill her not handsome, not wealthy, not generous, not interested, husband for a good looking but broke, unemployed, uneducated, drifter who is so uninspired that he doesn't even think to just get rid of the old guy himslef and then follow through with a workable plan. And then, having done the old guy in, why would either of them hang around? In this movie, Garfield does the only really good job. And Cecil Kellyway is good. But Lana Turner is just too cold. I am always so surprised when anyone talks about what a great movie this is. They all talk the talk but none of them walk the walk.
The reason why you're so surprised is because you really didn't watch the movie.
First, Kellaway could end up with Lana. The movie was made some 60 years ago, and the book is even older. Times were different then. It wasn't the x-rated society it is now.
Second, Kellaway was the one who was frying the burger, not Lana.
And of course she's gonna kill old Kellaway for this young stud. Why? Because she was deeply attracted to him, Love makes you do just about anything. And why hang around? Because, and the movie makes this clear, they had the restaurant that was getting great business. Why leave?
More than that, you're just nitpicking. Minor minor points you made there. There is so much going on in this great film that you just plain missed.
Actually I have watched this film, many times in fact, trying to figure out why so many think it is great. And I still don't get it. If Kellaway is frying the burgers, is Lana pumping, the uh gas? Of course she wants Gardield to fall for her and there is chemistry there but she just uses him. She is going to get rid of Kellaway but not for Garfield. She wants the money. And wanting the money, why hang around once she has gotten it. This isn't Mickey and Judy deciding to make a success of this whatever it takes, and then live happily ever after, Gee Whiz. These are too killers who get caught in their own trap. Hard to work up any sympathy for either one of them. In that find old Hollywood tradition, they both get what they deserve, in the end. These are just my opinions, of course. I respect yours and you are probably in the majority here. Give me a more realistic storey of two people like African Queen. I can picture those two together, hand in hand getting their social security checks. But Kellaway and Lana Turner or Fred Astaire and Audrey Hepburn. Sorry, love or no love, I just can't buy it.
If you've seen the film "many times" I find it amazing you could miss so many things.
How could you miss the brilliant use of symbolism in the "man wanted" sign? You notice it didn't say the usual, "help wanted." And then Garfield, knowing he wants a piece of Lana, throws the sign back into the fire in essence, throwing himself into the infernal, and sealing his own fate. And the camera, holding that shot as the cardboard burns...forebodingly, and then fading out. Just brilliant!
That's just for starters.
And who cares what Lana was doing? She could've been washing the dishes, getting dressed, or taking a dump for chrissakes! As I said, minor points you made.
And on their relationship, you totally missed the boat there. This movie is not about two people who kill for money, or a woman who's using someone for money. It's about two people in love -- two people who felt they had no other option but to kill for that love. And that's why we identify, and empathize with the characters. As I said earlier, love makes you do anything. Unfortunately they did, and paid the ultimate price.
Actually, I have been in LOVE but I have never, thank God, considered murder to achieve any goal. And yet we are supposed to like these people? Sorry but if I were to be attracted to a woman who thought murder was a justifiable option I would think, CHARACTER FLAW! As for symbolism, I did catch the symbolism. But it was not an "Oh Wow" kind of reaction. And symbolism doesn't make a film great. Maybe I am nit picking but nits turn into lice and this is a lousy movie. Too unbelievable.
This movie is a love story. And I think most would agree that love, sometimes, makes you do crazy things, even murder. And, of course, they paid the ultimate price for their crime.
Great, great film. If anyone can't see that, they ARE nitpicking.
I think it was a great book but the film fell very short of it's greatness. I feel that Lana Turner was very mis-cast in the role of Cora. I found her acting to be over the top and she just didn't fit the look of Cora. I'm not saying that Cora couldn't be beautiful but Lana is no Cora. Comparing it to another film in this genre, Double Indemnity, I think you can clearly see that Stanwyck pulled off the part that she was given with ease. She to me embodied the psychosis that Phyllis was supposed to have. Also I feel that Double Indemnity was great, book & film. I just was left cold after watching Postman. Sorry.
Actually you're right about the directing. It is AWFUL. The pacing is terrible; the movie just jumps right in and starts rushing things. And if you observe the camera angles you'd think that this movie was made very impulsively by the director with no sense of film-making.
If one wants an all-round brilliant film-noir, then one should watch John Huston's 'The Maltese Falcon'. Or 'Chinatown'.
And don't be surprised with these people's flaming at you. Almost everyone in the IMDB forums is sanctimonious and is only good at making one-line posts. I remember in the 'Bladerunner' forum, someone gave very objective and articulate reasons for not liking the movie and then soon people started saying that he should go back to watching 'Aliens vs Predator' or that he was the type of person who is unable to appreciate art.
These comment forums on imdb are intended for us to comment on the films, so it's a misuse of this valuable and entertaining Website to start commenting about those who post things here. It is an absolute fact that not everyone likes any given motion picture. As is the case in most aspects of life, one man's art is another man's garbage. Understand that and leave the personal comments about anonymous people who post things here alone--no one really cares.
As for "Postman", I had never seen it before watching it on DVD last night. I've come to appreciate John Garfield much more after seeing a couple of his films recently, so I picked this one up because of Garfield and Lana and because I'd heard so much about it for so long.
That early scene with the rolling lipstick and Cora's first appearance was simply wonderful. The contrast between the initial setting at the somewhat run-down gas station/restaurant and Cora's sizzling blonde and white presence in the doorway was stunning. And Frank's priceless reaction--the guy practically had apoplexy, which was what was intended for every guy in the audience to feel. Holy smokes! "Man Wanted". Yes, MA'AM! This scene was a close match to that equally wonderful, astonishing, surreal scene in "Vertigo" when Judy (Kim Novak) emerges as Madeleine in the hotel room after Ferguson (Jimmy Stewart) convinces her to dress and put up her hair like Madeleine. Talk about a man transfixed! Different tone, different story, but a great singular scene in the film with the camera and non-verbal acting providing the emotional impact.
This film was nothing more or less than a simple & direct depiction of a man spiraling into a type of depravity as the result of pure sexual desire and lust.
I would agree with some of the negative comments about the direction, but the story and performances keep it afloat for me, and it was quite enjoyable.