MovieChat Forums > The Postman Always Rings Twice (1946) Discussion > Shockingly bad movie

Shockingly bad movie

posted 20 years ago by buff-29
85 replies | jump to latest

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.

[–] dgunning 19 years ago

this is an amazing film and is the peak of both Turner and Garfield's acting careers, this movie is an all time classic that is still remembered for its sexual chemistry....buff29 - you are an idiot

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tapdancer 19 years ago

"I know, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but yours suck!"

LOL

I adore this movie. It was the first Lana Turner film I ever saw and it's one of my favorites. Lana and John had great chemistry, IMO.

[–] gk7-1 19 years ago

I was all set to rip Buff as I was watching this last night. The movie was great.

But it really falls apart after the trial.

The flaw wasn't so much the direction, but that the screenwriter, Ruskin, was overwhelmed.

I think the simpler Mamet ending in the 1981 got it right, though it left audiences confused.

Sometimes things are better left unsaid.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] themollineaux 19 years ago

I agree that this is definitely not upper-echelon noir stuff. The question is whether it's at least "pretty good," or not good at all.

I'd have to say the former. Yes, it's rough around the edges, and there are problems with pacing. But the roughness works as an asset at times-- that fistfight was so roughly done at the end to be quite brutal, quite pulpy. Tremendous, really.

...And there are some nice compositions throughout. If unoriginal, Garnett evokes space decently, and makes the plot easy enough to follow. As far as adaptations go, that's a good chunk of what a director needs to accomplish. Going the extra mile, and supplying a unique artistic vision-- that's what makes it great. But with plotting like Cain's, simply not goofing it up is something of a remarkable achievement.

To gauge what I'm saying, perhaps you should know my favorite noirs are:

THE THIRD MAN (#1 of all films.)
THE KILLING (If you consider it noir-- it's debatable.)
THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI
THE KILLING OF A CHINESE BOOKIE. (If you count neo-noir.)
TOUCH OF EVIL
THE BIG HEAT
PICKUP ON SOUTH STREET
THE NAKED CITY
RIFIFI
TOUCHEZ PA AU GRISBI
THE STRANGER (Welles)
DOUBLE INDEMNITY

....This film doesn't compare to these, but it's a decent, flawed film on its own terms.

[–] billellis 19 years ago

I'm surprised that you left out Out of the Past.

[–] Johnny2006 19 years ago

This may not the best of the Film Noir genre but It is a great movie none the less. To call this 'Shockingly Bad' is just ridiculous.

time flies like an arrow-fruit flies like a banana

[–] noveltylibrary 18 years ago

"To call this Shockingly Bad is just ridiculous."

No kidding, hyperbole much?

[–] TerranceCrooms 18 years ago

This was a great movie but I liked Double Indemnity better.

[–] noveltylibrary 17 years ago

I liked Double Indemnity better as well. Just love Stanwyck and MacMurray.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Hatton_Mann 18 years ago

buff-based on what? Seeing a 1946 film noir classic set to 2004 standards?
You have to put this movie within practical terms and view it within the period it was created.
I completely DISAGREE with you however, I find this movie to be very interesting and enjoyable to watch. I think that the conflict and tension between Garfield and Turner is excellent and "steamy" for 1946.

You mention Hume Cronyn, who I also enjoyed, I can't see how you could call this performance ridiculous,what is this based on LADDIE?

"Yes Mr. Milton."

[–] segalj-1 18 years ago

This was an excellent movie. It was even listined on AFI's top 100 movies of all-time. Lana Turner was smoking, she was so hot. She and Garfield had a good chemistry and the director did a wonderful job of turning Cain's book into one of the great film noires.

All of the weaknesses that the "PRT" bashers have pointed out are really the endearing strengths of this film. It may be rough around the edges but that's how it was intended to be.

[–] morgana-31 18 years ago

I watched this for the first time yesterday. It's the only movie of John Garfield's I've ever seen and I haven't seen a lot of Lana Turner's either.

The title had me intrigued, but that all came out in the end.

Madge's part seemed too short to be necessary.

And did Cora have to wear high heels all the time - even at the beach? I'm not up on forties fashions so I'm wondering about the jacket she wore in the beach scene. Did they beach wear complete with shoulder pads in those days, or was she wearing a suit top over her bathers?

I guess the law didn't prohibit drunken driving back then or wouldn't the DA have tried to stop Nick getting behind the wheel of the car in his condition?

But in spite of a few shortcomings I thought it was a great film.

There's an art to making love. And you don't even have a paintbrush.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Hatton_Mann 15 years ago

It's not so much the movie being dated. What I'm thinking about as I view some of these films is what was it like to be in the audience. How was this movie experienced by a person in that period. How the culture was influencing what was being put up on the screen.
Naturally the medium has improved, sound is better, the quality of the product is better; however story is not as good.
I would highly recommend this movie and I would recommend the remake only for comparison. Note the differences. Which one do you feel is more effective?

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] amethyst-scream 18 years ago

I totally agree with you, Buff. I'm actually sorry I watched this movie. Essential film noir? Far from it.

I've always been a great fan of film noirs -- especially those from the 40s, when the genre was at it's peak. There was not one film from this genre, I ever truely disliked -- well at least, not until I watched this one. I thought acting was sub-par, the characters forced, the dialougeterrible, and the plot severely lacking in any direction to the point where every twist brought more aggravation over when the movie was going to end, rather than surprise. Think of a boulder rolling down a cliff -- only, for a 113 minutes. Ten minutes into the film, I already didn't feel one shread of sympathy for the characters and didn't even want them to end up together. Both main characters would be better off dead, after the first screw-up. Not even Hume Cronyn could save the story. It was that lousy.

If you want to see good film noirs watch The Third Man, Laura, Out of the Past, Suspicion or the Maltese Falcon. Don't waste you time on this movie.