Shockingly bad movie


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.

reply

I disagree. I say it's a good film noir. =o)

reply

Don't everyone freak out (OK, most of you already have), but Buff is right; The Postman Always Rings Twice is an overrated film. The cinematography / lighting / camerwork are notably bland by noir standards (see The Killers for a comparison from the same year). The acting isn't all that great, and face it, by noir standards the story and it's execution just aren't very interesting. Doesn't hold a candle to Double Indemnity, The Killers, Out of the Past, and The Big Sleep, to name a few (and two from the same year). All of these "for it's time" excuses are pretty weak when you start comparing the film to its own contemporaries. The dialogue between Bogie and Bacall in The Big Sleep is far racier and "steamier" than anything in The Postman Always Rings Twice, and it was made, as I've already noted, in the same year. Double Indemnity squeezes a lot more juice out of the noir "kill my husband" theme and is a lot more unflinching in its subversion of the production code, and it was made two years earlier. Yeah, Lana Turner was a big star, but so was Jane Greer (Out of the Past), and Jane Greer could act.

The Postman Always Rings Twice is not an outright bad film. It just doesn't do anything particularly well - plot, style, characters - and certainly doesn't hold up the way quite a few noirs do.

reply

Whoever said that the OP has a right to their opinion and then goes on to say that it sucks, sorry but you're incredibly ignorant. Opinions are neither right nor wrong and everyone is entitled to their own, some people need to understand that, unfortunately they don't.

As for mine; I give this film a 2/5, I thought I was going to be intrigued but it turns out I wasn't. It just went nowhere for me and I like a movie to keep me intrigued and fascinated throughout and this one didn't. Starting to get into film noirs and this one won't be a favorite.

"I promise you, before I die I'll surely come to your doorstep"

reply

John Garfield and Lana Turner together is what made this movie famous more than anything else.

Had you replaced Lana with someone else it would not have been such a great movie.
Had you replaced John with someone else it would have been good but not as great.
These 2 together are the definition of chemistry and many film historians agree.

John Garfield was truly excellent in this movie.
In my opinion, he was born to play Frank Chambers.

reply

Actually, elisajones4, you´re the one whose incredibly ignorant.

A person can have an opinion about anything. Including another´s opinion. As you say, it doesn´t mean it´s right or wrong, it´s just an opinion.

Oh, and this is one of the best films I´ve ever seen.

reply

I think that most of you have missed the point of watching a movie. It isn't to compare it to like movies and see where it ranks, it is to enjoy. Postman had many, many weakness, but is nevertheless thoroughly enjoyable and watching it is time well spent.

reply

I, agree with you, onehepcat, and thanks for your post - you have a good point!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Shockingly bad movie
by - onehepcat on Sun Feb 18 2007 00:37:41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that most of you have missed the point of watching a movie. It isn't to compare it to like movies and see where it ranks, it is to enjoy. Postman had many, many weakness, but is nevertheless thoroughly enjoyable and watching it is time well spent.

reply

[deleted]

It would be unfair of me or anybody else to criticise this film because at the end of the day, it is all a matter of personal preferences. I must say though, that I really didn't like it as much as other film noirs such as "The Maltese Falcon", "The Big Sleep" and "Sunset Boulevard". I felt that the plot was unnecessarily long (the bungled first murder attempt and all the planning involved stretched the length of the film needlessly). Overall, in my opinion the film just isn't worthy of being referred to as "the greatest film noir ever".

"kathyseldon" says "all femmes fatales have to look good". This is CERTAINLY not true. Take a look at "The Maltese Falcon". Though radiant in her silent days, Mary Astor wasn't the typical choice of femme fatale, not exactly being as dazzling as others who were previously considered for her role like Rita Hayworth and Ingrid Bergman. That, however, was not important- she was nonetheless dangerous, untrustworthy and completely believable, delivering an excellent performance.

"Kinsky Twist" fairly quoted "kathyseldon"'s error in saying "if you don't like The Postman Always Rings Twice, you don't like film noir".....as a friend of mine once said, sometimes the comedy just writes itself... Saying something so inconsiderate shows "Ms. Seldon"'s "film noir" deficiency...well, either that or he/she simply arrived at a ridiculous conclusion which cannot be justified: myself and many others both in the forum and outside it love the aforementioned film noirs...all of them but "The Postman Always Rings Twice".

reply

I saw this last night and must admit I was disappointed. I agree with some other poster who said the story and script doesn't hold up to the best film noir. The plot simply lacked any direction. The plot twists were endless. At first, it looks like the movie will only be about the murder, like Double Indemnity. Then after the accident, it looks like the D.A., Sackett, will be the one to bring Cora and Frank down (sort of like Keyes in Double Indemnity). But THEN we're introduced to the lawyer, Keats who gets them off free. Then there's that burly guy who typed the confession who wanted to blackmail Cora and Frank. Then there's that woman Frank went to Mexico with and is never heard from again. And then, at the end, it turns into a tragic love story sort of making Cora a sympathetic character. What?! It's a very messy and unfocused script.

Let's see if you bastards can do 90.

reply

I could not agree more. Very articulate and peceptive.

reply

This is a good movie. Your entitled to your dumbass opinion.

reply

This was one of the worst films I've ever seen. How could such a poor film recieve such high praise over the years?

The movie had poor acting, ridiculously bad dialogue, B-movie directing (make that C-movie directing if there is such a thing). I was watching it in a film class, and everyone was constantly laughing at how bad it was. I mean, it really was awful. Almost like an Ed Wood movie, which is ironic... because I just finished watching "Ed Wood"!

reply

Why it recieved such high praise? Because it's a great movie!

If everyone in your film class, did in fact, laugh (I don't believe it unless they were all high on something) then they're a lot of people who have a lot to learn about film.

"The best you've ever been is who you really are" -- Billy Wilder

reply

Earlier today, I posted my review of this movie on the Internet Movie Database.

Then, I read other people’s reviews. I couldn’t believe it as I read one positive review after another. I thought to myself ‘am I insane or is everyone else insane?’

Then, I clicked onto Postman’s message boards, and I was cheered that there is a section titled ‘shockingly bad movie.’ My faith in civilization revived as I noticed that there are other people who saw what I saw. This movie is indeed shockingly bad.

It seems trite to say that Postman has innumerable stupid plot turns. In fact, there were several positive reviews that mentioned there were several ‘plot holes’ and ‘endless’ plot twists.

The magnitude of how bad this movie is can’t be communicated by just saying there are too many plot holes and absurd plot twists. When you start listing them, it becomes clearer and clearer how bad the movie is. That is what I sought to do in my review (Posted by zwrite2). I listed 10. I could have listed more, a lot more.

I am still pondering this – what would have happened if the trial continued and the prosecutor had to interrogate the chief witness? In other words, himself. This movie is truly special.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Not a bad film, but terribly overrated. It doesn't have the same gritty, visceral quality of DOUBLE INDEMNITY and MILDRED PIERCE. Lana Turner is just too kittenish as Cora, but Garfield is fine.

The best scene in the film is the brief one between Garfield and Audrey Totter.
Totter would have made a terrific Cora.

Still, I'll take this over the atrocious, not to mention boring, remake with Nicholson and Lange any day of the week.

reply

Watched this for the first time yesterday, couldn't believe how bad it was, as has been stated previously the plot was absolutely full of holes and at times it was laughable.
Not come across many of the actors much previously but a poor script can make good actors look bad, they looked bad in this.
Can't possibly compare something like this with the quality of a film like Out of the Past.

reply