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.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Jealous_Skunk 15 years ago

attention hunter that's what you are buff-29! or maybe you're just high and have lousy taste

JeSkuNk

[–] gertflump 15 years ago

"For that day."
-Three Days of the Condor

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] AsHimself 14 years ago

I've seen every film on that 250 quintessential noirs list, and of that bunch this one is in my bottom fifth.

To each his own.

[–] bruno-32 14 years ago

I agree 100%...awful acting, dialogue unbelievable...makes a good night reading on a lonely night during a snow drift storm only. How some say that they liked it better than "Double Indemnity" is beyond me. Lana, lovely to look at, but not an actress and certainly no Barbara Stanwyck, who played her role to the hilt. The dialogue, especially after the murder was so awful, i couldn't believe it...so perhaps that is why it fell apart for me...Lana overacted, John, a good actor, was unbelievable as a weakling one moment and then a two fisted hero the next. The double crossing detective as another weakling..on and on...terrible. Maybe because it was new at its time 1946, and Lana and John at their youthful appearance best, it might have had some success...but if it were released today, it would be laughed at. Probably, the same reason it failed miserably with the Jessica Lange version, who was a better actress than Lana.

[–] lanatic001 14 years ago

I enjoy this film very much, but I wouldn't compare it to "Double Indemnity" or "The Maltese Falcon", which are probably the best film noirs I have so far seen.

There may be plot holes (I can't be bothered to analyse it right now!), but who cares? It's a piece of entertainment that is well acted (Turner & Garfield are sizzling together) and has a lovely stylized look to it.

One thing that people need to remember (and I know this has been dismissed by some posters) is that the script had to be passed by the Production Code. To compare it unfavourably to the Italian version is pointless. Film makers in Italy had a much freer hand as far as what they could put in their films than the Americans did at this time. The writers at M.G.M. did a fine job with what many believed at the time to be an unfilmable book.

[–] franzkabuki 13 years ago

The Code is one thing, but that doesn´t explain why the ending had to be so ludicrously hokey. It´s by far the greatest weakness of an overall solid film that´s not particularly striking visually, but gets by on an engaging script.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] inwiththelove 13 years ago

I have just watched PART again after a few years away and thought I'd tour the boards. This is great thread although truly IMDb people, we are all allowed an opinion without being told we are moronic throwbacks!

I am slightly disappointed after my most recent viewing and agree with the comments about weak script, poor plotting and inconsistent control of dramatic tension. It really does wobble around a bit throwing new plot directioms into the mix until it becomes quite tiresome. And yet I DEFINITElY will watch this film again at some point. iMHO I think the cast is uniformly excellent. All of them. The sexual tension between Garfield and Turner is gripping! They are badly let down by their scriptwriter and their director. Cinematography however offers some breathtaking shot of noir beauty. Inconsistent yes but they are definitely there.

My take on Nora's marriage to Nick has always been that she had to marry the plain older gentlemen or face a life of drudgery with the chancers that had previously swarmed around her. As a beautiful woman with no education or money, that marriage could provide her with longer term happiness than the alternative, at the time Cain wrote the novel...even maybe today...

"Jerry, let's not ask for the moon. We have the stars!"

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] WarpedRecord 11 years ago

I'm a big fan of noir, and I have to admit I expected much better. The performances are adequate, but a bit wooden, and there's too much explanation as a substitute for true storytelling. I'll give this a 6/10 for now because this is moderately entertaining, and if I ever revisit this I may upgrade (or downgrade). But I'm not compelled to watch this again anytime soon.

[–] NxNWRocks 9 years ago

Not sure how you could watch this movie and say Garfield is good. Just in the first five minutes he shows he;s horribly miscast.

"Worthington, we're being attacked by giant bats!"

[–] thesnowleopard 9 years ago

You know, I've loved other James Cain adaptations. Mildred Pierce is a great time full of padded shoulders and hysterical scenery-chewing with striking cinematography and they-totally-deserved-that plot twists. Double Indemnity is also beautifully shot (my favorite is that moment when he's talking to Robinson at the office and she's hiding behind the door). The characters are complete rotters, but I was kinda rooting for Stanwyck's character until near the end when we found out the extent of her record for murder. Also, the plot is intriguing and draws you to the end.

This...was boring. The cinematography, aside from Lana's first scene and some shots of her, was nothing remarkable. The characters were unlikeable. The whole murder attempt with the cat was ludicrous (I felt sorrier for that cat than anyone else in the movie). The DA's obsession with putting them away made *no* sense and the crap he kept pulling on them wouldn't have flown even in the 40s. I never got the idea he cared enough about Lana's husband to follow them down the road on the off chance they were trying to kill him. And his speech at the end, where he's perfectly okay with sending the guy down for a murder he didn't actually commit, may have been dictated by the Hays Code, but it's morally repellent in the extreme. Even in noirs, you're supposed to feel that justice, however harsh and karmic, was served and that's not justice. That's state-sanctioned murder and *everyone* in that jail cell knows it.

Innsmouth Free Press http://www.innsmouthfreepress.com