MovieChat Forums > The Postman Always Rings Twice (1946) Discussion > Simply an awful movie

Simply an awful movie

posted 16 years ago by bws042257
20 replies | jump to latest

Before I get into the body of my critique, you must separate Lana Turner's beauty from the movie. If you cannot do that, there's really no point in reading further.

I want to say this is the worst movie I have ever seen. Of course, it isn't.

I want to say this is the dumbest movie I've ever seen. Of course, it isn't.

I suppose my biggest beef with this movie is that it has been hyped as an example of film noir - as if that excuses it from the normal criticisms to which all movies are subject. To me, the close ups of Lana Turner seem to be a free pass to escape the remainder of the film which is simply bad cinema.

I found the plot to be ridiculous. I'm not referring to the basic 'wife falls for stranger and both then kill her husband' routine - though that's been overplayed countless times. It's the manner in which they carried this out, the way in which the legal system handled it, and then the subsequent conclusion. And then the prison scene at the end! Oh, come on! Didn't you feel you had to constantly dumb down your powers of reason and logic? LOL!

(I shouldn't be laughing because I was angry at having watched this for 113 minutes, plus Robert Osgood's hype)

Then there's the dialogue which is as contrived as a script could be. Please tell me that the book was better than these idiotic comments made by the actors involved. ("Fader, if yas can sees it in yas heart, could yas offer up a prayer for me and Cora, dat we'd me ta'geder, wherever dat might be?")

And about the acting, I saw nothing of value. Garfield had his moments, but he had little with which to work. Lana Turner - well, she should have been left at Schwab's Drugstore (I know, it was actually Tops). I've never seen her turn in a credible acting performance. Hume Cronyn - what was he thinking? He might have needed some quick cash and decided to take the role. I can't think of another reason why his talent should be wasted here.

The direction was wooden. Nothing was done to enhance any of the weaknesses of the movie which were considerable. Garnett was largely known for his comedies and I have to believe he just didn't have the psyche for a good drama. After this film, most of the remainder of his career was relegated to television.

For those of you who disagree, PLEASE tell us what value you see in the acting, the plot, the dialogue, and the direction. Please cite examples where each were credible and worthy of the 7.6 IMDB users give this.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] christopherbkk 16 years ago

I want to say the OP's critic of this movie is the worst critic I have ever read. Of course, it isn't. But it is close!

[–] hyperchipper 16 years ago

I put off watching this movie for a few years. It's a Hollywood classic, really nothing more needs to be said.

[–] reasonformirrors 16 years ago

I can not separate Lana Turner's beauty from the movie, so I did not bother to read this. Come on, did you see her in those white shorts? Oh my!

#59

http://imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=14301171

[–] PatFilm 15 years ago

Excellent movie! Great noirish story and Lana Turner's legs are looking simply fabulous.

A semi-classic!

[–] rootbeerking12 15 years ago

Hey,

First of all (and I know you posted this two years ago), I admire your willingness to criticize a classic and cannonical film. Too many folks believe that just because a movie is in black and white or studied in film classes, that makes it excellent. But that's just not true. The argument "they don't make 'em like they used to" is a bore. They never made them like they used to. Film is a constantly changing artform.

And sure, Turner was beautiful. But, as the OP states, that hardly qualifies her as a good actress.

However, Turner actually was a good actress. Don't believe me? Watch The Bad and The Beautiful. Notice how expressive her eyes are; how energetic and eager she is. Looks are a mere superlative here.

As for Garfield - not his best performance, you're right. However, you might check out He Ran All the Way... easily his best, most intense performance.

As for the hammy dialogue and the overtly expositional final interlude - have you seen very many movies from that era? The code obliged the bad guys to lose in the end, so often the third acts fell apart as characters literally voiced exactly "what happened".

Is Postman a bad movie? No. It's good. But it's not good simple because it's "classic"; instead because it manages to transcend its own convoluted plot to result in a slick, tense story about... well, depthless lust.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rootbeerking12 15 years ago

Agreed.

... Or maybe crime doesn't pay.

[–] gbennett5 15 years ago

Can't say I agree with the OP. And if the OP is that angry, I'd say
there's an agenda at hand. I also feel Turner gave one of her best
performances in the film and my main attraction is this, not her legs.
The chemistry between she and Garfield is stunning, along with the
crisp, black-and-white photography. Tay Garnett's direction was also
fine. A classic film. And lastly, no, the characters are NOT bright.
They're not supposed to be. The brighter couple is Phyllis and
Walter.

[–] DavidLanceRoten 14 years ago

"Can't say I agree with the OP. And if the OP is that angry, I'd say
there's an agenda at hand. I also feel Turner gave one of her best
performances in the film and my main attraction is this, not her legs.
The chemistry between she and Garfield is stunning, along with the
crisp, black-and-white photography. Tay Garnett's direction was also
fine. A classic film. And lastly, no, the characters are NOT bright.
They're not supposed to be. The brighter couple is Phyllis and
Walter."

I agree. Also, The Postman Always Rings Twice isn't for everybody. I personally think it's a classic, great film. I have issues with films like E.T. and Citizen Kane. Everybody's got their likes and dislikes...

..."We all have it coming kid"...

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cliveyahoo2005 14 years ago

Not sure why you picked this film out.From reading your post there must be only a handful of films you like.
I agree Lana`s beauty steals the show. But to make the film work it has to.

[–] tellz117 14 years ago

you are simply an awful human

[–] jquirk-1 14 years ago

The OP is obviously somebody not in the right mind. This is an excellent film, one of the best examples of noir. It certainly ranks high on my noir list.

If I were to list my top 20 film noir favorites, the list would probably go like this:

1. The Asphalt Jungle
2. Out of the Past
3. The Postman Always Rings Twice (1946)
4. The Stranger (1946)
5. Gun Crazy
6. The Killers (1946)
7. The Maltese Falcon
8. Scarlet Street
9. Double Indemnity
10. Sorry, Wrong Number
11. Murder, My Sweet
12. Criss Cross
13. Angel Face
14. The Lady from Shanghai
15. The Third Man
16. The Woman in the Window
17. Laura
18. The Big Sleep (1946)
19. Kiss of Death (1947)
20. In a Lonely Place

[–] PussyCrusher_Principal 14 years ago

I just watched Postman for the 2nd time in my life, after having just read the James M. Cain story. I shouldn't waste my time refuting the OP'ss assertion(s) and posting on such a silly thread...but I will, as usual.

First of all, Lana Turner's beauty cannot be separated from the film. She is supposed to be such a stunning beauty that she bewitches a drifter, someone who has spent his life rootless, and is a member of one of the hardest categories of human ever, especially during the time the story was set (The Depression). The drifter's code is self-preservation and survival. She makes him teeter on the edge of forgetting all that and staying put, just to be around her...and taking a chance on being executed so she can be his. He's a lunkhead. He's supposed to be. The film comments on lust, greed, love, hate, desperation, and the corruption of our justice system, to name a few things. Postman was made from pulp fiction. I happen to love pulp fiction - Cain, Hammett, Chandler, Thompson...but I'd never try to claim that it's Flaubert. It's about working class/poor people who are desperate. Yeah, they do stupid things. Haven't you ever heard the facts of a real-life criminal case and thought "You've got to be kidding me...did they do THAT??"?

And I though Lana did a wonderful job in this film. Garfield wasn't bad either. Cecil Kellaway was delightfully oblivious (again, read the book...he was note-perfect). I don't think I saw the OP post a 2nd time, so I'm sure I wasted my time on a troll...or I was just writing to agree with those who find Postman a true noir classic.

"How do you feel?"
"Like the Kling-Klang King of the Rim-Ram Room!"

[–] steven_torrey 9 years ago

KQED Saturday Evening--Jan 2, 2016--played "Dial M for Murder" and "The Postman Always Rings Twice". Couldn't agree with your assessment at all. "Dial M...." was simply great--never tire of seeing it. "The Postman..." --well, I'm good for another ten years before I see it again. Overrated movie. Not the worst by a long shot--but certainly would not be my favorite.

[–] skiddoo 13 years ago

That wasn't clever. The OP expressed an opinion and there was no need to attack the OP personally.

[–] ian_buchan 14 years ago

I agree with the OP.

I read the novel a few days ago and was vey impressed by it.
In its compact 119 pages are a crime story,a dark romance and a brief but most efficient courtroom thriller.
So I thought I needed to see the film adaptaion and grabed this version and saw it tonight.
I find it most dissapointing and almost hard to sit through.

Garfield was superb and I can't imagine anyone else being Frank Chambers,if only his talent was wasted here. The rest of the film was awful.Lana Turner was too much of a textbook femme fatale.Nick was too careless to be the husband of such a beautiful wife. Sacket,doesn't he have anything to do but shadowing Frank and Cora?

When I read the book up to where they failed at the first attempt and were scared the hell out of it,I could also feel the same way they did but in the film I don't feel any sympathy to them.

English being my second language,I can't fully get across my frustration but all I can say is this film did the novel injustice.I want it to be remade by a sure hand.This is a material it is not too late to make a classic out of.

[–] PussyCrusher_Principal 13 years ago

ian buchan:

I thought they NAILED the book in the 1946 version. if you want a remake so bad you don't have to wait...they made one in 1981, and with Jack Nicholson and Jessica Lange, no less. Seems like good casting, right? Well, go watch it, and when you realize what a piece of s**t that one is, maybe you'll go back and watch this one and appreciate what a fine job they all did on this great movie. Maybe you'll see that just because you have good source material it doesn't guarantee anything, and it takes quite an effort to translate it to the screen.

"How do you feel?"
"Like the Kling-Klang King of the Rim-Ram Room!"