BootDigest Such a frustrating disappointment

BroadcastChic Excellent, a Must See

Bessie Smyth Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

gab-14712 The Postman Always Ring Twice is a noir-thriller that reminds me of the film noirs made in the 1940's and 1950's. Ironically enough, this movie happens to be a remake of the 1946 film with the same name starring John Garfield and Lana Turner, which was previously adapted to screen by the immensely popular 1934 novel written by James M. Cain. This movie was brought more explosively to the screen when compared to the movie that came out nearly forty years prior. With less censorship this time around, the movie is told in a style where murder, blackmail, and lust lurks around every corner. The movie wants to be shocking, and it mostly succeeds by the standards of 1980's. Frank Chambers (Jack Nicholson) is a drifter and an ex-con man who stops at a roadside diner one night. He decides to linger when he puts his eye on the very attractive cook, Cora (Jessica Lange). She so happens to be in a loveless marriage with the Greek owner of the restaurant, Nick (John Colicos). Frank takes on a job as a mechanic, and immediately starts an affair with Cora. After they were caught, the duo plans to murder Nick. Can they pull it off? Are they aware of the consequences if they were successful? I liked the majority of the film for what it is. The film relies upon atmosphere and vivid cinematography by Sven Nykvist, who rose to fame handling camera duties on Ingrid Bergman films. I also liked how the characterization was changed when compared to the original film. Frank is more seedy, more violent, and generally not a very nice man. Cora is more strong-willed, and way more attractive. I thought Nick may have been a little old for the role, but John Colicos delivers a simple, but strong performance. Jack Nicholson rose to big heights with his performances in films like Chinatown and The Shining. He returns to the noir genre here, and once again delivers a committed, nearly flawless performance. He plays these kind of roles so well. Then there is Jessica Lange, who first came to the audiences minds with 1976's King Kong. She is a strong-willed woman and she masterfully commits as she is pulled away from the monster that is Frank. There were moments that I found less impressive. The ending for one left me a little dry, but the actual story itself was strong enough that I can slightly forgive that. Another moment was the character of Anjelica Huston. She played a lion tamer that is quite weird and it felt like she came from a different movie. The movie was expertly directed by Bob Rafelson, and it has an underrated screenplay by playwright David Mamet. These men gave the 1946 classic a sexy update, one that was not beholden to the constraints of censorship. Sex is prevalent, as well as violence which increases as the film goes on. This movie is a sly wink to the noir films of old and any movie that pairs up Jack Nicholson and Jessica Lange is a good one. My Grade: B+

tstrat-64441 As forgettable remake as your ever likely to see! No tension, no suspense, just tawdry, over the top lusting!

mark.waltz Eroticizing the tale of two killers previously made in 1946, director Bob Rafelson took out the subtlety and innuendo that made the original so hot. By adding sadomasochistic sexual activity between Jack Nicholson and Jessica Lange, he cheapens the story that could have been an interesting pulp fiction update of James M. Cain's story. In the original, John Garfield and Lana Turner really did have heat that didn't need to show the audience what the two did in bed. Their power burnt through the screen, but if there is any steam between Nicholson and Lange, sadly it is only dry ice, not timbers smoldering.Nicholson, then one of the hottest actors in Hollywood, plays an obvious sleaze-bag. His character is never likable which dissolves any sympathy towards him. Garfield played the role as a victim of circumstances with a past which made him more interesting and complex. Lange, however, does provide some heat, and shows the potential of becoming one of the biggest stars of the 80's after a weak start in the 1976 remake of "King Kong". She lacks Lana Turner's glamour (and the famous white shorts and halter top with matching turban), but making her more earthy adds a different dimension to her character that Nicholson's lacks.Rather than a Cecil Kellaway type as the cheated-on husband, the producers added a more ethnic flavor to the character played by veteran character actor John Colicos. The same year he made this movie, he made soap immortality as the evil Mikkos Cassadine, the world's wealthiest Greek, on "General Hospital". On the soap, he victimized the world. Here, he plays a lower class Greek who married a younger woman. Unlike Kellaway, the age difference isn't grandfatherly, and works better. Michael Lerner is very good as the attorney who defends Nicholson and Lange for murder, and a young Anjelica Houston is seen briefly as a circus owner involved with Nicholson. She utilizes the same accent she would later perfect in the hysterical "The Witches".What really makes a color version of the story work is the not-so-sharp photography that really makes it look like a pulp fiction magazine come to life. The ending drags a bit, but it is ironic to watch the two characters slowly destroy themselves and each other. That's what film noir is all about.

tilak This movie is an insult to Cain's famous novel.Despite being based on the novel it does not seems to have any real plot.All you get to see is hot steamy sex scenes,which producers thought were enough to draw in the audience. Even without comparing to the original classic this movie is waste of time.It starts out great but after half an hour later it wonders around aimlessly. What annoys me the most that things happen almost spontaneously without much explanation,while in the novel the attraction between the two leads is clearly elaborated.Here just 20 minutes into the movie and both of them jumps on the kitchen table ,makes passionate love as if they knew each other for eternity. The worst thing is ending,which left things unexplained.In the original classic the ending was so beautifully explained,making sense of the title.Whats the use of watching the movie if you have to ask ,what the title means. If you want to see couple of hot passionate scenes this movie if for you otherwise avoid it like plague.