User reviews

A great black and white film from start to finish. The twists and turns keeps you engaged. Just when you thought you had the film figured out, it surprises you. Enjoyable and entertaining. They don't make movies like this anymore.

The original book published in 1934 by James M. Cain (author of "Double Indemnity") was a gritty unsentimental story of a low-class drifter and bum, Frank, who is taken in by a German immigrant, Nick, who owns a roadside café and his beautiful wife, Cora, who turns out to be much darker on the inside than the facade of her pure white skin. Cora, we learn, is dissatisfied with her life married to this older immigrant and the drifter becomes her catalyst to change her situation. The movie adaption of twelve years later is a slightly sentimentalized version of Cain's noir classic. That said, the movie still holds its own as a noir tale of betrayal and murder, but doesn't quite have the edge of Billy Wilder's adaption of "Double Indemnity".

Still, the movie works very well under its own terms, particularly because of the outstanding chemistry between the leads John Garfield and Lana Turner. In fact, the star of the show is really Turner who turns in a tour-de-force performance. Turner continually shows us the many faces of her character Cora Smith who is sometimes weak and vulnerable and other times resolute and stubborn, even unsympathetic, and yet oozing with unrealized sexuality. We gather that Cora is no ordinary woman, or at least not the soft sentimental Doris Day type. More like a cross between Eva Peron and Madonna. Sometimes hard and mean and other times sweet and feminine, she is the complex epitome of the Cain femme fatale of this era. She remains enigmatic from beginning to end which is I think what Cain would have wanted. Garfield, in probably the role of his career, is equally superb, at first rejecting the murder scheme and then later embracing it. Although lacking the enigmatic complexity of Cora, Frank is equally ambiguous and ambivalent to his life choices, and Garfield well conveys the multi-sidedness of Frank.

The story concerns a young man looking for work, finds a roadside café up a few hours north of Los Angeles, probably up the 101 freeway, and becomes the hired help. He is employed by Nick, a simple German-stock older-than-middle-age man, who simply wants to make enough money to be comfortable and occasionally play his little guitar. His wife, Cora, is about 40 years younger and wants to make something of their café instead of just eking out a meager living. But fleeing with Nick and beginning from ground zero is not what she wants. She would like to have the café and make something of it. And when the hired help Frank falls for her, she realizes he is the perfect means to get both of them out of their hellish existence.

A fine example of 1940's film noir with many of the stylistic considerations, such as the camera panning from feet-to-face when we first meet the woman Cora, the many unexpected twists and turns, and of course the dark desires of the leads. Every series of scenes leaves you guessing as to what will happen next. A couple of scenes were contrived that were superfluous to the book. Unfortunately, the film suffers slightly because of the stringent ethics codes that started to be imposed on films of that time. Probably film noir offerings suffered more than most because of their probing the darker sides of human nature. However, Postman still ranks as classic film noir.

Those movie audiences who think that explicit sexual scenes shown in movies these days make a film sexy, should take a look at this 1946 steamy MGM picture. "The Postman Always Ring Twice" made an impact on the way movies looked at the time, when the censure of the Hays Code dominated what could be shown on the screen for general consumption.

James M. Cain's novel of the same title was adapted by Harry Ruskin and Niven Busch, two writers that clearly caught all the nuances of the book. Ty Garnett direction made this film a surprise and a star out of the gorgeous Lana Turner, who was at the height of her beauty when the movie was shot. The great camera work of Sidney Wagner made this movie a classic for its sensual look it focused on its female star.

Nick, the older owner of the roadside diner, has married Cora, a woman much too young for him. Cora, who clearly has found her meal ticket, is happy in the way her life has changed. When Frank Chambers arrive at the diner, Cora realizes the mistake she made in marrying Nick; Frank stands in sharp contrast with Nick. Cora's sexual needs awaken when Frank pays attention to her. As lovers, we realize they are doomed.

Because both Cora and Frank are amateurs, they botch the well laid plans they have for getting rid of Nick. Everything conspires against them because it's too clear what they have done. They will not be able to get away with the crime, or a life together because unknown to them everyone had seen through them from the beginning.

Lana Turner, whose whole wardrobe is white, made a great Cora. She is heartless, but she is all sexual whenever she is around Frank. This was perhaps was one of the best things Ms. Turner did in the movies. John Garfield, who is so sure of himself, at the start, loses all his will because Cora smolders him and he doesn't think rationally. Cecil Kellaway is good as the older Nick. Leon Ames, Hume Cronyn are seen in small roles.

"The Postman Always Ring Twice" is a classic of this genre thanks to Ty Garnett's direction and a brilliant appearance by an inspired Lana Turner.

Drifter Frank Chambers applies for a job at a road side café belonging to Nick Smith, only to fall under the spell of Nick's wife Cora. He falls into desire which leads to deceit and eventually murder. Too late he falls in love but by then things have gone too far. He tells his story to us with the hindsight of a condemned man.

A classic bit of noir light. Based on Cain's sexual novel this underplays the explicit references but turns the subtle stuff way up - the film opens with a `Man Wanted' sign, while Cora is so well played that there's no doubt what she's offering. Without the explicit sex of the remake this story is a lot freer to be interesting rather than explicit. The court case and the mistrust between the lovers is as good as the early desire giving rise to murder.

Lana Turner is excellent as the femme fatale, she is smouldering and very, very desirable. Garfield is also excellent as the man trapped in her web. The two are the very center of the film and are both superb. If the film has any weakness then it may be that modern audiences need more than very subtle stuff, but that's probably our problem rather than the film's.

Overall this is very enjoyable, it has a great sense of mood and builds well to the inevitable conclusion.

If you are a fan of Film Noir, this is a must see. Beginning to end the noir penchant for uneasiness is celebrated and, surprisingly, Hume Cronyn gives a stellar performance as an amoral lawyer.

What a tangled web.

THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE, perhaps one of the greatest film noirs of all time. One film you cannot and will definitely not get enough of, no matter how many times you see it.

Human nature at its very worst, defined.

Credit the chemistry between John Garfield and Lana Turner who, actually, had a brief affair during production. No question this classic inspired so many similar screenplays, but none to capture the perfect storm as displayed here. The cleverist thing about it all -- you may even catch yourself secretly rooting for the bad guy and girl, and ain't that the kicker?

Author James M. Cain had a sly sense of humor.

Great support from Leon Ames, Audrey Totter and especially crafty Hume Cronyn, in a role he defined. Masterfully directed by Tay Garnett, who began his long career in comedy films. Ames and Totter also co-starred in LADY IN THE LAKE.

There has been a long debate, comparing this version and the 198l remake starring Jack Nicholson. But you can't top Garfield and Turner. Bette Davis summed it all up, stating "It's highway robbery, Lana Turner did NOT win an Oscar!" Her next starring film would be GREEN DOLPHIN STREET opposite Van Heflin.

Forever on dvd and remastered blu ray for a new generation.

I was not expecting a classic film noir along the lines of "Double Indemnity" or "Out of the Past" when I put this movie in, and for awhile, I thought I might have been wrong. Maybe the cover was too cheesy, I'm not sure, but I didn't have extra high hopes for this movie. Then my mood brightened when it actually started to become very entertaining. I wasn't being blown away, but I did start to enjoy the film noir 101 plot. The reviewer who noted MGM's dramatic lighting of Turner is right, it's ridiculous, but it does come with the territory I guess. Other than that, things seemed to be moving in place very smoothly.

Then an odd thing happened. The movie refused to end. It wasn't that the pace was slow, it moved speedily. Something was always happening, and there was plenty of suspense/overblown MGM music blaring out of the speakers at any given moment. But the plot was way too top-heavy. They get caught doing the murder. Okay, time for trial, some final irony, then the movie's over. But it's not! It just kept going. New subplots turned up, bribes, plot twists, double crosses, it just kept happening and happening. It was too much. I was literally standing up sweating by the final scene, wanting it to end so much. The problem was, nothing of any substance was given to the events that kept happening. It was like the screenwriters noted "okay, this happened in the book, but we have to trim it a bit, so we'll make a small 2 minute scene including it in the movie" and suddenly the movie is full of these large occurrences given very brief sketched out screen time. Garfield runs off for a weekend in Tijuana with some random women? What just happened? Things just grew too implausible. I realize that complaining the movie went on too long and claiming that not enough screen time was given to all the events in the second half is hypocritical, but there must have been ways to flesh things out. I haven't read the book, but I suspect it's much better than the movie, just based on other reviewer's comments.

During the final embarassing "what does God make of all this" speech to the priest (hey, I thought film noirs where supposed to be existential!), I happened to look at the video case and glance at the title. Realizing it hadn't been referenced in the movie yet I stared at the screen and muttered "out with it" and in return got some over-reaching ramblings concerning how "he always rings twice, always rings twice" ext. Yikes.

I have to say though, the movie had some very good irony and employed a load of classic film noir tricks (the final outcome must have influenced the Coen Brothers with "The Man Who Wasn't There"), but I can't help believing the book must have been a lot better. I'd chalk this one up for noir completists and Golden Age MGM enthusiasts only.

This film has all the ingredients of classic noir without actually being a very good movie.

The biggest problem I had with the film was that the characters are an unconvincing blend of naivety and cunning. One minute they're suckered by an old man running a burger bar, the next they're foiling a blackmail plot hatched by corrupt lawmen and wielding guns like they're hardened gangsters.

The ending is equally unconvincing, with the protagonist happily latching onto his death sentence as some kind of salvation that gives him moral certainty in the amoral noir world he's been floundering in. It's as if this is a noir made by people who were anti-noir.

Noir will always involve a clash between innocence and experience but it's not convincingly handled here. It isn't the first noir I'd make that complaint against, either - things like SHadow of a Doubt and Night of the Hunter have a similar unreal atmosphere.

In my opinion the best noir is both believable and hellish; like The Third Man, Double Indemnity, Notorious or Chinatown.

Lana Turner and John Garfield generate sparks in this excellent crime thriller. Turner plays Cora Smith, a restless young waitress married to a much-older man who runs the roadside diner. Garfield plays Frank Chambers, a drifter who turns up at the diner and is captivated by Cora. Cecil Kellaway is great as Cora's naive husband Nick, whose main concern is the diner. The fact that it is filmed in black and white helps create the suspenseful atmosphere and highlight Cora's striking cream outfits. This is far superior to the 1981 remake, for although it was made under a strict production code, it smolders with desire and tension and is an unforgettable classic.

I watched this movie when it was on TV recently, knowing it was a classic movie. I didn't have any expectations, seeing as I barely knew what it was about - I just figured it would be good.

"The Postman Always Rings Twice" is never boring, but it's too long by half an hour, if not more, and it's hard to believe that Frank and Cora would risk so much for each other when their relationship is based purely on physical attraction. Perhaps Cora, stuck in a loveless marriage, could realistically fall for a handsome man who showed an interest in her - but why does Frank plot murder for the sake of a woman he barely knows? Surely he could continue on his travels and find another, equally sexy woman in a less complicated and dangerous situation? Cora and Frank are devoted to each other because the plot requires them to be, not because they have any sort of plausible emotional connection. I believed they were strongly sexually attracted to each other, but I didn't believe that they were connected on any other level.

Throughout this film, I kept thinking of ways that it could be a better movie. I didn't try to, it just happened. At one point I was convinced that Nick had figured out Cora and Frank's plans and was telling them various things just to see them squirm, but no such luck. The movie drags on and on in the last hour, with Frank and Cora going from one melodramatic plot point to the next without really thinking or reflecting on any of them. I got sick of Frank and Cora. I wanted them to be smarter, to do unexpected things - oh, and I wanted Frank to stop successfully punching out guys who look like they could crush him with one arm tied behind their backs.

The acting is good. Once you accept the plot dragging on and on, the script is fairly decent. Still, I wouldn't recommend this movie except perhaps to hardcore film fans, and I wouldn't watch it again.

A note: There is no postman in this film, and the significance of the title is not revealed until the last scene, where we find out it's a lot more boring than we were expecting.

Tay Garnett. Not exactly a household name in directors heaven. Tay was an MGM director who did pretty much what he was told but this is his claim to eternal recognition, no less. A fantastically tightly directed movie. I won't get into what it's about, plenty here have done already.

For those here who dont understand the style or the era, I would suggest they stick to the usual mindless output of Netflux et al. To understand and love noir, you just have to suspend disbelief a while. And have a sense of poetry borne from nostalgia and great books. The story is fabulous, Turner never better. Garfield is still the best actor of his generation... The images keep on coming...When that lipstick rolls across the floor.... still wow. For those who dont understand plots yes Cora is married to an old man yes... to escape a worst life. Before you judge people, LISTEN closely. This ain't a pop video, needs a brain cell to enjoy to the full.

If you can, watch it close to watch Double Indemnity made 2 years before. Similar plot changes such as the murder happening halfway through the film and the other half about doomed lovers destroying themselves are in evidence. Love DI, love Wilder but prefer Postman.

I have watched postman a hundred times and I hope to watch it a hundred more in my lifetime. Yes, it is THAT great.

A married woman and a drifter fall in love, then plot to murder her husband... but even once the deed is done, they must live with the consequences of their actions.

Surprisingly, this version was actually the third filming of The Postman Always Rings Twice, but the first under the novel's original title and the first in English. Previously, the novel had been filmed as Le Dernier Tournant (The Last Turning) in France in 1939, and as Ossessione (Obsession) in Italy in 1943.

Bosley Crowther gave the film a positive review and lauded the acting and direction of film, writing, "Too much cannot be said for the principals. Mr. Garfield reflects to the life the crude and confused young hobo who stumbles aimlessly into a fatal trap. And Miss Turner is remarkably effective as the cheap and uncertain blonde who has a pathetic ambition to 'be somebody' and a pitiful notion that she can realize it through crime." Despite the multiple versions, this is probably the "definitive" one. It certainly is the one that went on to be influential. I even recall such an unlikely place as "Sesame Street" making a parody of it, which is bizarre considering this was probably not a movie that appealed to kids.

Someone previously questioned the meaning of the title. In my view, it refers to the double twist imposed on the story's ending by the author--especially once the legal wrangling between opposing lawyers (near the conclusion) is exposed. Then, finally, after winning a victory of sorts, the unexpected happens--thus, the irony of the title. Anyway, this is as good as it gets--you won't find a better version of this story than this 1946 film. I'm always amused to read that someone on these posts "never looks at black-and-white films", a total putdown of all the great classics that came before color was even possible. How dumb can you get? For fans of complex, hard-bitten murder yarns with gritty background and suspense that tightens slowly like a knot, this is for you. Watch as the two leads get more and more entangled in their own web of deception and lies. Turner established herself as a strong actress who could play a role to the hilt when she identified with it. Garfield, of course, was always at his best in tough guy roles. Watch for my article on Lana Turner in an upcoming issue of FILMS OF THE GOLDEN AGE--much of the inspiration for it came from this particular film noir.

It is wrong to compare this film with Visconti's masterpiece three years earlier, although they are both made on the same story. They are two totally different films. They start on an equal basis, but while Visconti concentrates on sticking to hard core realism and staying firmly on the ground with basics all the way, this film soon grows more romantic as a real noir feature and then turns into extensive complications of court procedures with two lawyers involved, one smarter than the other and both with agenda of their own. It is impossible to say which one is better, I haven't read book, but I presume both films follow the book rather accurately although they diverge into their own elaborations of the case. It's a great film with great actors and great music, the cinematography is superb, there can be no complaints, but the question is who makes the better performance, Lana Turner or John Garfield. They are both at their best, while my favorite actually is Cecil Kellaway as the adorable old fool Nick. Who could ever have the heart to kill such a nice and totally amiable guy?

Lana Turner and John Garfield are great in this classic tale of deception and murder and its hard to imagine that another actress, save Barbara Stanwyck or Joan Crawford, could have played the role of the wayward wife as well as did Turner. Cecil Kellaway has a thankless role and it's hard to believe that he was as clueless as he was about the fires burning around him as Turner and Garfield carry on their affair. Kellaway seems more preoccupied with pinching pennies than noticing how his young, attractive wife is bursting with sexual energy. Turner is as beautiful as ever but she and Kellaway don't make a credible married couple. Hume Cronyn is good as the smug attorney but the courtroom drama is a bit of a letdown. Garfield brings a restless energy to his role and matches Turner's smoldering sexuality.

Hard-bitten drifter comes upon a diner run by a friendly, middle-aged coot and his glamorous, sinister-eyed spouse; soon, the dangerous femme fatale is conspiring with the handsome stranger to bump off her husband. Glossy but still potent film noir was--due to the times--a softened variation on James M. Cain's bestseller, yet is helped by the exciting star-performances from John Garfield and Lana Turner. Occasionally overwrought, but tightly-wound, absorbing and enjoyable. Remade in 1981 as an R-rated noir featuring Jack Nicholson and Jessica Lange in the leads, and who proved to be a surprisingly dull screen duo. Stick with the taut original. *** from ****

Funny, the comment there about the title - it's the strangest part of the adaptation because at least it IS mentioned in the film, but nowhere in the book. It's an absolute mystery to me how this title made it through intact when great titles like "Farewell My Lovely" were dumbed down to "Murder My Sweet" for the sake of Hollywood audiences. James M. Cain originally submitted the story to Alfred Knopf with the title "BBQ" (which makes sense in context) and was asked to change it; he considered "Black Puma" and "The Devil's Checkbook" before settling on the mystifying title by which the novel and both adaptations are well known.

Anyway, I like the film and think it's a great straight adaptation of the book, though the dialogue in the beginning seems a bit hurried (for the sake of the quick establishment of character and story) - the book does a better job of painting the hobo/gypsy lifestyle Frank embraces, and I think it's pretty central to the eventual conflict between him and Cora, so it's a shame it wasn't better depicted in the film.

Lana Turner is good, but probably just a bit mis-cast - she's a little too "glamorous" for Cora, which is also established immediately in the famous opening shot of her legs and lipstick (in contrast to the book, where she was introduced in an apron, working hard for the business like she always says she wants to.)

One note for femme-fatale buffs: Cora and Nick in the film are surnamed "Smith," which in the book was Cora's maiden name. (Nick in the book was Greek - "Papadakis") Is this a statement on marriage in general, or perhaps a desire to eliminate the racial implications in what happens? Seems unlikely; it is what it is, for smarter people than me to unravel.

"So long mister, thanks for the ride!"

It took me three viewings before this postman finally delivered for me. Giving that many opportunities for a film is not normal but my film noir friends all liked this so much, I thought I'd missed something on previous viewings, so I kept trying.

My patience was rewarded on the first viewing of it on DVD. Maybe the clearer picture helped. At any rate, if someone else viewed this and found it boring - particularly the first half - I would understand. Finally, however, I, too,I found it interesting all the way through.

Hume Cronyn, not the stars of the film John Garfield and Lana Turner, sparked my interest. He gave a fascinating portrayal of a lawyer and I wish his role had been bigger. Cecil Kellaway also is good as Tuner's husband, and I enjoyed Leon Ames as the district attorney.

The film almost makes the two low-life leads into sympathetic characters, which is just plain wrong and probably also why twisted critics all like this. They prefer to side with the criminals rather than the victims. Both Garfield and Turner's characters are morally bankrupt. Garfield even jokes early on in the film about how fooling around with another man's wife "is nothing."

The ending was a bit strange. Once again, the first two viewings I didn't like it, but on the third I thought was happened was appropriate.

While not quite a classic, this version of The Postman Always Rings Twice is a truly suspenseful noir with effective (if a bit exaggerated) lighting and several plot twists. John Garfield is very, very good in one of his stereotypical tough guy roles, and Lana Turner is a very good femme fatale.

Sure, the movie is watered down from the book, but I'll be honest- I don't like James M. Cain's novels and I don't think he's a very good writer. I could barely finish this one, let alone Mildred Pierce. You'd honestly be better off just watching the movie versions of his books and not bothering with the books at all- unless you like cheap //noir// fare with lots of explicit descriptions of women's chests and *** scenes.

This movie manages to effectively- make that MORE than effectively- use the tactic of *** without bodies, passion without ***. The chemistry is sizzling, perhaps because its stars are rather attractive (well, Lana Turner's an above average M-G-M glamour girl and John Garfield is rather handsome for a guy with a large head and big ears).

The plot is barebones, standard noir. John Garfield is a drifter. He meets Lana Turner while stopping at a gas station/hotel, the hotel that she and her much older husband own. Turner and Garfield commence an affair that will eventually destroy them both (literally), while also planning to knock off Turner's husband. After a couple of failed attempts, they succeed, but little do they know...The Postman Always Rings Twice.

How's this for funny? I LIKED the moralistic ending. It's the same ending that was in the book, but the book's title was a red herring (there was no metaphor at the end, or even any mention of any postman, unlike in the movie where there is a metaphor- the title makes a lot more sense with the metaphor).

The ending also made me a little upset, despite the fact that Frank and Cora (Garfield and Turner) are despicable characters and deserved what they got...but no one deserves to go like that. This film is very well produced- good noirish atmosphere, good acting (closest Lana Turner ever came to acting, in fact), amazing usage of symbolism by Turner's character wearing white in every scene but three, lighting and cinematography. There is some melodramatic dialogue, but it never crosses the line into unintentionally camp/funny or rather hokey and unrealistic.

I haven't seen the remake, but I don't want to. If you've only seen the remake, watch this one. I hope they don't remake it again.

My rating is 8.5/10.

John Garfield (Frank) drifts into a small town and gets work at a café/diner run by an unlikely husband and wife team, Cecil Kellaway (Nick) and Lana Turner (Cora). Garfield and Turner have an attraction for each other that reaches a dangerous level and we follow the consequences of their actions...

The cast are all good - my favourite is Hume Cronyn who plays "Arthur Keats", a very cunning lawyer, and he steals the show in every scene that he is in. Lana Turner is also a very cool customer and one of her best moments occurs after she has just been kissed by Garfield for the first time. Instead of the customary slap in the face that we are all expecting, she just re-applies her make-up and walks past him. How cool is she?

As for the story, you need to suspend belief on a few occasions. First of all, it is just completely impossible to believe the marriage between fat, old Kellaway and young, attractive Turner. Even less difficult to take in is the willingness on Kellaway's part to encourage the much younger, better-looking and better suited lover for Turner to spend as much time possible as he can with her. WHAT!!? This Kellaway character is INCREDIBLY stupid. Another corker of an idea is to have Garfield and Turner plan to kill Kellaway by throwing some marbles under him so that he will slip and kill himself. This is getting pretty stupid now, isn't it?

There are some memorable scenes but the ending is rather too convenient and the final scene has some rather forced dialogue to try and justify the film's title. Overall, it's an entertaining film that is a little long but deserves another look.

One of the greatest of the Film Noir classics. This is the story of an unhappy woman who enlists the aid of a drifter to kill her husband. It begins with what appears to be a mere flirtation and escalates to a torrid love affair. Lana Turner is sumptuous, and John Garfield has that masculine edge, a dark man, somewhat mysterious, and truly clueless as he gets into more and more trouble. The two begin a sophisticated plot to do in her old man. He can't believe his good fortune to have this beautiful woman want him. Oh well. The best laid plans. The desolation of the place and the use of fine black and white cinematography enhance the danger.

This film packs sadistic humor and a nice murder with no mystery into a solid punch (the suspense of waiting for the inevitable "second ring" of justice supplies the necessary force to move the plot to its conclusion). Garfield makes the movie with his convincing portrayal of a drifter drawn into murder by femme fatale Turner.

What kind of bugs me is Lana Turner's bad acting and MGM's usual insistence that the character she plays be shown in the best possible light -- as if Turner could play a murderess, but only as long as she wasn't unlikeable or unglamorous.

Still, a good suspense film well photographed and directed. Audrey Totter makes a brief appearance (she should have been allowed to steal the movie).