El cartero llama dos veces

I must admit I was quite impressed with Bob Rafelson's adaptation of the depression era novel, "The Postman Always Rings Twice". Jack Nicholson plays Frank, a vagabond who eventually falls in love with a sexy waitress named Cora,played by Jessica Lange, who reciprocates this love. However, there is one problem standing in the way: Cora is married, unhappily married, but married nonetheless.

Aside from an intriguing story, "The Postman Always Rings Twice" is a wonderfully put together film, as Rafelson does a splendid job delving into the characters and their relationships, as well as examining the problems associated with forbidden love. As a viewer, you truly feel the passion between Lange and Nicholson,(who both won academy award nominations), and you almost feel for their pain. In the 1930's women in America were at quite a different position than they are today. They were expected to stay with the husband no matter what the circumstances, as divorce was quite uncommon. Lange was very convincing as this trapped 30's woman who eventually broke free the only way she knew possible..

I definitely recommend "The Postman Always Rings Twice" for any fan of entertaining and thought-provoking movies. Although the character development is not quite as extensive as some of Rafelson's early work, particularly the 1971 classic "Five Easy Pieces", the movie combines an intriguing screenplay with superb acting to make its own statement.

There are so many problems with this dull, listless filmization of the James M. Cain classic, where does one begin? Well, let's start from the beginning. It tries to compete with the great 1946 version. How do you top a film as brilliant as that? The answer is, you don't! Even if this new version does follow the original novel more closely, who cares? As the tragic, plotting lovers, Jessica Lange and Jack Nicholson have absolutely no chemistry whatsoever, so they generate very little heat in their allegedly steamy sex scenes. It's as if the filmmakers were so aware of the miscasting that they tried to disguise this by making the sex scenes between the duo more erotic, meaning more explicit. BIG MISTAKE! This just makes the lack of chemistry even more painfully obvious, and the sex scenes rather silly. Despite having virtually nothing in common, Nicholson and Lange can't keep their hands off of each other and do a lot of huffing and puffing. They go at it like two wild animals in heat, but this does little to make the film any more watchable or entertaining. Yes, Lange is even more breathtakingly beautiful than usual, and she brings more intensity and depth to the role than the script really required. But, whether she knows it or not, Nicholson is a constant thorn in her side. Sure, Jack is a great actor too, but, even though his character is a plotting murderer, there was a romantic edge to the role when John Garfield played it in 1946, and Nicholson does not have one bit of that romanticism. I still kringe when I think of him as the love interest in TERMS OF ENDEARMENT. How did he ever get to be cast in parts like that? Stay as clear from this as possible and settle only for the untoppable original.

A remake of the 1946 film, this version features Jack Nicholson and Jessica Lange, with a momentous white hot chemistry that can't possibly sustain itself but affords a memorable scene in the restaurant kitchen about ten minutes into the film which leads to the eventual plot to do in her older Greek husband. A story wherein neither would have the nerve to do such a thing alone, but together they make a job of it on one of the darkest nights and darkest rural roads ever. The trial for the murder features another couple of great performances by Michael Lerner as the resourceful to a fault defense attorney (if you were on trial for your life, you'd want this guy for a lawyer), and his investigator who becomes a menacing presence later in the film, played by John P Ryan. Very nicely photographed in color, it's set in the coastal hills and valleys north of LA, dotted with live oaks and capturing the rich earthy tones of the late afternoon golden hued hillsides that nicely contrast with the desperate story of the two lovers.

The Postman Always Rings Twice (1981)

** (out of 4)

Considering the talent in front of and behind the camera, there's really no way to look at this adaptation of the James M. Cain novel as anything but a disappointment. In the film, Jack Nicholson plays drifter Frank Chambers who enters the lives of Cora (Jessica Lange) and her much older husband Nick (John Colicos). Soon the drifter and Cora start up a sexual relationship, which leads to them planning the murder of the husband. This here would be the fourth version of the classic story and the second one filmed in America. Unlike the previous versions, director Bob Rafelson didn't have to worry about censors but even so this version isn't nearly as hot as the earlier one with Lana Turner. Outside a rather intense sex scene towards the start of the picture, this thing really never takes off, which is too bad because they've got a terrific cast and some beautiful settings but in the end the film is just flat. I think the first forty- five minutes are the best thing in the film as we see the love triangle set up and there's no question that the director has the look of the era down perfectly. I thought the setting really added a lot of atmosphere but sadly very little else happens. Nicholson was the perfect choice to play a drifter but the screenplay really doesn't give him too much to work with. Lange is clearly the best thing in the movie as she delivers a sexual charge to the thing. Colicos is also extremely good as the husband in a strong supporting performance. What really hurts the film is the second half because the director never really makes us believe or feel anything for the two leads. Are we supposed to hate them for what they've done? Are we supposed to be rooting for them to get away with the murder and live happily ever after? The entire second half of the film features way too many dialogue scenes that lead no where and in the end the "romance" that starts to bloom towards the end just never fully works. The film isn't nearly as bad as its reputation but at the same time there's no question that it's a major disappointment and a bitter feeling takes over when you think about what could have been.

This novel adaptation was the second after a first movie in the 1940s. This one retains the period setting but ups the ante in terms of sexual content, featuring one of the most explicit sex scenes ever shown in a mainstream film which goes far further than any film before - or since.

The plot is simple in the extreme: the wife of a Greek man who runs his own diner, bored and neglected by her husband, begins a torrid affair with a drifter her husband employs as his mechanic. From there on in, the story gradually develops in often fascinating ways as the two lovers realise that only one thing's stopping their happiness: her husband.

The film is shot through with a grim and gritty emphasis, best realised by Nicholson's grubby mechanic. He's nobody's idea of a sex symbol, although Jessica Lange is quite ravishing as the object of his attentions. This focus on realism over Hollywood fantasy is what makes the film so watchable and, in places, uncomfortable as it becomes clear that the lovers have something of a sado-masochistic relationship.

Things move into courtroom-drama territory later on (featuring some terrific acting work from Michael Lerner as the lawyer) whilst handing a number of blink-and-you'll-miss-em minor parts to familiar faces (John P. Ryan as a blackmailer, Angelica Houston as - bizarrely - a circus owner, cult favourite Don Calfa as a circus hand, Brion James as a thug and Christopher Lloyd as a salsman).

I found the film to be sometimes compelling and never boring. It's one of those films you watch to find out just what happens to the central characters, a curiosity bolstered by the feeling that they're never going to unentangle themselves from this mess. Come the surprise climax, well...you'll have to see for yourself.