Il postino suona sempre due volte

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.

Twice is nice. Hollywood had to try twice to get this story right. Lana Turner was beautiful in the 1946 version, but Jessica Lange was something to kill for opposite Jack Nicholson.

Such raw sensuality would easily persuade a man to lose his very soul. Nicholson's part is certainly unscrupulous to begin with, but in Jessica Lange he finds a confederate with even less scruples. The legal loose ends that dangled in the earlier version are avoided this time with a more plausible chain of events... and the story ends when the story ought to end, instead of being dragged on.

Wonderful character and situation development, intriguing and engaging, even when you know the story. Nice twists of the story from the Lana Turner and Italian ("Ossessione" 1943) versions.

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.

Immensely watchable, this remake of the 1940s classic is sexed up by writer David Mamet and director Bob Rafelson. Jack Nicholson is a drifter who ingratiates himself into the lives of roadside diner/gas station owner John Colicos and his impossibly sexy wife Jessica Lange. Soon Lange and Nicholson are having sex EVERYWHERE...and plotting to bump off Colicos. Aided by great cinematography by Sven Nykvist and very evocative production design by George Jenkins, Rafelson manages to capture James M. Cain's ironic novel and all it's sordidness. Nicholson is terrific but Lange gives a career making performance...this is the movie that put her on the map after the KING KONG debacle. There are times when she acts Nicholson off the screen. Colicos is fine, if a bit old for his role and Michael Lerner is in it too. Anjelica Huston has a really odd cameo as a lion tamer!

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.