AVALIAÇÃO DA IMDb
6,6/10
27 mil
SUA AVALIAÇÃO
A sensual esposa de um proprietário de lanchonete e um vagabundo sem raízes começam um caso sordidamente quente e conspiram para assassinar seu marido grego.A sensual esposa de um proprietário de lanchonete e um vagabundo sem raízes começam um caso sordidamente quente e conspiram para assassinar seu marido grego.A sensual esposa de um proprietário de lanchonete e um vagabundo sem raízes começam um caso sordidamente quente e conspiram para assassinar seu marido grego.
- Direção
- Roteiristas
- Artistas
- Prêmios
- 1 vitória e 2 indicações no total
Thomas Hill
- Barlow
- (as Tom Hill)
- Direção
- Roteiristas
- Elenco e equipe completos
- Produção, bilheteria e muito mais no IMDbPro
Avaliações em destaque
"The Postman Always Rings Twice" is the second American version of the famous James M. Cain novel and the fourth overall version. In addition, Émile Zola's story "Thérèse Raquin" clearly was more than just the inspiration for Cain, as it's so similar, too similar, to be coincidental. And the Zola novel has been made at least twenty or more times! So in other words, this 1981 film is a version of a story that's been made over and over and over again....to the point where you wonder why they keep making it!
As I watched this 1981 film, I was pleasantly surprised by one thing...it really does stick very closely to the novel. In many, many ways the characters are nothing like the overly sanitized Lana Turner/John Garfield version. Jack Nicholson's version of Frank is far nastier than the drifter played in the 1946 film. He has a prison record and isn't likable in the least. As for Cora, she's a lot kinkier than she was in earlier versions! In fact, in 1946 they simply couldn't have stuck too closely to the novel due to the tough Production Code...which prevented nudity and kinks from being included in films...and Cora really has some kinks in this film! So, at least it is a much more faithful version of the story...albeit still yet one more version of the story. And this leads me to the important question...is it any good? Well, yes and no. The acting and production are pretty good and the story engaging...but it also is familiar (I know I've mentioned this OFTEN already) and the courtroom scene where Jessica Lange has her outburst is absolutely absurdly overacted. Still, not a bad little film.
As I watched this 1981 film, I was pleasantly surprised by one thing...it really does stick very closely to the novel. In many, many ways the characters are nothing like the overly sanitized Lana Turner/John Garfield version. Jack Nicholson's version of Frank is far nastier than the drifter played in the 1946 film. He has a prison record and isn't likable in the least. As for Cora, she's a lot kinkier than she was in earlier versions! In fact, in 1946 they simply couldn't have stuck too closely to the novel due to the tough Production Code...which prevented nudity and kinks from being included in films...and Cora really has some kinks in this film! So, at least it is a much more faithful version of the story...albeit still yet one more version of the story. And this leads me to the important question...is it any good? Well, yes and no. The acting and production are pretty good and the story engaging...but it also is familiar (I know I've mentioned this OFTEN already) and the courtroom scene where Jessica Lange has her outburst is absolutely absurdly overacted. Still, not a bad little film.
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 story of a drifter working on a by the road dinner, and the owner's wife, disenchanted with her marriage sets upon herself to seduce the drifter in the hopes of a more satisfying relationship.
This is the base of the script, in which Jessica Lange and Jack Nicholson shine in their performances bringing different dimensions to their characters and, in true, bringing them to life.
Frank Chambers (Jack Nicholson) is a bored drifter, with some jail time under his belt not looking for anything in particular. He gets enchanted by Cora (Jessica Lange) and ends up doing everything for them to be together.
I think Jack Nicholson is an outstanding performer and it shows here some glimpses of what he will put in The Shining later on.
I also particularly liked John P. Ryan in the small supporting role of Kennedy where we can see in him the double-stabbing typical that he will show in later roles.
All in all it is a good movie, but I don't consider it as being erotic. Maybe for 1980's standards, but even so I doubt it.
This is the base of the script, in which Jessica Lange and Jack Nicholson shine in their performances bringing different dimensions to their characters and, in true, bringing them to life.
Frank Chambers (Jack Nicholson) is a bored drifter, with some jail time under his belt not looking for anything in particular. He gets enchanted by Cora (Jessica Lange) and ends up doing everything for them to be together.
I think Jack Nicholson is an outstanding performer and it shows here some glimpses of what he will put in The Shining later on.
I also particularly liked John P. Ryan in the small supporting role of Kennedy where we can see in him the double-stabbing typical that he will show in later roles.
All in all it is a good movie, but I don't consider it as being erotic. Maybe for 1980's standards, but even so I doubt it.
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.
Você sabia?
- CuriosidadesDavid Mamet's first screenplay.
- Erros de gravaçãoModern-day paper currency is used in craps game set during Great Depression, instead of silver certificate dollar bills then in use.
- Citações
Cora: I gotta have you, Frank. If it was just us. If it was just you and me.
Frank Chambers: What are you talking about?
Cora: I'm getting tired of what's right and wrong.
Frank Chambers: They hang people for that, Cora.
- Versões alternativasCBS edited 30 minutes from this film for its 1986 network television premiere.
- ConexõesEdited into American Cinema: Film Noir (1995)
Principais escolhas
Faça login para avaliar e ver a lista de recomendações personalizadas
- How long is The Postman Always Rings Twice?Fornecido pela Alexa
Detalhes
- Data de lançamento
- Países de origem
- Idiomas
- Também conhecido como
- El cartero siempre llama dos veces
- Locações de filme
- Barnsdall Rio Grande Service Station, Goleta, Califórnia, EUA(Cora and a Drunk Nick and Frank get Fuel)
- Empresas de produção
- Consulte mais créditos da empresa na IMDbPro
Bilheteria
- Orçamento
- US$ 12.000.000 (estimativa)
- Faturamento bruto nos EUA e Canadá
- US$ 12.376.625
- Faturamento bruto mundial
- US$ 12.383.416
Contribua para esta página
Sugerir uma alteração ou adicionar conteúdo ausente
Principal brecha
What was the official certification given to O Destino Bate à sua Porta (1981) in Japan?
Responda