Mjeteconer Just perfect...

Libramedi Intense, gripping, stylish and poignant

SincereFinest disgusting, overrated, pointless

Solidrariol Am I Missing Something?

Richie-67-485852 Good story and actors deliver fine entertainment in this movie drama. The movie moves at a steady pace unraveling along the way making the viewer wonder what would they do and why along with the characters. In the course of the story being told, interesting developments take place adding more viewer attraction. Worthy to note is the little diner and where it is located. Quiet diner, with traffic that does repairs and sells gas sustains itself if you work it. They apparently get greedy and work other things thus making one wonder what was the point? The idea of appreciating something after you lost it is introduced here not once but twice and you wonder why it took two times. Enter human nature and perhaps as many as 70 times for the many to come around if they have grace. In this movie, the characters ran out of that plus time and what was lost stays that way. Another interesting note. Watch how people who break the law try to live a normal life. But the question begs...How can they? Its not what you have but how you came to have it that all mankind has to answer for. In this movie, they show you how you can gain the whole world but lose your soul and is demonstrated very well. While the postman may ring twice to make sure you get your package....

PimpinAinttEasy Dear Jessica Lange,you really nailed the working class femme fatale, Cora. It really was a stellar performance from you. Your use of body posture (for example: the way Cora sat on the ground during the picnic) to convey the character's unabashed rustic charm was very commendable. The cinematographer paid special attention to your rough hands and almost muscular arms. I think your performance is superior to both Lana Turner and Clara Calamai. While Turner looked too sophisticated to be a working class woman, Clara Calamai was overtly bovine and unattractive.Jack Nicholson was terrific as always, there are few actors who can match his screen presence. But he was too old for the role. And while the sex scenes between you guys were true to the book, I did not find them to be too erotic or anything. This was a bit of a drawback. While there is something satanic about Nicholson, he is not someone I would think about if I was making a movie with some really hot love making scenes.I liked the film's pastoral setting. There are some really pleasant shots of rural life that expressed the idyllic nature of the character's lives. The house and café where the events unfolded was a great set piece. The drawers with all that beautiful canned food stood out.However, the film's languid pace was in direct contrast to the succession of explosive events in the book by James.M.Cain. The film was too long at 2 hours.But it was still very engaging especially due to your presence, Jessica.Best Regards,Pimpin.

Rodrigo Amaro Yes, this story was told a few times in the past, being one of the versions the classic of same title starring Lana Turner and John Garfield, one of the most acclaimed stories of all time "The Postman Always Rings Twice" becomes a sexy, romantic and sad tale on the hands of Bob Rafelson ("The King of Marvin Gardens"), yet this work resurrected the film noir genre in the 1980's, giving new forms, exploring a more sexual and violent side which wasn't possible to be presented in the golden era of noir.With the same story as the 1946 adaptation of James M. Cain's novel, the film stars Jack Nicholson as Frank Chambers, the drifter who fell in love with Cora Papadakis (Jessica Lange), a simple housewife who helps her husband Nick (John Colicos) to manage a roadside diner in the East Coast. But they have a plan to kill Nick and live together forever but the destiny has some tricks, up's and down's, twists and turns to make their lives complicated each time their plot fail again and again. The difference between the seductive and classic version of this same story is the approach given by writer David Mamet, who made the love story between these two characters something sexy, animalistic, a full exploration of the senses with a lustful couple ripping each other's clothes, having sex on a kitchen table (one of the most iconic moments of the 1980's), something almost gratuitous but very effective for most audiences nowadays. While Tay Garnett's version was a provocation that could never go too far in its sensuality, only showing short kisses but very effective tender moments, this update is more of a visual film made to present something exciting, thrilling. And Nicholson and Lange have the chemistry and quality in their wild performances here.To me, comparing back to back both films they're equally great just as the novel. They have their differences, specially concerning about the characters characterization and performances of actors, the way they were written. Examples: Nicholson is more believable as a hobo than John Garfield, in the way he's dressed, the way he talks and moves; the Cora played by Lange was something new, more passive and quite joyful which is nothing similar than the one of the book and 1946 film materials, who is very smart, dominating in the relationship with Frank; but the most striking difference was the friendly Nick, played here as an rude and irritating man, therefore, the script is basically giving a reason for us not like this guy and cheer that the horrible plans of Frank and Cora become successful. The George C. Scott rule of not giving awards to actors unless the play the same parts is useful here to see in which films the acting worked better. If only we could team Jack Nicholson and Lana Turner together....we would have something explosive and very interesting. On a minor look to the film, I really enjoyed the ending with a devastating moment, without the trial and that whole depressive conclusion (although it ended sad the same way, but this time the viewers will make their own conclusions instead of having the title explained at the final and moralistic scene as MGM's version). Also enjoyed Sven Nykivst colorful cinematography with a right use of darkness in the most tense moments. The melodramatic soundtrack works one time or the other but for the most of the film is just silly. The importance of this version of "The Postman Always Rings Twice" is the fact that it brought back the film noir with a new style, new faces (ok, Nicholson was in "Chinatown" in 1974, so it doesn't count) and more baldness. After this film, we had "Body Heat", the parody/homage "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid", and plenty of others. Take a look and enjoy it. 10/10

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.