"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.

Drifter Frank Chambers (Jack Nicholson) decides to stay and get a job from gas station owner Nick Papadakis (John Colicos) when he sees Nick's wife Cora (Jessica Lange). Cora is tired of her marriage and convinces Frank to kill Nick. After some failures and hesitations, they finally succeed. The prosecutor tries Cora and use tricks to pit her against Frank. Defense attorney Mr. Katz (Michael Lerner) is able to use tricks to get an acquittal.

I find their relationship careening between love and hate too jarring. While I like the two leads, they have trouble maintaining the chemistry. The movie is trying to stuff a lot in. I can't blame it all on the movie for trying to cram the novel into the two hour movie. At times, the movie feels too abrupt. There is one major change for the ending that actually makes it less poetic.

It doesn't seem relevant to me to have read the book or to have watched the previous versions in order to value the film for what it is: A non-dissembled classic tragedy. Crude, very expressive, of brutish characters, clearly focused on their inescapable sacrifice. The best? How the constant humidity of the atmospheres is portrayed, the clear and fine exposure of the eroticism, the depth of the shadows of the characters: Aggressive punks oozing of sex for whom the red lines don't exist. Characters that fit perfectly with the genre, in fact. The best of the best? The outstanding performance, very transpired, relevant by the chemistry between the actors. Excellent stuff! After the movie I ran to buy the book. I promise to read it soon. OK, I was crossing my fingers.