Visitors Review

(2012-05-26 08:47)

Lana Turner is Ssssssmokin'

I've yet to see the perfect noir movie - I'm not saying that it isn't out there, I just haven't run across it yet. This film, the original 'Postman', comes about as close as any, other than a couple of Bogart and Bacall's efforts from the same time. I can't say what it is I'd consider perfect in a noir film (I guess it's one of those things that I can't define, but I know it when I see it). I do know that one ingredient is a lovely leading lady, and for that reason alone, if nothing else, 'Postman' outscores much of the competition. I can't remember seeing Lana Turner in anything else, and a quick search of her movies didn't turn up anything I'm likely to watch anytime soon, but while watching 'Postman', I was amazed at just how attractive she was. That, in and of itself, isn't really a reason for watching 'Postman', but it sure didn't hurt.I've always thought that films of this era generally skirted a lot of reality in order to appease the censors, but this film holds up well over time - both my fiancée and I were caught up in the story till the end, though we are both liable to give a movie several chances before giving up. Like other films of the period, more is suggested than is shown (those looking for something more explicit might enjoy the Nicholson/Lange remake from a few years ago), but director Tay Garnett skillfully handles the material, and both John Garfield and Lana Turner are more than capable of playing the sympathetic, but flawed lovers. (I will say that I thought Ms. Turner's acting abilities were showcased best when she played the icy vixen or calmly aloof. When the scene called for heated emotion, I thought she may have been overmatched). Too often, films from the forties and fifties don't age well, especially dramas, which can seem more campy than dramatic. Some viewers find this unbearable, but 'The Postman Always Rings Twice' should appeal to fans of films from this time as well as those who are still on the fence. Special features in this edition include an image gallery, a introduction by Richard Jewell, trailers for both the original and the remake of the film, and the John Garfield Story - an original production by AMC. I enjoy watching the trailers, especially for older films like this, just to see the difference in how films are marketed, so this was an interesting inclusion, as was Richard Jewell's points about the film and the principle people behind it, but I generally get bored looking through all the production stills. 'The John Garfield Story' was actually a pretty thorough documentary, and even though I'm not a big fan of hagiographic remembrances of film stars, I gained quite a bit of respect for Garfield. Much of his popularity came from his acting, but it was as a human being that he had his greatest successes. Recommended for the film noir enthusiast, fans of wartime cinema, and for the lovely Ms. Turner.

ccthemovieman-1 (2012-05-26 00:44)

This Postman Had To Ring 3 Times

It took me three viewings before this postman finally delivered for me.Giving that many opportunities for a film is not normal but my filmnoir friends all liked this so much, I thought I'd missed something onprevious viewings, so I kept trying.My patience was rewarded on the first viewing of it on DVD. Maybe theclearer picture helped. At any rate, if someone else viewed this andfound it boring - particularly the first half - I would understand.Finally, however, I, too,I found it interesting all the way through.Hume Cronyn, not the stars of the film John Garfield and Lana Turner,sparked my interest. He gave a fascinating portrayal of a lawyer and Iwish his role had been bigger. Cecil Kellaway also is good as Tuner'shusband, and I enjoyed Leon Ames as the district attorney.The film almost makes the two low-life leads into sympatheticcharacters, which is just plain wrong and probably also why twistedcritics all like this. They prefer to side with the criminals ratherthan the victims. Both Garfield and Turner's characters are morallybankrupt. Garfield even jokes early on in the film about how foolingaround with another man's wife "is nothing."The ending was a bit strange. Once again, the first two viewings Ididn't like it, but on the third I thought was happened wasappropriate.

didi-5 (2012-05-24 16:45)

well, that's class

Say what you like about Lana Turner's acting ability, that's probably notwhat the studio hung on to her for! The scene which sticks in everyone'smind who has seen this movie is the one where she drops the lipstick, letsit roll across the floor to John Garfield's feet, then the camera pans upher lily white costume to see the turbaned Cora. Now, that's sexy. JessicaLange and Jack Nicholson and their antics amongst the bread rolls in theremake was not!The plot is fairly contrived, from James M Cain's pulp novel about illicitlovers who plot and commit a murder, and what happens after. Cecil Kellawayplays Lana's jovial and cuckolded husband Nick with ease, while Leon Amesputs in a familiar but well-played bit as the couples' lawyer. Others inthe cast making less of an impact are Hume Cronyn and AudreyTotter.I have to give John Garfield his due though. His career was cut short fartoo soon and it is always great to see him on the screen. A thoughtfulactor who sticks in the mind long after the picture is through. This version of 'The Postman Always Rings Twice' is the only one worth yourtime, really. Even if it is to gawk at the much-married drama queenherself.

(2012-05-24 01:29)

This is second to none version.

This review is from: The Postman Always Rings Twice (DVD) A masterpiece was due to the original as well as the powerful combination of charismatic persona, Lana Turner and John Garfield, Impressive acting, fine directing. Lana Turner plays typically calculating femme fatale. However mysterious sensual unique. Postman as doom-ridden victim, John Garfield delivery catastrophe while the harvest of evil affairs causes inevitable retribution. This is a serious crime drama, but the other side a cynical justice drama.

Teebs2 (2012-05-22 11:06)

Two thirds great Noir

An early film noir, often regarded as a minor classic of the genre.Starts with a near identical premise to another James M. Cainadaptation, Billy Wilder's superior "Double Indemnity" before taking amore convoluted, courtroom based ending.Lana Turner and John Garfield have heaps of chemistry together, and thefirst two thirds of the film are highly entertaining, regardless of howmany times the plot has been recycled since. The courtroom ending is alittle less entertaining as the characters and contrivances accumulate,but still enjoyable as a whole. Some amusing negotiating around thelimitations of the production code, but the dialogue hasn't the sparkleof Wilder's film, or the directorial style.

DKOSTY (2012-05-22 03:11)

Film Noir Chemistry 101

John Garfield and Lana Turner had the chemistry which sold tickets tothis movie. What is interesting is the support they get which makes itinto a solid film. Crudos should go to the men who play the Lawyers asthey bring off their small roles quite well.The book must do better than this film as there are times where therealism is very much lacking. In particular the story line with Turnerscharacter confession and the 2 idiots who later try to blackmail hermakes no sense. Why would she offer them money for a piece of paper shecan't be penalized for? There are some other flaws in the plotting thatring out as recommendations to read the book too. The strength of thefilm is the acting which makes you want to watch in spite of the holesin the script. Age makes these holes look gaping more to todaysaudience than the 1946 ones.

asaquon1 (2012-05-19 14:56)

SAFETY FIRST ! (spoilers)

Hmmmmm. what did I get out of this movie? A lot of safety tips: bewareof poorly insulated wiring; beware of steep hillsides; pay attentionwhen you're driving...all these incidentals which got in the way of thecharacters' goals.The most publicized aspect of this movie has been Lana Turner's looks.OK, but the real scene-stealer in this movie is the performance of HumeCronyn as the defence attorney. If they had to make a sequel, he shouldbe the lead character.A superior noir film is Double Indemnity. Postman is so convoluted inthe relationship between Turner and Garfield that it really lackssuspense. The ending of the movie was a big let-down, and predictable:so many movies of this era couldn't/wouldn't let the characters getaway with their evil deeds. When watching movies, I am always dismayedat characters that look at each other in conversation while one themdrives (a car). I'm always thinking, who does that in real life withoutgetting into an accident. This movie answers that question.

funkyfry (2012-05-19 11:48)

Superior film noir emerges slightly tainted

This film packs sadistic humor and a nice murder with no mystery into asolid punch (the suspense of waiting for the inevitable "second ring" ofjustice supplies the necessary force to move the plot to its conclusion). Garfield makes the movie with his convincing portrayal of a drifter drawninto murder by femme fatale Turner. What kind of bugs me is Lana Turner's bad acting and MGM's usual insistencethat the character she plays be shown in the best possible light -- as ifTurner could play a murderess, but only as long as she wasn't unlikeable orunglamorous. Still, a good suspense film well photographed and directed. Audrey Tottermakes a brief appearance (she should have been allowed to steal themovie).

(2012-05-17 19:04)

Film Noir Circa 1946

Director Tay Garnett's adaptation of James M. Cain's THE POSTMAN ALWAYS PLAYS TWICE holds up well after sixty years. In spite of the restraints the director had to work with during that period, Lana Turner as Cora Smith and John Garfield as Frank, the couple who plot the murder of Cora's husband Nick, still manage to heat up the screen. The sexual chemistry is there and all that late-night frolicking they do at the beach gets right erotic. The film though interesting is less than perfect. It takes a little effort on the part of the viewer to believe that Cora prances around her husband's diner that is hardly more than a greasy spoon-- in the middle of the Depression-- dressed all in white, in a turbin, short shorts, heels and showing her midriff. And only a Hollywood star of the calibre of Ms. Turner would return from a swim perfectly coiffed in a dry swimsuit. Additionally, in the ending minutes of the film Garfield hits the viewer over the head in a wordy explanation, just before he is to be executed, of what the title of the movie really means.That a sixty-year-old movie is still watched and enjoyed, however, for more reasons than just its camp effect speaks volumes for it. This is not a bad way to spend two hours of your evening.

maraudertheslashnymph (2012-05-17 10:42)

The postman didn't ring for me

I watched this movie when it was on TV recently, knowing it was aclassic movie. I didn't have any expectations, seeing as I barely knewwhat it was about - I just figured it would be good."The Postman Always Rings Twice" is never boring, but it's too long byhalf an hour, if not more, and it's hard to believe that Frank and Corawould risk so much for each other when their relationship is basedpurely on physical attraction. Perhaps Cora, stuck in a lovelessmarriage, could realistically fall for a handsome man who showed aninterest in her - but why does Frank plot murder for the sake of awoman he barely knows? Surely he could continue on his travels and findanother, equally sexy woman in a less complicated and dangeroussituation? Cora and Frank are devoted to each other because the plotrequires them to be, not because they have any sort of plausibleemotional connection. I believed they were strongly sexually attractedto each other, but I didn't believe that they were connected on anyother level.Throughout this film, I kept thinking of ways that it could be a bettermovie. I didn't try to, it just happened. At one point I was convincedthat Nick had figured out Cora and Frank's plans and was telling themvarious things just to see them squirm, but no such luck. The moviedrags on and on in the last hour, with Frank and Cora going from onemelodramatic plot point to the next without really thinking orreflecting on any of them. I got sick of Frank and Cora. I wanted themto be smarter, to do unexpected things - oh, and I wanted Frank to stopsuccessfully punching out guys who look like they could crush him withone arm tied behind their backs.The acting is good. Once you accept the plot dragging on and on, thescript is fairly decent. Still, I wouldn't recommend this movie exceptperhaps to hardcore film fans, and I wouldn't watch it again.A note: There is no postman in this film, and the significance of thetitle is not revealed until the last scene, where we find out it's alot more boring than we were expecting.

vincentlynch-moonoi (2012-05-16 22:26)

Odd man out

So, does it make sense that old Cecil Kellway would be married tobombshell Lana Turner to begin with. No, of course it doesn't, butthings like that do happen.The problem with this film is that there is no "good guy". This is oneof those modern movies (despite being made in 1946) where neither ofthe main characters -- Lana Turner or John Garfield -- is at alllikable. She's trash, he wants trash. Both low class.I guess I'm the odd man out on this film. Critics at the time werefairly positive, and today on Rotten Tomatoes this gets very highmarks. I disagree. At first the plot is predictable, but once they getinto the murder there are too many plot twists...particularly once theyget to court.On the other hand, I have to admit the acting here is quite good. LanaTurner is fine, so is John Garfield. There are interesting performancesby Hume Cronyn (quite off base casting, here) and Leon Ames (whom I'musually less impressed by).So, high grades for the acting. Low grades for the plot.

Dennis Littrell (2012-05-16 08:47)

Talky version of Cain's first novel

The best thing about this rather vapid 1946 production of the James M.Cain pulp novel/turned literature is Lana Turner as Cora, but not forher acting, which was ordinary, but because she looked so good.Director Tay Garnett had her in stunning, shapely white dresses, pantsand uni's that showed off her figure, complemented by a platinum hairdothat in glorious black and white was so intense it was almost colorful.(People on the set may have needed to wear shades.) After she returnsfrom her mother's funeral, Garnett has her in the blackest black from ablack hat to her black shoes--heels, I should emphasize, since she wasalmost always in heels in the movie, even returning from the beach orcrawling up a canyon in the Santa Monica Mountains, she was in heels.John Garfield, who plays Frank Chambers as though wandering through therole (which is not entirely inappropriate), is sympathetic and has thekind of raw animal appeal that we would expect to see in Cain'sdepression-era antihero. But he too was not out to win any actingawards. Cecil Kellaway, who plays Nick (in this case a "Nick Smith,"not the Greek immigrant Nick Papadakis from the novel) does the bestacting job as he brings a bit of the delusive psychology of an olderman with a beautiful young wife to life when he announces that heselling the café and moving to the backwoods of Canada so Cora can takecare of him and his invalid sister! This bit of senile daydreaming wasnot in the novel; indeed a lot of what transpired in thisself-conscious, misconstructed flick was not in the novel, including asappy post-ending in which the title is "explained." I won't go intothe explanation except to say it wasn't convincing, but I canunderstand why they tacked it on since nowhere else (that I know of) isthe title explained. Cain's original, and appropriate title was,"Bar-B-Que." See my review of the novel at Amazon.com for somespeculation on how they came up with the rather magical title.A better rendition of the Postman is the 1981 production starring JackNicholson and Jessica Lange. It too is no masterpiece, but it is bothtruer to the novel and less talky. A true to the spirit of the noveladaptation would require a terse, stream-lined directorial style withan emphasis on blind animal passions unconsciously acted out, somethingnovelist Cormac McCarthy might accomplish if he directed film. I thinkthat Christopher Nolan, who directed the strikingly original Memento(2000) could do it.(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cutto the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get itat Amazon!)

Lechuguilla (2012-05-15 01:38)

A Glamorous Spider And Her Tangled Web

A rebellious drifter named Frank (John Garfield) happens onto a ruralhamburger joint, managed by a jovial old man named Nick (CecilKellaway). Nick wants to hire Frank. And in Frank's mind, an addedincentive would be Nick's beautiful wife Cora (Lana Turner). Thusbegins the story.I have two big problems with this film: the script and the casting. Thesetup starts slow and lasts too long. In the middle Act interest picksup a little, despite some improbable coincidences. But later we'reintroduced to confusing legalities, compounded by contrived twists. Andthe ending contradicts the darker tone of earlier sequences.Much of the plot is a tangled web of this and that, held togetherentirely by the three lead characters. It's like the writers sortedthrough dozens of script drafts, couldn't decide; then in frustration,hurriedly wrote a final draft that was a compromise of the previousversions.John Garfield is well cast and does a fine job. But someone other thanKellaway would have been better in the role of Nick. Much, much worsethan the casting of Kellaway, however, was the casting of glamorousLana Turner, as Cora. Turner, with her blonde hair and glossy facade,is not at all convincing either as Nick's wife, or as a young, spiderybeauty stuck in a two-bit hamburger joint. Further, her acting isawful. She doesn't act so much as she ... poses for the camera, in abid to show off her glamour for future starring roles. Her presenceseriously detracts from the story.I think Audrey Totter, who plays a minor role, would have been fine asCora. So too would have been Ida Lupino. Indeed, almost anyone wouldhave been better than Turner, even Broderick Crawford in a wig.Critics regard this film highly. I'm not sure why. About the only thingto recommend it is the performance of John Garfield.

oconnor0930 (2012-05-14 04:43)

The Postman may ring twice, but I wouldn't view it twice.

"The Postman Always Rings Twice" is definitely a classic film noir withits strong suit being its excellent incorporation of atmosphere, boththrough lighting and set design. The coffee shop serves as a boldcontrast to the sterile life that Cora lives.Unfortunately, this movie seems to only be half right. The first halfof the movie is weak, dull, and slow-moving. This movie seems to takeforever to build up. The poor dialog doesn't seem to help matterseither. However, once it has built up, the second half of the movie isa real thrill, full of unexpected treats for the audience.Hume Cronyn steals the show as the sharp and witty attorney. However,when the best character is a relatively minor one, it says somethingabout the cast of the movie. You can either take this movie or leaveit. If you make it through the first hour, I commend you.

(2012-05-13 20:23)

Noir Lite

"The Postman Always Rings Twice" is without doubt film noir lite. Film noir, one of the most intriguing, stylish, and creative movements in cinematic history, can be divided along certain lines such as pre- and post- war noir, American and international noir, and, most relevant here, Hollywood and independent or B-grade noir. The distinction of `Hollywood noir' is a bit of a misnomer as most noirs, whether they be mainstream or otherwise, came from the Hollywood system, but more generally applied the term refers to the larger budget, star-powered A-pictures of the mainstream. These films took the same themes of crime, violence, and insanity the genre is known for but presented them in a far more toned-down and easily palatable manner, using the soft aesthetics and wooden dialogue often typical to Hollywood. "Postman" is an example of Hollywood noir. Released in 1946 by MGM and featuring contemporary stars John Garfield and Lana Turner, "The Postman Always Rings Twice" is an often absorbing and exciting movie that for all its successes never manages to exhibit the dark and shadowy menace that makes for great noir.Certainly some of the most famous noir films were mainstream affairs. Films such as "Double Indemnity", "The Maltese Falcon", and "The Big Sleep" are without doubt Hollywood noirs and are yet still some of the finest of the genre. Nevertheless, there is still something about these films, and about "Postman" also, that prevents them from becoming the disturbing little works of art that many of the lower budgeted noirs managed. "Postman," for one thing, is too slick, and in the wrong sort of way for a noir. Its stars are still softly lit in the manner typical for the time, and its sets and locations, and they way they are filmed, are all far too plain. Even the typical noir lighting that casts shadows of deceit and alienation over its outcast protagonists is not used to any notable success here. Inventive direction is also one of the joys of noir, but barring one fabulous shot of a dropped lipstick and a sexy pair of legs, the camerawork here is decidedly standard. Even the story is toned-down and ineffective, using bland dialogue and occasionally hokey plot turns to tell a story that was cliché even for its time. The first half dealing with the affair between Garfield and Turner and the plot to murder Turner's husband is quite good, but beyond that the story becomes too complicated for its own good. Add to that one tacked-on moral high ground ending and you have an example of film noir that is unequivocally sub-par.I hate to be too disparaging, as the film is entertaining enough, to be sure, and well worth watching, but given the vast array of superior noir fare that surrounds it, one cannot help but be slightly disappointed. Turner and Garfield are often excellent, as are many of the supporting actors, notably Hume Cronyn as a wily lawyer, but the film still lacks the grit and style of the classic noirs. For film noir, style is ultimately the substance, and without it all noirs would be as discouraging as this one. The film is slick, but not the overblown, inventive slick of so many of the genre's greatest examples. It is instead a safer sort of slick, of a style designed more for highlighting the stars then their depraved characters; a style more easily attributed to the Hollywood elite than the great talents below them trying to explore and compromise their slick veneer. "The Postman Always Rings Twice" is of this upper echelon of Hollywood and because of this lacks the depravity and hard knock moxie that bred the best of the great genre.

(2012-05-13 06:41)

Seller needs to state if this DVD will work on a U.S. DVD player

This is the second DVD I've purchased from Moviemars and the second I've had to return because it will not play on a U.S. DVD player. And to have to pay for return shipping twice for the same problem will no longer be a problem for me. I will never purchase from Moviemars again because it is not clear that either film only played on a "regional" player.

(2012-05-08 23:54)

The Postman Always Rings Twice

Tay Garnett's sizzling "Postman," adapted from the pulp novel by James M. Cain, concerns fate, temptation, and the kind of irrational urges that drive people to murder. A gorgeous Lana Turner bewitches as the femme fatale, and enigmatic, underrated actor John Garfield plays the regular Joe who falls into her clutches. Garnett's direction is solid and tantalizingly suggestive, as when Frank spots a lipstick rolling across the floor moments before he lays eyes on Cora. Garnett's "Postman" delivers the goods.

(2012-05-08 04:22)

Just a little...Overrated

I bought this movie with the expectations of seeing a really good, intense movie, since the story was adapted form a James Cain novel, has great reviews, and a good cast. Instead, I saw a movie with a jumpy script that was dissatisfying. The basic plot is good, but has so many little twists that it is rather unbelievable and fake. Lana was good as the beautiful girl, and James Garfield was O.K. as a drifter that chases after women. The lawyers were excellent. I give the actor a 4 but the 2 is for the story dynamics.

(2012-05-08 09:44)

Love and lust, love and murder. James M. Cain, John Garfield and Lana Turner make a fine, tawdry story

With platinum hair, dark eyelashes and pouty lips, Cora Smith is a slut to dream about. Or maybe she's just an ambitious, dissatisfied wife, married to Nick, the fat older owner of a greasy roadside diner. Or maybe all those banked flames of hers are getting too much fresh oxygen from tough, dumb Frank Chambers, who drifts into her life and watches Cora's lipstick roll across the diner floor to his feet. It doesn't matter. Fate is walking slowly down the highway toward Cora and Frank. Nothing is going to change what passion and murder will bring them, and the twist of ironic justice sets them up for a great ending. There are so many good things about this movie. The four obvious ones start with the story by James M. Cain. We're talking hot lust, dumb love and the kind of ironic inevitability that always comes in first-class noirs. There's the cynical display of the legal process, not quite corrupt -- what does justice have to do with the law? -- but rewarding to those who can best manipulate it. There's Lana Turner as Cora, no actress, but who makes believable the kind of blood-thumping single-mindedness that can turn a not-so-smart drifter into a willing participant in murder. She can offer sex and she can offer love, and neither we nor Frank is sure which has any truth. Frank will settle for the sex, but then he realizes with Cora he might have both. And there's John Garfield as Frank in a perfect performance as this flawed, gullible sap who thinks he can commit murder and call it love. All he wants is Cora on a hot night. He winds up wanting Cora for eternity, and is comforted that she'll be there for him.Do many people remember John Garfield now? He made a name on Broadway and an even bigger name in Hollywood. He was a committed liberal who was ruined during the Commie witch-hunts. By the late Forties he couldn't find work in Hollywood. All those studio heads who made money from his films didn't want to touch him. He was no Communist, just too liberal for the frightened suits. Garfield's film career was in tatters. He was a first-class actor but naive when it came to politics. He couldn't understand what was happening to him. He died of heart failure in New York in 1952 while trying to reestablish himself on the stage. He was 39. To see just how good he was, watch his reaction shots in this movie...when he first sees Cora...when he has to get in the car next to Nick right after he's smashed Nick's skull with a bottle...when at the end of the movie he reads Cora's note and listens to the DA. Garfield's last major movie was Force of Evil in 1948. These two films demonstrate just how powerful a screen actor John Garfield was and how much this nation lost through expediency and intimidation.The DVD transfer is just fine. Among the extras is a fine documentary about Garfield.

Terrell-4 (2012-05-07 20:23)

Love and lust, love and murder. James M. Cain, John Garfield and Lana Turner make fine, tawdry story

With platinum hair, dark eyelashes and pouty lips, Cora Smith is a slutto dream about. Or maybe she's just an ambitious, dissatisfied wife,married to Nick, the fat older owner of a greasy roadside diner. Ormaybe all those banked flames of hers are getting too much fresh oxygenfrom tough, dumb Frank Chambers, who drifts into her life and watchesCora's lipstick roll across the diner floor to his feet. It doesn'tmatter. Fate is walking slowly down the highway toward Cora and Frank.Nothing is going to change what passion and murder will bring them, andthe twist of ironic justice sets them up for a great ending. There are so many good things about this movie. The four obvious onesstart with the story by James M. Cain. We're talking hot lust, dumblove and the kind of ironic inevitability that always comes infirst-class noirs. There's the cynical display of the legal process,not quite corrupt -- what does justice have to do with the law? -- butrewarding to those who can best manipulate it. There's Lana Turner asCora, no actress, but who makes believable the kind of blood-thumpingsingle-mindedness that can turn a not-so-smart drifter into a willingparticipant in murder. She can offer sex and she can offer love, andneither we nor Frank is sure which has any truth. Frank will settle forthe sex, but then he realizes with Cora he might have both. And there'sJohn Garfield as Frank in a perfect performance as this flawed,gullible sap who thinks he can commit murder and call it love. All hewants is Cora on a hot night. He winds up wanting Cora for eternity,and is comforted that she'll be there for him. Do many people remember John Garfield now? He made a name on Broadwayand an even bigger name in Hollywood. He was a committed liberal whowas ruined during the Commie witch-hunts. By the late Forties hecouldn't find work in Hollywood. All those studio heads who made moneyfrom his films didn't want to touch him. He was no Communist, just tooliberal for the frightened suits. Garfield's film career was intatters. He was a first-class actor but naive when it came to politics.He couldn't understand what was happening to him. He died of heartfailure in New York in 1952 while trying to reestablish himself on thestage. He was 39. To see just how good he was, watch his reaction shotsin this movie...when he first sees Cora...when he has to get in the carnext to Nick right after he's smashed Nick's skull with a bottle...whenat the end of the movie he reads Cora's note and listens to the DA.Garfield's last major movie was Force of Evil in 1948. These two filmsdemonstrate just how powerful a screen actor John Garfield was and howmuch this nation lost through expediency and intimidation.