The Killers (1964)

People are voting emotionally.

As Good As It Gets

A lot more amusing than I thought it would be.

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

First off, I don't recognize this film as having anything to do with the forties' mini-classic. This was originally intended as a 'tv movie', and damn if it doesn't look like one. I'm expecting 'A Quinn Martin Production' credit somewhere.The film was deemed too violent for television, and although tame by today's standards (aren't most old movies?), it was a bit brutal, courtesy the always interesting Lee Marvin and the less interesting Clu Gulager.I didn't observe any chemistry between Cassavetes and Dickinson's characters. Hard to relate to any of the cast because they are all basically up to no good. Angie Dickinson in particular looked rather plain for a woman who could put on the glam when she wanted to.Ronald Reagan is phoning this performance in, almost as if he's aware of the trash he is making here. When given a good script, most of these actors do fine jobs, but personally, I get a bigger kick from old gory black and white 'Untouchables' programs.The only interesting note is that Virginia Christine, the Folgers' coffee lady, appears in both this 1964 version and the original from 1946, in different roles. Somehow turning an interesting old film noir into a sixties' television movie was a definite step backwards. I won't sit through this again.

What I'd suggest if it's possible, is to watch the 1946 Robert Siodmak directed version of "The Killers" and this one back to back. Both are offered in a Criterion Collection DVD package that's a treat for film noir fans. Personally, I lean toward the earlier version myself, it's darker and the tale is more complex in the telling, utilizing a total of eleven flashback sequences. The later film uses only three, with emphasis on the main character shifting from an insurance investigator in the former, to one of the titled killers in the remake.Probably as a reflection of inflation adjusted times, the robbery at the heart of this story approaches a cool million bucks, at least four times greater than in the original picture. It's all eventually recovered at the finale with the gunning down of the principals, leaving the viewer with less of an ambiguous ending when considering Ava Gardner's feverish rant in the Siodmak version when she tried to get her dying benefactor Colfax to clear her name. Watching Ronald Reagan get shot by Lee Marvin's Charlie was just a bit too reminiscent of life imitating art considering the assassination attempt on the President's life two decades later. Sometimes all you can do is wonder.Speaking of Marvin, along with his partner Clu Gulager, this pair has to be some of the most ruthless assassins ever put on screen. In living color you get to see the bright red results of their handiwork and it's not pretty. On the other hand, filming in color tends to diminish the picture's noir appeal and move it more into action/thriller territory. Likewise, Angie Dickinson's appeal as the femme fatale loses some of it's luster here when she's revealed as Jack Browning's (Reagan) gold digging girlfriend. You just can't do away with the dark, confining sets and come up with the same ambiance.You know, I noticed something I thought was kind of cool here. In the 1946 original film, insurance investigator Reardon tracks down a former cell mate of the John Cassavetes character portrayed by Burt Lancaster. Lancaster's "Swede' took the blame for Ava Gardner's theft of a piece of jewelry. His prison cell-mate Charleston, who opted out of the mail truck heist for the quarter million payroll robbery, was portrayed by character actor Vince Barnett. Whether it was intended or not, there's an inadvertent tribute to him seen on a building marquee when the camera pans a scene of the city in this picture. Reading from top to bottom of the marquee, it spells out the name 'Barnett's'.

Admittedly, the 1946 film is the better film, it is better-looking, more atmospheric and has more tension. However, in terms of tautness, excitement and the quality of the acting, it and this remake is about equal.The Killers (1946) is mainly hindered by its production values, often looking like a hurriedly-made TV film, with less-than-slick photography (at times) and a drab look. The racing sequences look cheap too and are very clumsily staged. John Cassavetes , for my tastes, seemed uncomfortable in a role that didn't give him much to work with. Some of the script borders on the repetitious side too.However, Siegel's authoritatve direction maintains the terseness, excitement and suspense that The Killers ought to have, clearly understanding that The Killers is the sort of film that should be taut. And that is exactly what the storytelling is like, it is never dull, tightly structured, tautly paced , doesn't feel confused and has real edge and some appropriately shocking violence without being too gratuitous. The last 15 minutes are incredibly well done. While the script has its flawed moments there is still a good deal of provoked thought and wit, and while it is nowhere near one of his best scores- it was a very early one after all, and he was yet to find his distinctive style that he is known for- John Williams' score complements well and has some good tension and energetic bombast.Last but not leat the cast, while I was indifferent to Cassavetes the rest of the cast were to die for. Angie Dickinson does a great job playing against type, and while Ronald Reagan is not that highly thought of as an actor (he is more well-known for his politics) he is surprisingly good in a very bravely atypical villain role and is suitably larcenous in his last film role (some people may disagree but to me it's one of his better ones), one really does feel the sting of the slap in the slapping scene. Clu Gulager is very good and cool, but the standout, and the best thing about the film, is Lee Marvin, who brings a wonderful steely intensity to an 'anti-hero' sort of character.In conclusion, could have been better but has a lot of great benefits. Marvin is the main reason to see it. 7/10 Bethany Cox

This offering is both the 1946 version of Hemingway's story and the 1964 remake with our ex-president, Ronald Regan. So we get to compare Burt Lancaster and Edmond O'Brien verses the performance of Lee Marvin and Angie Dickenson. In my mind it is completely clear which version is better. The 46 version had a more believable plot. If one thinks of the reason of why one would go after the money from a robbery that happened years ago the 46 version explains that better. I thought the flashback to the Swede's life was handled better in the 46 version. Ultimately the comparison comes down to plot, that is after all what film noir movies are about. The plot in the 46 version was interesting, complex and believable. The plot in the 64 version reflected the 60's and was uninteresting, straight forward and not believable. The 64 version was a waste of Lee Marvin's and John Cassavetes's abilities. To think that two hit men who really had no connection would investigate this murder was ludicrous. This is only on example of where the 46 version of this movie was superior. If, like me, you get both disks, and you have limited time, watch the 46 version, skip the 64 version. It is like drinking MDG 64 vs. Guinness. I rank the 46 version 5 Guinness, the 64 version 1 MDG 64.