tomgillespie2002 Originally intended to be the first 'TV movie', Don Siegel's brutally thrilling and ice-cool adaptation of Ernest Hemingway's story was deemed too violent for the small screen. With filming taking place as John F. Kennedy was assassinated and one key scene certainly bringing the incident in Dallas to mind, The Killers was tactically granted a cinema release instead. Such a talented and experienced cast, and a director who delivered at least one masterpiece throughout his career, The Killers was always going to be too good not to appear on the big screen. More of a re-make of Robert Siodmak's 1946 film than of Hemingway's text, Siegel drops the film noir tone in favour of bright and sunny exteriors, while somehow heightening the sense of pessimism throughout.After a routine hit in which race-car driver-turned-teacher Johnny North (John Cassavetes) is gunned down at a school for the blind, hired killer Charlie (Lee Marvin) and his partner Lee (Clu Gulager) discuss the strange way Johnny allowed himself to be killed and offered no resistance. Deciding the circumstances are too strange not to warrant further investigation, and with the possibility of recovering a missing $1 million, the two thugs interview Johnny's former mechanic friend Earl (Claude Akins). He tells them of Sheila (Angie Dickinson), the femme fatale who stole Johnny's attention, and her lover, the fearsome mob boss Jack Browning (Ronald Reagan), who embroiled Johnny and his skills behind the wheel in a million- dollar heist.Appearing in his final movie role before moving into politics and becoming one of America's most infamous presidents, Reagan steals the movie as the slimy gangster Browning. He apparently hated the role, and had always played the hero during his career, but he proves to be surprisingly apt at playing a loathsome criminal. The Killers is remarkably tough, emphasising the roles of Marvin and Gulager's heartless brutes, who both have no qualms about dangling a woman out of a high-rise window. Despite Marvin's hulking presence, its actually Gulager who steals their scenes, with his mix of all- American handsomeness, preening narcissism and emotional coldness giving dimension to his stock character. The sickly brightness of it all does little but highlight the film's budget constraints, but The Killers thrills thanks to Siegel's unfussy direction and terrific performances all round.

gavin6942 One morning, hit men Charlie (Lee Marvin) and Lee (Clu Gulager) enter a school for the blind and terrorize the principal until she reveals the whereabouts of a teacher, Johnny North (John Cassavetes).There are plenty of notable things about this movie, not least of which is the cast. Beyond the three mentioned above, you have Ronald Reagan as a mob boss and Angie Dickinson. Have you ever seen Reagan play a nasty villain who likes to slap the ladies? Not until you see this. Also notable is the made-for-TV status (even if it fell through) and the direction of Don Siegel.Most interesting is the continuity of the source material. Hemingway's short story is just that -- very short, focusing mainly on the killing of one man. In the 1946 Robert Siodmak version, we get what happened before the killing, and here we get what happened after. If it was not for the twenty year time change and new cast, these stories could actually go together and be less of a remake and more of a sequel.

patrickcarr1 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.

jgcole This 1964 remake of director Robert Siodmak's 1946 masterpiece again uses Ernest Hemingway's short story as the catalyst for a crime story: A man learns that there is a contract out on him. He is about to be killed but accepts it passively, not attempting to save his own life. The man in question is Johnny North. Johnny gets involved with a dangerous dame and lets her talk him into participating in a robbery. The robbery goes wrong, the money disappears, and all things point to Johnny as the culprit. But Johnny is consumed by guilt and betrayal and has lost the will to go on, the will to live. Like the original, much of the story is told in flashbacks but in this one it's from the killers point of view. Lee Marvin plays Charlie, one of the killers hired to do the hit on Johnny North (played by John Cassavetes) and Charlie wants to know why a man doesn't run, why he allows himself to be killed. He also wants to know what happened to the money from the heist. Johnny doesn't have it and the guy who hired him didn't ask him to find it. That's not right and Charlie sets out to find out what happened and where the money is.This film is part of an impressive lineup of '60's crime and detective stories that came out after the end of the film noir period - Harper, Point Blank, Bullitt. This one was originally shot for television and was intended to be the first feature length made for TV movie. But director Don Siegel, who wanted the job in 1946, made a film that he had to know would never get past the censors. And, of course, it was rejected by NBC after completion because it was unsuitable for TV audiences. And the film looks like it was made for TV. The cinematography seems a bit uninspired with rather flat color and stark set designs and some really bad process shots. But while it visually lacks the moody film noir feel of the 1946 version, there is no lack of bad behavior, violence, misogyny, corruption and greed.Marvin was great in this film and Clu Gulagar was the perfect psycho-killer sidekick to Marvin's understated thinking thugs' thug. Angie Dickinson plays Sheila Farr, the gun moll that Ava Gardner played in the 1946 original and is every bit the sociopath that Gardner's Kitty was and just as fatal. Angie was a very good looking girl and her star was on the rise in '64. They had her in a collection of sexy dresses that showed off a wonderful physique and of course she had that hair going. And in his last screen role (though he wasn't done acting), Ronald Reagan plays Jack Browning, the head of the criminal organization that pulls off the heist. Of course this went against type for Reagan who usually played sympathetic roles and, really, it is hard to picture Reagan as a criminal mastermind. Anyway, the affable Reagan was unsure about playing a bad guy. He later said it was a mistake for him to take the part and felt bad about the famous scene where he slaps Angie - hard! Angie also gets roughed up by Gulagar and Marvin in a scene in Sheila's hotel room and later said that she thought they were too enthusiastic and that Marvin actually scared her. She said she would never work with him again but relented a few years later when she played opposite him in Point Blank. She has a scene in that one where her character gets some free shots on Marvin and Angie hits him like she means it.All in all it's a fun movie and definitely worth a view. If you've seen the 1946 version you'll find that while it pales in comparison, it is different enough to still be enjoyable. And if you haven't seen the original you'll find this an entertaining film. Either way it is an interesting look at the state of the television art c.1964 and just what wouldn't get past the censors.