The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Much like the 40s Lancaster vehicle, this Don Siegel-directed flick takes Hemingway's short story as a starting point to a noir classic. On paper, the differences are relatively minute, but in execution, these could not be further apart.Gone is the scale and class of the gorgeous B&W original, and in comes a gritty, grainy, dynamic cinematic pit-bull. It's not Siegel's most polished work, but it might just be his most inventive and playful, from a cringe-worthy opening scene in a clinic for the blind to a coldly pessimistic ending by way of racetrack madness and hanging femme fatales out of windows. Siegel makes the most of a modest budget and, as in most of his work, uses it to create a pedestal for his cast and their performances. And what a cast...It takes too many expletives to praise Lee Marvin in general, and especially here, so if you have any interest in him, go see this now. What you also get but hadn't bargained for, is a superbly reptilian villain from Ronald Reagan (!?!), who also shares a scene for the ages with a scheming Angie Dickinson. Much of the fuss around this film tends to be made in regards to a psychotic Clu Gulager, and it is well deserved, but that would be overlooking the man who anchors the whole show: John Cassavetes. Beyond giving the proceedings a strange aura of respectability, he generously gives it a tragic sense of reality that makes the surrounding characters more believable.You often find people compare this to Pulp Fiction when grasping for film references. This probably sets up unfair expectations, not least of which the idea that a streamlined, 90-minute film noir might have anything in common with a 150- minute "epic". But it is indeed pulp, and of the highest order. It is also, arguably a better film.A little diamond in the rough, worth seeking out.

Surprised that their contract victim didn't try to run away from them, two professional hit men try to find out who hired them and why. The story is well told, my only problem with the film was the supporting cast. It's the kind of film that proves that a small story can be much more meaningful than a larger one. A great score and tight editing help. The cinematography is stark and bare, with only the soundtrack adding some effect. From an artistic standpoint, there were some plot elements and character developments I didn't think were totally needed. Watch for Ronald Reagan in an understated role. Verdict comes in at 7 out of 10.

The Killers is directed by Don Siegel and adapted to screenplay by Gene L. Coon from the short story written by Ernest Hemmingway. It stars Lee Marvin, Angie Dickinson, Clu Gulager, John Cassavetes, Ronald Reagan and Claude Akins. Music is by John Williams and cinematography by Richard L. Rawlings.Hit men Charlie (Marvin) and Lee (Gulager) enter a school for the blind and gun down motor mechanic teacher Johnny North (Cassavetes). He doesn't resist. Why? This question bothers Charlie and he sets about finding out...It's difficult when reading the name The Killers to not think of the 1946 film made by Robert Siodmak, a film that is revered as one of the quintessential movies of film noir. But Don Siegel's film, a re-jigging of the plot, is well worthy of consideration as quintessential neo-noir.Originally slated to be the first made for TV movie as part of a new era for movies on television, the film was pulled by NBC for being too violent. With the film also featuring a murder by sniper scene, the recent assassination of John F. Kennedy by sniper ensured The Killers was temporarily on unsafe ground. With Ronald Reagan making his last appearance on film before moving into politics, unusually playing a villain no less, the 64 version of The Killers has a bit of history.It's a film about double-crossing, murder and fateful yearnings, featuring amoral characters in a wonderfully constructed story that is told in flashbacks! Photographed in bright, almost garish, colours, it's very much the polar opposite to Siodmak's version, well visually at least, but it is very effective and striking, almost enhancing the lurid nature of Coon's screenplay. It's an aggressive film where the violence packs a punch, and the ending has a considerable black heart.The cast are mostly effective. Marvin and Gulager's hit-man pairing are deliberately off kilter in terms of personality, and it's these two that propel the movie forward (well backwards really). Cassavetes makes interesting work as live wire dupe Johnny, Akins does good as a pal watching on helplessly as Johnny loses his life footings and Dickinson sizzles as she fatalises the femme. Weak link is Reagan, who looks ill at ease playing a tough villain type. It's no surprise to learn later on down the line that he wasn't very fond of the role.Good quality neo-noir crafted by a man who knew how to do the real deal back in the day. 7.5/10

The Killers (1964)With Lee Marvin at his hard edged best and director Don Siegel in charge, you expect a slightly off kilter movie that wastes no time. Fair enough.But there is something off about the plot. It takes awhile to get the larger point (that a heist is planned), and then when you see the heist it seems it's full of holes. (One example--why all this fancy double double crossing when the Ronald Reagan character could have just shot our hero right away and he'd have all the money.)The complicated plot does require a bit of sleuthing, and that's the point of the movie, the chase and the hunt. It ends badly for all involved, and there is a dramatic clean slate by the final frame.You might end up comparing this to the earlier Siodmak "The Killers" which is pure noir, overloaded with flashbacks (the Siegel version has just a few). The plot, and the tricky double cross, is integral and makes sense in this 1946 version. And there is a "good guy" in that version (the insurance investigator) that Siegel doesn't have. There is a bit of camp and fun, and a bit of hyperbolic shooting and acting. It's boldly laid out, and the scenes avoid silliness for the most part. I mean, it's seriously an early 1960s film, with the archly false quality to the shooting (including super clunky back projection shots, and a generally bad overdubbing of the voices). But all of this is in an entertainment mode, and it works on that level. But it's in no way up to the level of the first one. In fact, it's hardly a remake at all, but another movie with a couple of core similarities.