Absolutely the worst movie.

A brilliant film that helped define a genre

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

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'.

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

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.

I have seen this film many times,and I have never tired of it..considering it was made for TV, somehow the film got into the movies,the cast is top class.It was not even called the Killers in the USA.Lee Marvin and Clu Gulager are contract killers...who get curious about one of their hits,they are breaking the hitmans code ,but smell a big payoff...the cast is classy with the beautiful Angie Dickenson at the height of her powers, throw in Ronald Reagan as the top crook with the superb John Cassavetes as the fall guy and the sparks fly.Clu Gulager was a great actor and in this film plays a very believable second string to Lee Marvins relentless and merciless killer.Throw in some great car scenes,and a cool ending,and you have a very enjoyable movie,with sub themes of greed, betrayal,and unrequited love.All in all a classic,very watchable,and you cant say that about many 1960s made for TV movies ..Super film.