The Killers

1964 "There's more than one way to kill a man!"
7| 1h33m| en| More Info
Released: 07 July 1964 Released
Producted By: Revue Studios
Country:
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

A hit man and his partner try to find out why their latest victim, a former race-car driver, did not try to get away.

... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Director

Producted By

Revue Studios

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

All Prime Video Movies and TV Shows. Cancel anytime. Watch Now

Trailers & Images

Reviews

Reptileenbu Did you people see the same film I saw?
Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.
Ortiz Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.
Rexanne It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny
TankGuy Two hired assassins, Charlie Strom(Lee Marvin)and Lee(Clu Gulager), casually enter a school for the blind and cold bloodedly gun down one of the teachers, Johnny North(John Casavettes). Curious as to why North just stood there as he was murdered, Charlie and Lee set out to dissect the tangled web of intrigue surrounding their victim. They find that he was once involved with unhinged rich girl Shelia Farr(Angie Dickinson), mobster Jack Browning(Ronald Reagan)and the theft of $1 million...Don Siegel adapts Ernest Hemingway's short story in a sturdy reworking of the 1946 noir which catapulted a young Burt Lancaster onto the Hollywood scene. Lee Marvin and Clu Gulager are the eponymous "killers" of the title. Unapologetically gritty, The Killers is among the first movies in Hollywood to portray the central characters as antagonists rather than protagonists. Originally intended as a TV movie, The Killers ultimately found it's way into cinemas after being deemed too violent for primetime(although it's pretty tame by today's standards). Still, the movie doesn't shy away from abrupt acts of sadism. The two main characters, Charlie and Lee, are a pair of amoral lowlifes who do the dirty work for individuals who are equally unscrupulous. However they do have a certain charm and Lee Marvin definitely steals the show as Charlie. Revelling completely in the wanton depravity of his character, Marvin excelled at playing dubious types in an era in Hollywood when it was unpopular to play such characters, when good always prevailed over evil, when even the baddies had integrity. Lee Marvin always played them as rough and dirtier than ever. Although, the movie doesn't glorify the violent criminal actions of it's characters and sticks with a "whoever lives by the sword dies by the sword" mentality. In his last movie before embarking on an illustrious political career, president-to-be Ronald Reagan was also on brilliant form. The charisma John Casavettes emitted was nothing short of fantastic and the beautiful Angie Dickinson was just as superb, as was Cul Gulager as Charlie's murderous counterpart. The suspenseful climax may just rank among the greatest scenes in film and is spectacularly underplayed. It sums up the film's message terrifically.Despite the fact that it's quite flat in places, The Killers is a truly superior neo-noir. 8/10
classicsoncall 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'.
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.
edlion43 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.