Reviews Aug 07 2008 @ 08:00 am
REVIEW: The Killers
Directed By: Richard Siodmak
Written By: Ernest Hemingway (story) and Anthony Veiller (screenplay)
Starring: Burt Lancaster, Ava Gardner, Edmond O'Brien
Running Time: 103 minutes
Not Rated
Note: This entry in our month long film noir retrospective is by longtime reader Joseph Demme, who holds court in his own corner of the internet at Cinexcellence. Be sure to visit him with a pack of cigarettes and a gun in your pocket – but only if it’s raining.
B&W √
Femme Fatale √
Cigarettes √
Dutch Angles √
Suspense √
Murder √
Caper √
Flashbacks √
Narration √
The Killers definitely fits well within the film noir genre. The story is convoluted, but was surprisingly easy to follow. Jim Reardon (Edmond O’Brien) works for an insurance company and is sent to look into the death of a man who was killed by two unknown gunmen. The Killers, based off of Ernest Hemingway’s short story of the same name, takes us on a suspenseful, intriguing murder mystery. It’s told mostly through the aid of flashbacks, and I have to wonder if the creators of the film were inspired by Citizen Kane. I love the way we’re dropped into the middle of the story and left to fill in the blanks. J.J. Abrams would have loved this film.
Burt Lancaster stars in his screen debut as The Swede, one of the main characters. I caught the end of Field of Dreams on TV the other night, which was his final film, so I find it fitfully ironic that I watched The Killers shortly after. Lancaster was by no means perfect, but as his first role, he did a good job. He really pulls through with his raw emotionality in certain scenes.
And Ava Gardner is great as femme fatale Kitty Collins. She really brings a lot to her character. As a noir film I was pleasantly surprised at how the characters in the film had that rough and tough personality that we’re used to in the genre, but their sensitive, more fragile sides are also shown in different scenes as well. The Killers truly is a character driven story and it’s what makes it a great film. It’s about people that we learn to care about over time and we want to know the outcome. That said, I would have liked to see more motivation and development for certain characters.
The Killers also has some very impressive cinematography from Elwood Bredell. The overall atmosphere fits throughout the film, both light and dark. I really liked what he did with the opening title sequence. It starts with two characters driving in a car. Cut to a town street late at night with the credits. Part way through the credits the two men walk towards the camera with some awesome lighting and rising tension. The following scene where the killing takes place is an amazing piece of camerawork and lighting. You can read Rick Olson’s thoughts on the scene and watch the clip here, but be warned that it does contain spoilers. There’s another scene involving a heist that is almost as good.
It really is a great film. At times it seems to think it’s more suspenseful than it really is, but dangit I was hooked. I was invested in the characters and generally interested in the story as a whole.
on Aug 07 2008 @ 8:23 am 1. Evan Derrick said …
Uh-oh, Joseph. You’re going to need to justify that 3 1/2 stars there my friend, before the star nazis descend up on you.
The opening 10 minutes of this film are, perhaps, some of the best 10 minutes of cinema I have ever seen. Taut, tension-wracked, brilliantly written and acted, incredibly shot, with a climax that kicks you in the gut. It reminded me of some of the more incredible scenes in Children Of Men.
Elwood Bredell’s work here cannot be overemphasized. It’s just phenomenal stuff. Notice the scene when the heist happens, done in one single take on a crane. After watching it I had to rewind it to make sure there hadn’t been any cuts. Killer stuff (pun intended).
on Aug 07 2008 @ 8:25 am 2. G said …
Hey, does that make me a star nazi? If so, 3.5 sounds just about right to me.
I thought it was weird how little Ava and Burt were actually in this movie.
on Aug 07 2008 @ 8:35 am 3. Miranda Wilding said …
Very nice take on this exceptionally cool thriller, Mr. Demme.
I adore THE KILLERS. Even though they’re very young and it’s really the first major break out role for both of them, BURT LANCASTER and AVA GARDNER possess incendiary magnetism. They just burn up the screen.
My favourite female movie star was always ELIZABETH TAYLOR. But I strongly suspected that AVA was very much like me personality wise. When I bought her autobiography it became glaringly obvious that I was right. IN SPADES. We were actually born the same week. About six decades apart.
Though AVA didn’t take herself terribly seriously, I think that even she would’ve agreed that she was one of the ultimate femme fatales. She didn’t even have to TRY. On screen, she had a powerful allure that comes across as dangerous. It’s in her eyes. Even in the way that she walks across a room. She’s a sharp chick…and she knows exactly what she’s doing.
She and Burt were something else – and they had truly fabulous chemistry.
I’d change my name to KITTY COLLINS.
But that would probably be totally unnecessary….
on Aug 07 2008 @ 8:36 am 4. Cinexcellence said …
I was waffling between a 3.5 and a 4. I forgot to tell you that I’d changed it.
on Aug 07 2008 @ 8:37 am 5. Cinexcellence said …
(Changed it to a 4/5 rating, that is)
on Aug 07 2008 @ 9:16 am 6. Evan Derrick said …
Well, G seems to think your 3.5 is just about right, so perhaps you get a pass. I can still change it if you want me to.
Great thoughts on Ava, Miranda. You always bring such a fresh perspective on things like this. And you’re right about her burning up the screen. When I first watched this, to be honest, I didn’t know what Ava Gardner looked like. I thought maybe the blonde chica that the Swede is initially with (who then marries the police detective) was her, but it seemed like an odd role and not very noirish.
But as soon as the Swede looks over at the piano and sees the real Ava sitting there, I knew in a heartbeat that that was really her. You could tell, within a split second, that she was the real deal.
on Aug 07 2008 @ 9:21 am 7. Evan Derrick said …
I was just going to ask if anyone could compare all the versions of this film (this one, the 1964 Seigel version with Lee Marvin, and Tarkovsky’s student adaptation), but then I remembered I had asked the same question over at Rick Olson’s blog and he had succinctly answered it. So, let me quote him directly:
“Evan, Tarkovsky’s is a student film that is very faithful to the Hemingway story, which ends with the Swede being told the men are in town; in the short story, we don’t get to the killing. Neither the 1946 or the 1964 versions are anywhere near faithful to the short story.
The Tarkovsky film — actually, it was co-directed by Tarkovsky — is a student film, with crappy acting and production values, and it’s e hard for me to find anything in it that speaks to his future promise. My review of the DVD (see the url quoted above and in the piece) actually has some more info.
The 1964 version was made to be the first TV movie ever; it was deemed too violent by the network. Therefore, it has a real 60s television, Universal City vibe. The pick of the litter is the 1946 noir.”
on Aug 07 2008 @ 10:16 am 8. Miranda Wilding said …
Thanks for that, Evan.
AVA was a green eyed Irish girl. Savagely independent, strong willed, a real smart ass. She married FRANK SINATRA. She was the love of his life. They fought like cats and dogs. Even though he went on to marry other people (she never did – that was her third try) they were always in each others’ pockets.
Yeah…
As soon as the Swede lays eyes on her, YOU KNOW.
AVA is absolutely mesmerizing. Definitely one of the most beautiful women EVER. She was a wild one. But she was tremendously loyal and very caring to the people that she adored.
You wouldn’t want to get on the wrong side of her, though. Howard Hughes tried to beat the hell out of her one night and she knocked him out cold. That’s my kind of girl.
Did I mention that we were alike…?
If I bring a different perspective to this stuff, it’s likely because I’m one of the few film bloggers out there that’s female. But that’s cool. I’ve always gotten along much better with most men than the majority of women. No real surprise there.
RICK is dead on about the 1964 version of THE KILLERS. Depressing as hell. No real style and excessively violent for the time. That’s my take, anyway. But I wasn’t aware that it was originally a television production.
I guess that explains a lot.
on Aug 07 2008 @ 10:29 am 9. Sam Juliano said …
I might have to embrace Cine’s upgrading to 4.5 stars. This is a formidable film in a number of ways, not the least of which was the unanimous (above) celebration of Bredell’s camerwork, and Rosza’ score for that matter. The characters are rather thinly dilineated, but there’s no denying the film has excellent pacing and construction and a buffo ending.
Fine work here, Joseph!
on Aug 07 2008 @ 10:34 am 10. Cinexcellence said …
4 out of 5, actually (/ not a .) Please change the rating, Evan. I can’t handle any more confusion, lol.
on Aug 07 2008 @ 12:06 pm 11. Rick Olson said …
Guess I’ll weigh in … I’m very fond of this movie, if I gave star ratings I’d probably give it a 4 to 4.5. One of the things I’ve noticed — I play the rating game over at Netflix — is ratings creep. I’ll rate a Fellini flick that I adore a five (they don’t allow half points over at Netflix), and then have no place to go with another movie that might come along that I like more. (It’s sort of like in the Olympics, where the earlier skaters are screwed just because the judges want to leave room for a better performance. Oh, cool … Cinelympics. What a title for a blog!)
Where was I? Oh, yeah … ratings creep is one of the reasons I don’t rate the flicks — like this one — that I sporadically review over at my site. (although I’m toying with a ten-star system. You know, for the kids …)
But back to this flick. Have I said I’m very fond of it? And like a lot of films, I remember images as much as plot. One of the images that stands out for me is, of course, that fabulous opening when the killers saunter menacingly into town, check out the gas station, then circle the diner like prowling hyenas.
But the other scene that stands out is in the jail cell, where Lancaster is learning about the stars from his two-bit-crook cell-mate, and the stars are twinkling with perfect studio unrealism outside the cell window.
on Aug 07 2008 @ 12:10 pm 12. Rick Olson said …
Or maybe I’ll do a five-star system and just cut ‘em each in half. Oh … that’s already been done. Well, my stars go to eleven.
on Aug 07 2008 @ 12:25 pm 13. Luke Harrington said …
Go with a scale from 1 to 100%, and then you can give 99 to only the best of the best, while saving that magical 100 for the movie that cures cancer.
Or you could use a 57-rectangle scale. That seemed to work pretty well for me.
on Aug 07 2008 @ 12:36 pm 14. Alexander Coleman said …
Haha, I’m glad I don’t “grade” films with stars/thumbs/grades/ratings, whatever. It’s all madness, I tell you. Madness.
But, I’ll be glad to give the films I’m reviewing for M-Z star ratings.
on Aug 07 2008 @ 12:37 pm 15. Alexander Coleman said …
Good review, Joseph!
on Aug 07 2008 @ 3:52 pm 16. Phillip Johnston said …
It’s good to recognize Miklos Rosza — he’s a treasure of 40s and 50s filmmaking. I watched The Lost Weekend for the first time was night and was thoroughly impressed with the creative brilliance of his score.
on Aug 07 2008 @ 7:29 pm 17. films noir said …
The Killers is one of the great noirs, and deserves the top rating on any scale. I am sorry Joseph but your review does do this major film justice. Lancaster makes a brilliant debut and his performance is beautifully nuanced.
Robert Siodmak’s best picture transcends the genre and is not only a story of greed, love, and betrayal, but is also about loss, friendship, innocence, and the brutal realities of trying to make a buck in a hostile world. There is a wider socio-historical context, which is ably discussed by Jim Groom in a post on his BavaTuesday blog.
In Hemingway’s text the Swede’s explanation to Nick for his being targeted is “I got it wrong”, but this is changed in the film’s script to “I did something wrong – once”. These stronger words are the fulcrum of the picture. Ole’s repentance is established from the outset and his tragic redemption seared into the viewer’s sympathies even before his story unfolds. How the script and Siodmak construct the narrative using flashbacks and the continuum of the insurance investigation is a lesson on filmic technique.
The ‘rap sheet’ read to insurance investigator, Jim Reardon, by his secretary, tells us that despite Ole losing his parents at a young age, he managed to grow up straight in a tough neighborhood until after his career as a boxer is ended by an injury in his last fight, when he falls in with the wrong crowd, and ends up in the numbers racket. Ole’s life from that fight to his death is a story of betrayal. In the dressing-room after the fight, he is dumped by his manager and trainer without empathy or ceremony. Later, his childhood friend, a cop, let’s him take the rap for the femme-fatale, who then goes on to betray him again when she enacts the final double-cross.
A decent man destroyed by fate: the stuff tragedy is made of.
on Aug 07 2008 @ 8:23 pm 18. Rick Olson said …
Also, a not-very-bright man destroyed by fate. Lancaster plays Ole as kind of a dumb brute, an inarticulate tool in more intelligent hands.
on Aug 07 2008 @ 9:25 pm 19. Cinexcellence said …
“I am sorry Joseph but your review does do this major film justice.”
Thanks! No need to apologize for a compliment.
on Aug 08 2008 @ 4:29 am 20. films noir said …
Touche Cinexcellence:) Only God is perfect, but yes I have a penchant for typos… comes from being left-handed – well that’s my excuse. But then film noir is a “left-handed form of endevour”.
Yeah Rick, a “dumb brute” with a heart as big as a house and more guts than I will ever have, deserves all he gets. You would be right at home in a Mickey Spillane book.