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.
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.