MoFo MC April: The Killers (1946)

Still haven't had time myself to re-watch this yet but just in case anyone else has here's the thread as well as a couple initial thoughts:

- Does anyone else feel a sense of hopelessness the whole time? Much like the assassins, the director seems to arrange the film like it was just his business, making the main characters elusive.

- The Hemingway story is summed up within the first act, so does it maintain its intensity continuing onward for another 85 minutes? If so, what does it do that the story could not?

It tells us what the hell is going on. It is the difference between a short story with one act and a feature film with three.

__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula

Has anybody watched this yet? I've been waiting for other people to begin a discussion, but I guess I have to start.

I didn't know that Edmund O'Brien was in this and that made me very happy. I really like him. Ava Gardner was wonderful and while I was worried at first that Burt Lancaster's performance was going to bother me, I was fine with it by the end.

It's a great story and to answer Wintertriangles's question, I did think it kept up it's intensity and that it's an interesting answer to everything the Hemingway story leaves you
wondering.

There was a hopelessness throughout, but I thought that only added to the atmosphere and gave the movie a nice little edge.

One thing I wasn't certain about was what made Jim Reardon tick. Was he just really good at his job, or did he get caught up in the story and need to find answers just because?

Hopefully more people will watch this soon. I'll have more to say then.

To me, there's only a handful of noirs that top The Killers. I've seen it three times so far and every single time I appreciated it more. Hemingway himself thought this was the first adaptation of his work that he was actually proud of.

It's interesting, because the first 15 minutes could have been the climax of the film. 2 hitmen step into a dinner where they engage in a dialogue with the owner, whilst snapping wisecracks at each other and making their point very clear: they're hired killers coming to make good on a contract. They want to know the whereabouts of The Swede (Burt Lancaster), a washed-up boxer that tried to pave a way for himself in the criminal undercurrent of New Jersey. When the killers finally find The Swede, he puts up no fight whatsoever and is killed by a hail of bullets. The look on his face is one of total dejection. The man is literally waiting to be put out of his misery.

What led The Swede to be in this hopeless state of mind, will be explained the remainder of the film, through a series of flashbacks. An insurance investigator functions as a detective who tries to uncover The Swede's life and the exact circumstances of his death. Throughout his journey, we come across everything you find in classic noir: the femme fatale, backstabbing, doube crosses, heists, and robberies. The experience is further heightened by sharp, almost acidic dialogue and pin-point, gloomy cinematography to create that particular noir-like atmosphere.

I'm among those who think the flashback structure reinforces the plot and adds an extra dimension to those first 15 minutes. Having the insurance investigator interview various people that come into contact with The Swede and presenting their memories as flashbacks is very well done and avoids what could've been a linear story (although even then it'd of been a bloody excellent linear story). The plot can at times feel slightly convoluted, but if you keep your wits about you, you should be able to grasp most, if not all the particulars on your first time around.

If there's no more replies before tomorrow night, I'll put forward my thoughts on WT's questions.

Good thread! While I have yet to see this film, I've known about it for about 40 years. It was a big favorite of my Dad's and he would always tell me how good it was and I didn't mind that he gave away the ending (to be fair, lots of shows that featured clips, like the Oscars, would show the ending). It just made me want to see what led up to it. I'd forgotten about it, so thanks for reminding, guys! Have to put it on my "must see" list.

__________________
"Miss Jean Louise, Mr. Arthur Radley."

This thread needs to be pinned to the top of the forum and added to the Movie Club page.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

i think this has no motive and therefore has no reason
and to be honest it has no purpose as a horror film

The DVD is coming soon from Netflix, it had a long waiting period for me. I should be watching it with in this coming week.

__________________

I'm watching this tonight. Totally forgot about it after I bought it.

Yeah it's been sitting on my shelf for weeks. I suck.

We have a movie club here?

By the way, the structure of The Killers is not unusual for a noir, the story being told in flashbacks as people are being interviewed. The Mask of Dimitrios which came out the year before also does that. It all probably comes from Citizen Kane.

I loved it!

It has an awesome script and it's really well directed. It's a classic noir film with all the typical elements and I recommend it to everyone!

Edmond O'Brien gave a Humphrey Bogart-like performance as insurance detective Jim Riordan. I really liked his calm style. That's how you play a cool guy in a believable way! The other performances were also spot on.

I also like the way the story is built. It reveals the plot little by little in the form of flashbacks and as the story progresses, I actually felt like the detective himself, trying to discover the real truth. The film really knows how to keep the attention of the audience during the whole ride.

I'll discuss the film a little bit further tomorrow, but now it's already 3:40 AM here in Belgium, so I should go to sleep if I want to wake up at a reasonable hour. ;p

Go see it, MoFo'ers, because you won't regret it. It's a film noir gem.

I watched it just now, and it's a decent+ film (a.k.a +) and it's highly stylistic. Pretty much everything I was going to say was asked by wintertriangles already, so I'll just build off of that.


The first act was by far the best, it had an unmatched intensity, that faded away after the movie left Hemingway's story. I'm not saying this shouldn't have been a feature, but if it all compared to this act I would've found it as a truly great one. And this segment did give me an over hyped sense for the rest of the film, I was hoping it'd all be this entertaining, and didn't see a reason why it wouldn't be. So yes I don't believe that Veillers story matched with Hemingways. I also watch Tarkovskys short film Ubiytsi also based on the story, it was only the first act, and I'm assuming the adaption was pretty loyal, since the two played almost word by word. The only Hemingway I read though is, The Sun Also Rises, so I don't know for sure. Tarkovskys first film wasn't as intense as Siodmoks, but that's because I watched it after (Tarkovskys version).

So other than that I really don't have to much to contribute, I enjoyed the flashback narration style, but didn't quiet catch how the ending played out. I can see the acclaim behind this noir, and liked it enough to appreciate it. As I stated the first act served great as a thriller, and I'd give that poriton a , but it mellowed down after the killing. Also thought it was intresting that Richard Brooks and John Huston helped Veiller on the script, that's a loaded team.

The beginning is indeed brilliant. I liked the ending in the bar (SPOILER!!!) where the killers are shot too. The ending at the house is not perfectly executed, I'll give you that. I still liked how Ava's character was begging to her dead husband to dismiss her from guilt, so she wouldn't be arrested.

I really enjoyed the film and gave it a (+) rating, I believe.

great movie I saw it as a kid It always stuck in my head.starts off with Two guys go into an empty bar looking for someone they are going to kill.and then,no dont want to spoil it.

Is it just me or the images are not working?

__________________

Well, I suck for letting this sit on my shelf for weeks on end. But I finally did watch it last week. Really liked it.



I love that most of the film is almost a prequel of itself. The first couple of scenes are the story, and most of what follows shows you how we got there. And then, of course, we "catch up," which helps balance the "safety" of the prequel aspect (because we know where things have to end up) by suddenly tossing us into a place of genuine uncertainty again. The bookends of the film are all shock and revelation and discovery.

Lancaster's facial expressions are pretty fantastic. It sounds like a weirdly specific thing to praise someone for, but his look of resignation is spot-on. And the twistsy-turny-double-cross-y nature holds up well; it'd feel right at home in a late 90s thriller, which isn't always the case with mid-century noir.

Really enjoyed it. Great choice!

Oh, and having very recently rewatched Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid, I got an extra little kick out of several of the scenes.

A noir classic. Lancaster forgoes his usual scenery chewing and give a great performance.