Review: The Killers

Two hired killers (Lee Marvin and Clu Gulager) contemplate the lack of resistance given by their latest target and can’t figure out why he didn’t fight or flee. They don’t know the identity of the client who hired them, but their target was an ex-racing champ (John Cassavetes) who left the profession to work at a school for the blind. The killers learn that Cassavetes was the getaway driver of a robbery, and that the money was never found. So Marvin get the idea of trying to find out who hired them, why Cassavetes didn’t resist their attack, and where the money is. In flashback, we learn more about Cassavetes, his mechanic buddy (Claude Akins), the woman he falls for (Angie Dickinson), and her dangerous associates (Ronald Reagan, Norman Fell, and Robert Phillips).

 

It would appear that Ernest Hemingway’s original story isn’t the easiest to translate to film, perhaps due to it being a short story. The 1946 version, from what little I remember of it had Burt Lancaster not quite cast to his best advantage, and the best scene was the opening scene. I didn’t dislike it, but it clearly wasn’t good enough to linger long in the memory. This 1964 version from director Don Siegel (“Invasion of the Body Snatchers”, “The Beguiled”, “Dirty Harry”, “Escape From Alcatraz”) and screenwriter Gene L. Coon (mostly a writer for television, he notably invented the Klingon race for “Star Trek”) may have the slight edge over the earlier version for my taste, but is not without flaw. The story is a bit different to the earlier film, as the two killers are never seen again after the first scene in the 1946 version. Here, Lee Marvin is pretty much the anti-hero protagonist of the film, with Clu Gulager playing his fellow assassin in a large supporting role.

 

In addition to the outstanding music score by John Williams (“Star Wars”, “Superman”, “Raiders of the Lost Ark”) with elements lifted from Henry Mancini’s work on “Touch of Evil”, we get at least two riveting performances from the get-go. Lee Marvin impresses immediately as a no-nonsense professional hit-man in the terrific opening scene. True to Marvin form he’s seen early on harassing a blind woman. Marvin, in addition to being a heavy-drinking hell-raiser (he was apparently drunk during his final scene), was a great, versatile manly-man actor. He could effortlessly play either side of the law and lawless divide. His no bullshit, deep voice is wonderfully commanding and perfect for his deadly serious profession here. For his part, Clu Gulager is immediately unsettling in an eccentric, overly busy performance that might irritate some, but I found a hoot. Gulager seems to be acting in a film all of his own, yet it’s not in a way that jars with the rest of the film in any negative way. He just makes you notice him, and keeps you on edge. He’s got a bit of the Timothy Carey/Nic Cage about him without gnawing away at the scenery too much like Cage unfortunately does on a frequent basis. He’s hilarious and a nice contrast with the more stoic Marvin. They’re good, nasty, edgy company…and for the most part, they’re our protagonists. They’re clearly very bad guys, but they’re not the worst people in the film. John Cassavetes plays their latest mark, the Burt Lancaster role from the 1946 film, and for my money he’s probably more suited to the part than Lancaster was. Like Marvin, Cassavetes is capable of playing heroes or villains with total ease, but here he’s playing somewhat of a lovestruck dupe, and he works fine at that too. He’s certainly 100% credible as a working class race car driver and mechanic. Cassavetes has got a tough assignment however, because his flashback scenes – which comprise of almost all of his role - come with two rather unfortunate problems that represent the film’s only flaws. The bigger of these flaws is the dreadful, typically 1960s back-projection work for Cassavetes’ racing scenes, which make up for too much of the film’s running time. If there wasn’t as much time devoted to the racing, it wouldn’t be such an issue, but it eats up a lot of time and it’s really shoddy, dated work. In fact, it’s quite possibly some of the least convincing I’ve ever seen. So that’s a shame, as the rest of the film is typically lean and mean by Siegel. However in those flashback scenes, we also get an excellent supporting turn by veteran tough guy Claude Akins. Probably the best work of his career and cast somewhat against type, Akins plays a pretty loyal friend who just can’t seem to convince Cassavetes to forget the dame. It’s not enough to make you forget about the shit projection work, but Akins is terrific nonetheless.

 

The second flaw of the film is that Angie Dickinson is poorly cast. I’m sorry, but I don’t get her either as an actress or a beauty. On the latter, she’s always looked like somebody’s 40ish librarian Aunty to me, even in her 1960s work like this. Perhaps it’s her hairdo, I don’t know but I certainly didn’t get appropriate sexy femme fatale vibes from her. She really does look like a 45 year-old homemaker, it’s not just me being sexist (or ageist, I’m 40 myself now), it actually plays into her inability to convince as this specific character. That’s the important thing here, we have to believe that this woman could cause Cassavetes to lose himself getting caught up in her wholly and completely. I didn’t get that from Dickinson at all. She’s not a bombshell, and she’s also not the treacherous Gloria Grahame ‘bad girl’-type either. That’s the combination you’re looking for with this kind of role, I think. She also just didn’t seem to belong in this rather gritty world, or convince as someone who would spend her time with any of these characters. She’s clearly miscast in the part. I didn’t actually buy her performance, which is wooden and constipated of facial movement. So as solid as Cassavetes is, given the issues with projection work and Dickinson, I think I would’ve much rather watch an entire film focussed on the two hitmen. They’re in this a lot more than in the earlier version (hence why I probably prefer this version), but still a lot of time is devoted to flashbacks away from them.

 

Finally we come to the villains, played by Ronald Reagan and Norman Fell. Yep, that’s definitely some strange casting right there. It actually works, though. Apparently Reagan hated his participation in this film and it was his last role before he went and did that other thing he’s famous for. He’s normally a pretty wooden actor, but I have to say, the cast-against-type future President is quite good in the part. Fell is rock-solid as always too, it’s just a bit strange seeing him and Reagan in something like this playing such nasty characters. I normally associate them with more lightweight fare. Look out for a young Seymour Cassel in a cameo as a very blonde-looking postal clerk. An instantly recognisable and durable character actor, he’d turn up in a lot of Cassavetes’ directorial efforts.

 

In addition to Williams’ nifty score (one of the best things about the film), the film looks very stylishly 1960s too. It’s a very good-looking film. Aside from the shoddy projection work, Siegel’s definitely on sure ground here as a director. He’s the right fit for the pulpy material and rather violent criminal worldview on show, and he keeps it under 100 minutes.

 

It’s nowhere near a great film, and I’m not at all convinced by Angie Dickinson or the car-racing scenes that take up too much screen time. However, whenever Lee Marvin and Clu Gulager are on screen, the film’s got a real tough, yet quirky and unpredictable quality to it. Supporting performances by John Cassavetes, an effectively cast-against-type Ronald Reagan, and especially Claude Akins are aces too. Pretty decent, but lumpy in execution. I bet Quentin Tarantino loves it, however and I think I’ll be generous today and give it an extremely soft recommendation. There’s a little “Reservoir Dogs” and “Pulp Fiction” in here.

 

Rating: B-