Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, kingrat said:

Well worth seeing. It has almost nothing in common with Robert Siodmak's 1940s film except the same title. And there are killers in it. I saw this at the last TCM Film Festival in 2019 just after I'd seen Hello, Dolly! Not exactly the perfect double feature.

That double bill does sound...dissonant.

A couple of years ago at the Noir City festival, I saw a double feature of both versions of The Killers, introduced by Czar Eddie himself. The two films back to back are themselves a little incongruous, but it was an interesting case study in filmmaking in the two different periods.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Polly of the Precodes said:

That double bill does sound...dissonant.

A couple of years ago at the Noir City festival, I saw a double feature of both versions of The Killers, introduced by Czar Eddie himself. The two films back to back are themselves a little incongruous, but it was an interesting case study in filmmaking in the two different periods.

This is similar to if one watches To Have and Have Not and The Breaking Point:    the two films are based on the same overall story,  but since To Have and Have Not was made during WWII it is a pro-allies war film,  with the script changed to reflect what was going on in the world at the time.    Add to this Bogie and Bacall falling in love during filming,  leading to other changes and we end up with a film that isn't very true to the Hemingway story.

The Breaking Point is much more faithful to the Hemingway story.         As for which is the better film:   In my mid-twenties I got into "those old films" because of Bogie;  I.e. the first 5 or so films I saw were Bogie films at a Hollywood revival theater.     Thus the Hawks\Bogie film was a favorite,    But thanks to TCM I saw The Breaking Point,  got into noir films,  and I would now say The Breaking Point is the better overall production,  by a hair.       Also,  the above is why I dislike the term "remake" and use adaptation instead.   The Breaking Point isn't a remake of the Hawks\Bogie film.     I.e. there isn't anything in the latter film to suggest the screenwriter,  director Curtiz,  photographer,  etc... followed the Hawks version.    Each film clearly stands alone, offering very different things to the viewer. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/27/2021 at 8:36 PM, Polly of the Precodes said:

To follow up my own post: On March 28, Noir Alley is showing PEPE LE MOKO (1937). It's in French, it predates 1940 (if you accept STRANGER ON THE THIRD FLOOR (1940) as the first film noir), and its status as a proper film noir has been questioned. Does this foretell a Noir Alley series of non-English-language films?

I watched  a rare showing of Le Dernier Tournant 1939 with Michel Simon & Fernand Gravey several months ago,it is the first filmed version of The Postman Always Rings Twice,it is very good and would be very interesting to show,TCM should be able to get it.

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/29/2021 at 10:14 AM, LornaHansonForbes said:

No, sadly.

sorry to get your hopes up.

I own a DIGITAL COPY which I can watch on my TV through amazon prime.

(it's sort of like when you have something stored on DVR)

Unfortunately, I don't think it's even available on Amazon Prime any more! 😢 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I thought the 1964 version of THE KILLERS was very good.  Lee Marvin was great as was John Cassavetes, Also, I had forgotten how hot Angie Dickenson was in the 60s. No wonder she was an honorary member of the Rat Pack.  I do have to agree with Eddie that Clu Gulager stole the show. It was really nice to see Eddie interview him at 92 years of age. Finally, how about Ronald Reagan's performance. He did a fine job portraying a cold hearted mob boss.  Having said all that, I don't think this version is anywhere close to being as good as the 1946 original. It is however, very entertaining and while it's not noir, but neo-noir; I'm glad Eddie decided to air it. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

My impression of the 1964 version of The Killers is mostly that it looked like what it was, a made for TV movie.  Lee Marvin was good, but then he pretty much does the same character in most of his movies and TV shows.  I did enjoy Clu Gulager's performance, but it was a minor role.  I like Angie Dickenson, but this was not one of her better roles.  She wasn't bad, she just didn't have that something extra she would bring to roles later on.

Read somewhere that John Cassavetes was not first choice and actually did not know how to drive very well.  This is type role where Paul Newman, James Garner or Steve McQueen would have fit better due to their experience with racing cars.

As for Ronald Reagan, mediocre at best just as any role I have ever seen him in.

The 1946 movie was far better in every aspect.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

Glad I bought it then! 
Best $2.99 I’ve ever spent in my life.

It was definitely worth the $10 or whatever I spent to see it at the Portland Art Museum. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, speedracer5 said:

BEYOND THE FOREST was definitely worth the $10 or whatever I spent to see it at the Portland Art Museum. 

it caused me to totally re-evaluate BETTE DAVIS.

When I first started wtaching classic films ca. age 10, she was my favorite, but over time, I grew a little indifferent to her (in the mid forties, she started playing her parts a bit too noble, a bit too prim.)

Holy ****, BEYOND THE FOREST reminded me of just why I loved her.

It is honestly a bit like the great LOONEY TOONS cartoon DUCK AMOK, where DAFFY DUCK finds himself cast against his wishes and left at the whims of a MAD ANIMATOR [revealed at the end to be BUGS BUNNY], the resulting meltdown is a thing of beauty to behold.

Same thing with BEYOND THE FOREST, only BETTE is in the DAFFY DUCK part and JACK WARNER is the unseen hand relishing giving her a hard time.

CoarseOddGreathornedowl-size_restricted.slap a Morticia wig on Daffy here and I wouldn't be able to tell them apart.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd seen this version of The Killers once before.  It was many years ago, and all I could remember about it was I didn't much like it.

What a difference a decade or two can make.  This time around, I liked it a lot. I was totally engaged with it from beginning to end. In fact - sacrilege ! -  I liked it better than the 1946 version.  For some reason,  I always fall asleep watching the earlier version.  I always like Burt Lancaster, and for that matter,  Edmund O'Brien.  But beyond that, the classic  The Killers has always struck me as kind of "meh".  Sorry, everyone.  I think my main problem with it is the Ava Gardner character, who remains a cipher throughout the entire film.  Yes, she's mysterious and beautiful, but she's completely one-dimensional.  We get no insight into who she is or why she makes the choices she does.  I've never even thought she seemed all that enamoured with Burt, not even from just a physical perspective.

Not so with the 1964 version.  Angie Dickinson is a much more interesting character than Ava's.  We get a lot more of who she is - even if it's all lies, as is apparently the case, judging by the ending -  you still get a lot more scenes with Angie, and dialogue from her than you ever do with Ava. When Ava betrays Burt, it's not that much of a shock, since  (to me, anyway) she never seemed that interested in him in the first place.  But boy, Angie really makes us believe, at least for a while, that she is truly in love with Cassavetes' character. She's also luminously beautiful.  I'm not a huge fan of 60s films, partly because the colour looks odd and sometimes jarring to me.  But in the case of 1964's The Killers, the colour really works - you can see how brown Angie's eyes are !  And she doesn't look harsh, -  so many woman in 60s movies have hard-looking make-up and teflon hair. 

I also really enjoyed Lee Marvin's and Clu Gulagar 's  (quite a name, that)  performances.  I agree that Clu was really entertaining, both scary and funny, as he gargled some cheap bourbon or played with toy cars or spritzed some bril cream spray on his hair.  The combination of psycho and silly really did make him, as Eddie said, an amusing character to watch.  And of course,  just looking at Lee Marvin's face could freeze anyone's blood (remember his portrayal of that cruel thug in The Big Heat ?)  

Anyway, I just found the whole story more interesting than the 1946 one.  And I wasn't expecting to - as I mentioned, the first time I saw the Don Siegel version, I didn't like it at all.  Guess my tastes or something has changed over the years.

ps:  I see that once again Eddie is showing a repeat on Noir Alley.  For sure he's already shown The Killer That Stalked New York before.  I just wish he'd come clean and tell us he's started doing this, and maybe explain why.  Although it seems I'm the only one who's bothered by it.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I might have to turn in my Noir License.

I literally did not know until now that the 1965(?) version of THE KILLERS is a remake of the 1946 version. I truly thought they had nothing to do with one another except the title.

I hang my head in shame.

 

edit- not to blow the thread up but I have always avoided it because of RONALD REAGAN. Take that as you will.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

I might have to turn in my Noir License.

I literally did not know until now that the 1965(?) version of THE KILLERS is a remake of the 1946 version. I truly thought they had nothing to do with one another except the title.

I hang my head in shame.

 

edit- not to blow the thread up but I have always avoided it because of RONALD REAGAN. Take that as you will.

It's pretty clear to me that Reagan was not a big star. I think the only other films of his I've seen are KNUTE ROCKNE and DARK VICTORY. I missed BEDTIME FOR BONZO,

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Hoganman1 said:

It's pretty clear to me that Reagan was not a big star. I think the only other films of his I've seen are KNUTE ROCKNE and DARK VICTORY. I missed BEDTIME FOR BONZO,

You haven’t seen KING’s ROW (1942)? 
 

its...interesting.

kind of a proto-PEYTON PLACE 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

SPOILER ALERT

 

It's been a few years since I saw the '64 version of The Killers but one moment I recall appreciating is when Reagan, knowing he is about to be killed, accepts his imminent demise with a calm serenity. His character may have been a rat and arguably deserving of his fate but, at the end, you have to admire his style (as opposed to the way Angie Dickinson deals with it which, to be fair, is only human).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

I might have to turn in my Noir License.

I literally did not know until now that the 1965(?) version of THE KILLERS is a remake of the 1946 version. I truly thought they had nothing to do with one another except the title.

I hang my head in shame.

 

edit- not to blow the thread up but I have always avoided it because of RONALD REAGAN. Take that as you will.

Believe me, they have little in common!

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it stunk! Came off like the tv movie it was (except for the violence) The whole Cassavettes/Angie story was really boring. And Angie (though I like her) is no Ava Gardner. The changes they made to the script didnt help either (auto racing?). It was fun seeing Reagan playing a villain and slapping Angie around, and Marvin and sidekick were good, but I was mostly bored. Poor Virginia Christine! She should have offered them some coffee! I didnt see the final double cross coming, but otherwise pretty predictable. Angie really got a workout in this film! (LOL)

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember seeing this back in college during the 1970s in a theater. When Ronnie Raygun first came

on there were a few catcalls and laughs. And that helmet hair. Dutch had enough oil and grease up there

to supply Cassavetes' race car for a couple of years. This definitely has the look and personnel of a TV

movie. Sheriff Lobo, Mr. Roper, Burt Mustin. I'm surprised Hal Smith and Sherry Jackson didn't show

up. It's sort of a stripped down version of the original and it does move quickly and is a lot of fun, as

least as much fun as one can have watching two hit men beat up blind people. I still prefer the first,

Victorian upholstered version, but this one is good too. Of course any version that doesn't include

15 or so bright boys will never live up to the first. I didn't consider Clu Gulager to be twitchy, quite

the opposite. He was a cool shades wearing cat who got a kick out of toying with peoples' minds

and looking to get a reaction. He had a somewhat similar attitude in The Virginian. Clu was the Marlon

Brando of Medicine Bow. And nothing against Angie Dickinson, but I must have missed the part when

she became a big movie star in the late 1960s. Anyhow, I enjoyed this flick, for itself and for its mid 1960s

TV vibe. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Vautrin said:

I remember seeing this back in college during the 1970s in a theater. When Ronnie Raygun first came

on there were a few catcalls and laughs. And that helmet hair. Dutch had enough oil and grease up there

to supply Cassavetes' race car for a couple of years. This definitely has the look and personnel of a TV

movie. Sheriff Lobo, Mr. Roper, Burt Mustin. I'm surprised Hal Smith and Sherry Jackson didn't show

up. It's sort of a stripped down version of the original and it does move quickly and is a lot of fun, as

least as much fun as one can have watching two hit men beat up blind people. I still prefer the first,

Victorian upholstered version, but this one is good too. Of course any version that doesn't include

15 or so bright boys will never live up to the first. I didn't consider Clu Gulager to be twitchy, quite

the opposite. He was a cool shades wearing cat who got a kick out of toying with peoples' minds

and looking to get a reaction. He had a somewhat similar attitude in The Virginian. Clu was the Marlon

Brando of Medicine Bow. And nothing against Angie Dickinson, but I must have missed the part when

she became a big movie star in the late 1960s. Anyhow, I enjoyed this flick, for itself and for its mid 1960s

TV vibe.

 

Yeah, right. Where does Eddie come off saying Angie Dickenson was A HUGE STAR??? She was NEVER a HUGE star!

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

I might have to turn in my Noir License.

I literally did not know until now that the 1965(?) version of THE KILLERS is a remake of the 1946 version. I truly thought they had nothing to do with one another except the title.

I hang my head in shame.

 

edit- not to blow the thread up but I have always avoided it because of RONALD REAGAN. Take that as you will.

I tend not to watch anything with Reagan, but did watch this since it was on Noir Alley.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Hibi said:

 

And how did Cassavettes wind up getting a job teaching the blind? Hardly qualified! LOL. I know he had a bad eye, but......

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hibi said:

 

Yeah, right. Where does Eddie come off saying Angie Dickenson was A HUGE STAR??? She was NEVER a HUGE star!

Actually not sure Lee Marvin was a "huge star" either.  He was bigger than Dickenson, but not huge.  I like Dickenson, but she was not outstanding in this movie or even most that she was in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ElCid said:

Actually not sure Lee Marvin was a "huge star" either.  He was bigger than Dickenson, but not huge.  I like Dickenson, but she was not outstanding in this movie or even most that she was in.

Yeah, he had his ups and downs. But he could carry a film while Angie never could with her name. Really a co-starring star.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, ElCid said:

Actually not sure Lee Marvin was a "huge star" either.  He was bigger than Dickenson, but not huge.  I like Dickenson, but she was not outstanding in this movie or even most that she was in.

Well, I’m pretty sure Lee Marvin won the best actor Oscar of the year that THE KILLERS came out (1965?)

I always remember Hank Hill’s dad on KING OF THE HILL considered ANGIE DICKINSON’S BIRTHDAY to be a national holiday. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hibi said:

 

Yeah, right. Where does Eddie come off saying Angie Dickenson was A HUGE STAR??? She was NEVER a HUGE star!

That had me scratching my head too. Sure, she was a reliable star, but she was never a big/huge movie star.

Her biggest role in the 1970s was the Police Woman TV show. I think Lee Marvin became a star in the later

1960s starting with The Dirty Dozen. This movie reminds me a bit of those Don Knotts' 1960s Universal films.

Kind of low-budget movies with lots of recognizable TV stars. Obviously the themes were a lot different. It

would have been perfect if the final shootout had taken place at The Brady Bunch house, though I suppose

that would have been an anachronism. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

Well, I’m pretty sure Lee Marvin won the best actor Oscar of the year that THE KILLERS came out (1965?)

I always remember Hank Hill’s dad on KING OF THE HILL considered ANGIE DICKINSON’S BIRTHDAY to be a national holiday. 

Cat Ballou.   I enjoyed him in the movie, but never really saw it as an Oscar performance.  But then, I often wonder about Oscar winners.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...