criterionforum.org

MichaelB wrote:That's definitely a very marked advance on the 2003 version, which is fairly poor-quality NTSC SD.

Granted the two caps at DVDBeaver I have to go off are probably not sufficient for me to make any proper inferences.

I'd lay money on the 2003 version being sourced from analogue videotape.

Criterion describes both versions of The Killers as getting "at the heart of Hemingway's existential classic," though I'd argue that both fail to do so. I haven't read the Hemingway short story that both are based on, but looking into some brief thoughts about it online, it seems that the story is less concerned with the opening killing, as opposed to the question Lee Marvin half-heartedly asks throughout the '64 version: "What makes a man decide not to run... why, all of a sudden, he'd rather die." -- And not in the literal sense, but rather in the more enigmatic, existential one. (With this in mind, I'm interested to see how Tarkovsky handled his short -- I'll get around to this shortly.)

Regardless, the '46 version succeeds in being a very good noir of its time, its greatest moment being a tense opening twenty minutes that perfectly captures what seems to have been the entirety of Hemingway's short story. (Does anyone else think this scene might have had an influence on Cronenberg's A History of Violence?) One of the most other notable moments is the one-take (I believe) robbery scene, that is also timed perfectly with the accompanying narration. The '64 version succeeds in transitioning the point of view to that of the killers themselves (Lee Marvin is indeed great and certainly a much better character to follow than the one played by Edmond O'Brien), though is bogged down by its racing backstory (I also couldn't really take Cassavetes seriously in a role that he clearly took for the money -- and considering he was able to go off and direct the masterpieces he did with such money, then so be it!).

The original is good, but the character we follow around isn't terribly engaging and the whole reason for him being there (and how it all concludes) is hard to take. The opening, Lancaster, Gardner, Siodmaks' direction and look for the film, along with the flashback structure are ultimately what makes it work and a classic.

I've always liked the '64 version but it's managed to really grow on me even more over the years. Like you said, Marvin's character is far more interesting to follow, though at the same time I do have a hard time believing a hitman would ultimately go to the lengths he does to find out why his victim welcomes death, even if he's going through some existential crisis. Still, I can overlook this while watching.

The performances are all strong and they've all really grown on me as well. I know Cassavetes did the film for the money but I still think he's really good in it and I completely buy his character.

Spoiler

The scene where he realizes Dickinson has completely screwed him over (after she says something like "make it quick" to Reagan) is heartbreaking from his point of view.

Dickinson and Marvin are both damn good, and Marvin just steals every scene he is in, as does Dickinson, and when the two share the screen together it's easily one of the most intense moments in the film. But it's Reagan that always surprises me. From my perspective it is hard to take him seriously since all I really know him as is a former President and I had only seen his films after the fact: because I grew up in the 80s he's a politician first and an actor second. Also, how he has always had the same look, even in this film, makes it even harder. But he plays a really good heavy here, and I found him quite menacing.

Spoiler

His final moments, when he realizes the end has come and he has been screwed over by Dickinson as well, is especially effective.

And the ending is far more effective in the '64 version I feel:

Spoiler

Basically ends in a blood bath and I love Marvin's final line: "Lady, I don't have the time." Much more engaging than the ending they even make fun of in the special features of the disc, where the "hero" saves the insurance company a fraction of a cent on every policy they have.

It can have a low budget

The ending of the original feels tacked on and actually makes you forget everything that came before. Maybe it's a mix of growing up on pulpy films from the 50's, 60's, and 70's and my somewhat cynical nature, but the ending to the '64 version is far more memorable. I actually forgot the ending of the original and was only reminded of it when I revisited the Blu-ray here.