The Killers (1964)

[tenia]

I just watched it, and it's hard to believe it's directly coming from a Universal job made from an interpositive.

Since I watched it on DVD in 1.37 (courtesy of Carlotta) in the past, I chose to test the 1.85 this time, and I do think it's a nice option to have the choice here. It's a bit tight, to be honest, but there's nothing to be concerned by this ratio.

Both PQs are very good, lots of details, nice chunk of fine grain, plus a quite stable frame and color density (even if it fluctuates here and there). Except for what DVD Compare has seen, mostly between the 15th and 30th minute (lots of blemishes and dust, especially white vertical scratch like it's raining, plus an overall desaturated look which does not match the rest of the movie), it's a quite neat HD upgrade there, and I would have a hard time saying it's "below the usual standards we are currently getting from Arrow". It has the said-flaws, but apart from this, it's very good.

AQ is also quite good, though all the dialogs where motors are running near by leads to strange things. Not being an English native speaker, I used the SDH subs, and stumbled upon the big racing sequence, where you can't hear a thing from what the race speaker is saying, but you have full subs for the whole sequence. Also, where Cassavetes is driving with Reagan (still in 2014, it's weird to write a thing like this) after the heist, it's also difficult to hear their lines. But otherwise, especially for the title sequence, it's a nice track overall, and a very clean one !

[MichaelB]

Well, it's not every day one gets called a fascist by Jeffrey Wells.

[kingofthejungle]

Well, it's not every day one gets called a fascist by Jeffrey Wells.

Oh, so offering alternate aspect ratios is great if you're adding 1.37:1 to the mix, but fascism if it's 1.85:1. I hate that guy.

Incidentally, am I the only one who prefers Don Siegel's The Killers to Siodmak's version by a lot? From my perspective, the overpraise of the earlier version is a textbook case of noir genre critics trying to spin a mediocrity into a masterpiece. The 1946 version has always seemed a cold, dead object - all surface and no soul. Siegel's film is a B-movie monument to humor, energy, and audacity (with, if I might be so bold, a much more engaged directorial imagination at work).

I'm so glad you guys brought this one to Blu-Ray. Just placed my order

[MichaelB]

I'd understand his ranting if I thought he was under the impression that the film was only being presented in 1.85:1, but he makes it clear that he's aware that it's being offered in two framings. So I really don't see what the problem is.

[tenia]

Am I the only one who prefers Don Siegel's The Killers to Siodmak's version by a lot? From my perspective, the overpraise of the earlier version is a textbook case of noir genre critics trying to spin a mediocrity into a masterpiece. The 1946 version has always seemed a cold, dead object - all surface and no soul. Siegel's film is a B-movie monument to humor, energy, and audacity (with, if I might be so bold, a much more engaged directorial imagination at work).

Same here. I thought there's much more to enjoy in the Siegel version than the Siodmak one, which always seemed too classical to me.
I wouldn't say it's mediocre, though. It's just not so thrilling.

I'd understand his ranting if I thought he was under the impression that the film was only being presented in 1.85:1, but he makes it clear that he's aware that it's being offered in two framings. So I really don't see what the problem is.

For him, it seems that 1.37 is the ONLY ratio which should be included. The inclusion itself of the 1.85 ratio is the heresy for Wells, who doesn't seem to understand the core concept of "Alternative ratio" (obviously, as Archer would say).

[Roger Ryan]

I prefer the Siegel version as well. The opening two scenes from the Siodmak film are well-done (essentially covering all of the Hemingway short story), but the expanded back story developed to flesh out the feature is not particularly gripping. This is probably due to making Burt Lancaster's "The Swede" the focus of the action whereas Siegel's adaptation puts all the emphasis on the titular "killers" which Lee Marvin and Clu Gulager perform beautifully.

[domino harvey]

Banning everyone on this page, FYI

[MichaelB]

Cine Outsider.

[MichaelB]

Criterionforum.org.

(I've sent Chris a booklet, which he really should have been sent upfront - at forty pages and 12,000 words of text, it's an important part of the overall package!)

[Stuart Galbraith IV]

Savant's review of THE KILLERS is here:

http://worldcinemaparadise.com/2014/03/ ... lers-1964/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[David M.]

Nice to see a positive review, but this...

Arrow’s grain-free image is as sharp as a tack and colors are bright and accurate;

makes me wonder. Grain-free? Not on my watch...

[tenia]

I've seen movies with a much heavier rendering, but The Killers certainly isn't grain free. There's a good chunk a fine grain, actually.

[EddieLarkin]

Just got done with this. The two new interviews are excellent, and I'm sure the booklet will be as well once I get around to it. I enjoyed the film a lot more than expected; not bad for a TV production! Coincidentally I watched Cruel Gun Story (from the same year) for the first time a couple of weeks ago, and so was surprised to find both films have identical truck heist plans. Presumably the Japanese production lifted it from The Killers, and not the other way round (though I can't seem to find a precise release date for CGS?).

As for the aspect ratio, the film works a lot better for me in 1.85:1. There are a number of instances were an actor will be facing the camera with his head right at the top of the 1.85:1 image, and he'll move forward half a step or so. The camera will move up with him so he isn't cropped, evidence that the film was shot in the same way any other soft matted film from this era would have been: with 1.85:1 ground glass markings.

Saying that, there are at least two shots which genuinely work better in open matte. Near the start when Marvin and Gulager are on the train, Martin signals to the porter to take a tip from the wad of bills on the table. In the 1.85:1 version you cannot see these bills and have no idea what on earth Marvin is doing, until the porter actually picks up his tip that is. Another is towards the end, after Angie Dickinson has told her story in the apartment. When Marvin declares he understands now why Johnny North didn't run, he makes a gun shape with his index finger and thumb and points towards his head. In the 1.85:1 you only see the tip of his finger, and miss the gun sign completely (though it is easy to figure out that's what he's doing).

Odd that both of these are at the bottom of the image, rather than the top. Maybe the camera operator was paying less attention there. Anyway, a dual AR release is more than justified with this film, and I'm glad we got 'em.

[Graham]

Finally watched this - excellent film, excellent release. Went for the 1.33 ratio myself and although there was a bit of space above heads etc, I think it works quite well.

Interesting to see the talk above about how this was given an 18-cert by the BBFC. I'm totally confused as well - not watched the extras yet and thought they might contain something stronger. Apparently not. I would have thought The Killers a 12-cert.

[EddieLarkin]

I thought it might be the scene where

SpoilerShow

Angie Dickinson gets hung out of the window by her ankles.

The BBFC have a thing about imitable behaviour.

[swo17]

Could it have anything to do with the fact that it's called The Killers and has guns on the cover?

[David M.]

Doubt it. There are plenty of movies with more violent themes.

[MichaelB]

It has to be the Angie Dickinson scenes - I can't think of any other conceivable reason. We were expecting a 12 or a 15, and indeed the film was only banned to under-16s back in 1964 (the old X certificate).

Not that too many under-18s were ever likely to purchase this - but I hope nobody's too disappointed!

Incidentally, Arrow's release of Walerian Borowczyk's Blanche will also be getting an 18, despite the main feature only being a PG - but that's because of the extras. We're assuming we won't be losing many sales to the teenage market.

[colinr0380]

This is all speculation without knowing the reasoning of the BBFC, but I also wonder if it is the impact of the opening scene in which the blind secretary is threatened and then (off screen but with a piercing scream) put out of commission. One of the things that the film does well is a brilliant sense of threat and menace throughout, with long build ups to quick releases of aggression. The main characters giving no thought for the brutalised after the information has been wrung out of them, but each given brief moments at the end of their scenes to react to the threats from the hitmen. I suppose compared to bloodier but less full of personalised threat 15-rated action films, even without graphic violence or explicit language The Killers can look like pretty strong stuff. But then tense and threatening conversations with shifty characters is a key element of hard-boiled hitman noir, so it shouldn't be surprising!

[matrixschmatrix]

I've had this disc for a while, but finally just got the change to watch it- I tried the 1.85 ratio, but it felt like there missing information, in a frustrating way, and the 1.33 looked not only more comfortably but pretty spectacularly good, overall. I'm working my way through the features now, and I liked the Epstein piece a lot, but Marc Eliot one is a bit frustrating; apart from any political considerations (which only really bothered me in that he wasted some time talking in irrelevant right wing talking points about Obama) he seemed to think that Reagan's performance was bad because Reagan was too likable, 'affable' as he put it, which- I dunno, I thought it had an appealing Henry Fonda in Once Upon a Time in the West quality, giving a roundedness to a character who would otherwise be a one note villain.

I mean, it's still a worthwhile piece, just odd that he seems to dislike his performance out of excessive liking for Reagan's own persona.