उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं

The Killers is an expansion of a short story by Ernest Hemingway. The first ten minutes of this film is pure Hemingway with two contract gunman occupying and terrorizing a greasy spoon diner. Two of the most malevolent character actors around, Charles McGraw and William Conrad are the hit men.

They're there to kill Burt Lancaster, known to the town as just a simple garage mechanic. Because he left a small insurance policy, his death was investigated by insurance cop Edmond O'Brien. Naturally Lancaster was no simple garage mechanic by any means. O'Brien comes up with Burt's real identity and the reason why a few people wanted him dead.

The Killers was a big break film for Burt Lancaster. He had only done one previous film and that was Desert Fury for Paramount studios which had signed him. Because Universal was looking for an unknown to play the victim, Lancaster's agent was able to land him the part. And because Desert Fury was held up, The Killers became his debut film and he was a star from his first film.

This was also a milestone film for Ava Gardner as well. After The Killers, Louis B. Mayer was most reluctant to lend her out any longer due to the notice that she got.

The plot of The Killers is very similar to that of Out of the Past with Lancaster in the luckless Robert Mitchum role. As for Ava Gardner in her portrayal, she's taking a couple of pages from the Mary Astor school of double crossing, two timing dames. At least Mary had Sam Spade's promise he'd wait for her.

The Killers is a must for Burt Lancaster fans who want to see the film that launched his career.

Maybe I've just seen too many old movies, but for me, other than the period fedoras and suits, nothing about this movie would really give away that it's almost 60 years old.

The plot is solid and keeps you guessing until the end, with many twists and turns along the way, and is told asynchronously (perhaps necessary for today's audiences, which may be why it holds up so well). The acting is great, quite realistic, and for the most part avoids the maudlin sentiment and overacting that characterizes some older films.

The Killers is an incredibly enjoyable crime film, perhaps the perfect crime film. I haven't seen the remake, so I can't comment on that, but I hold this film in high regard.

Along with Billy Wilder's "Double Indemnity," this is the one that established what film noir was all about.

Robert Siodmak's classic thriller, along with "Criss Cross" are two of his best pieces of work, proof positive that crime dramas could rise above the mundane and the clichéd.

Based on one of Hemingway's Nick Adams short stories, it tells the intriguing tale of two hit men who show up in a small town (the film moves it from the Midwest to New Jersey), where they take over a diner and tell its terrified occupants they intend to murder a nobody of a gas station attendant when he comes in for dinner. When he doesn't show, they hunt him down at the rooming house where he lives and do the job there. That's where the short story ends, but the script by Anthony Veiller picks it up from there, pursuing the fascinating story of what makes a man give up on life to the point where he passively waits for a pair of gunmen to show up and blow him to smithereens.

The protagonist,called the Swede, is a guy who isn't a criminal by nature, just a guy who fell upon hard times, but sees a way out by committing one more crime. And of course, as in any good film noir, his greed is fueled more by lust than anything else. There's a girl involved and in order to get her, he has to get the loot.

Burt Lancaster, in his first staring role, comes off very well here, as does Ava Gardner, also top billed for the first time. Strong supporting performances by the great Albert Dekker as the top hood and Sam Levine as a cop with a heart of gold. And we cannot forget Charles McGraw and William Conrad as two of the most frightening cold blooded killers in film history.

Siodmak does a great job in the director's chair in this Mark Hellinger (The Roaring Twenties) produced drama, but it is cinematographer Woody Bredell who steals the show. His use of lighting goes beyond spectacular. All of the clichés we think of in film noir lighting spring from this one film, where they were done right. And watch for one of the longest tracking shots in film history, as Nick Adams flees the diner and races to the Swede's rooming house to warn him. It's an amazing, unbroken shot that runs more than a minute.

Watch, too, for the brilliant shoot 'em up scene in a restaurant at the end of the movie when the two gunmen reappear. It is just a textbook blend of all the movies are supposed to be about, great acting, camera movement that means something, and brilliantly layered music by Miklos Rozsa. Film-making doesn't get any better than this.

A four star film and one of the godfathers of the genre. Don't miss this one.

I absolutely love this film! It's in my favorite genre, film noir, and it ranks among my favorites in that genre along with Out of the Past and Double Indemnity to name a few. Although there are a series of coincidences in the plot that stretch credibility, I believe they were necessary to maintain the pathos. In his first star turn, Burt Lancaster was excellent as the naive hood and Edmond O'Brien is likewise in his portrayal of the insurance investigator. He is almost always in a supporting role but that in no way diminishes his talent. But this movie is really Ava Gardner's. She never again had a role that fully realized her talents as much as Kitty Collins. Her portrayal of the manipulative and seductive but not altogether unsympathetic mistress is one the greatest of its kind. The last scene with her and Colfax shows this type of character in its most ignominous glory. Highest recommendation, 9/10.

'The Killers' was released on 1946. Back then, the film-noir genre was really popular. And in my opinion, this one is one of the best of this great cinematic genre, because it's told in a different way than most of its time. This movie is told through really smart flashbacks.

'The Killers' begins with two hit men arriving in a small town with only one objective: kill 'Swede' Anderson (Burt Lancaster). After this, a detective starts to investigate his death, by interviewing the people of the town. This is how he uncovers a murderous plot evolving multiple characters. This is one of those movies that really keeps you interesting and anxious on what's going to happen, ans when the plot reveals itself, it's really awesome how everything is around Kitty Collins (Ava Gardner). The story is well-told and aged really well.

The acting here is not superb, but it's not bad also. The movie is important because it's the first major role of Burt Lancaster, and the movie made him a star. It also features the always beautiful and mysterious Ava Gardner and the competent Edward O'Brien, in a interesting role.

I have never watched a Robert Siodmak picture before, and was surprised to see how well he directed this picture. The camera was always at an interesting and different angle, and there's one nice tracking shot in the middle of the movie. Along with the well-made soundtrack by Miklós Rózsa, and the also well-made cinematography by Elwood Bredell the mood in here couldn't be better.

Overral, this is a great film-noir movie, one of the best of its genre. It aged really well, most because of Ernest Hemingway's powerful story. It keeps you interested, with nice acting and directing.

8/10

A solid enough film noir, but I don't think it ever has the same menace after that opening scene in the diner, where the two heavies (William Conrad and Charles McGraw) are fantastic. The story being told in flashbacks is nice in that it cleverly shifts the mystery of the film to 'how did this come to be', not 'what will ultimately happen to the main character,' which since the Production Code was in play, would have been largely a foregone conclusion anyway. A lot of it falls in place a little too cleanly though, and as the story plays out beyond that first scene (the only part of the film that was in Hemingway's story), it's a little on the simple side. Still though, to see Burt Lancaster in his first film role is a real treat, and he lights up the screen in all of his scenes. This wasn't Ava Gardner's first film, but it was the one that made her a star, and despite some unevenness in her first scene, she gets better as the film progresses, and also projects a lot of star power. Edmond O'Brien plays the investigator working for the insurance company, and it's one of the better performances I've seen from him as well. So for me the film is more about that opening scene, Lancaster, Gardner, and to some extent O'Brien - and less about grittiness, light/shadow, moody cynicism, or an intricate plot, which are some of the usual highlights of noir. It's not outstanding, but it's worth seeing.

Some intrepid critics have categorised 'Citizen Kane (1941)' as an early example of film noir, owing largely to its influential cinematography and flashback narrative structure. As though consciously in support of this assertion, Robert Siodmak's 'The Killers (1946)' – expanded from a 1927 short story by Ernest Hermingway – plays out precisely like a noirish retelling of Welles' film. After enigmatic ex-boxer Swede Andersen (Burt Lancaster) is gunned down by hired assassins in a small American town, insurance investigator Jim Reardon (Edmond O'Brien) decides to piece together the man's past using fragmented testimony from those who once knew him. In doing so, he hopes to uncover the meaning behind the dead man's final words, "I did something wrong once." The life that Reardon discovers is one tinged with tragedy, regret and betrayal, revealing details of an audacious factory heist, a treacherous dame, and a double-cross to end all double-crosses. An archetypal noir, 'The Killers' caps an excellent year for Siodmak, who also released the Freudian psycho-thriller 'The Dark Mirror (1946).'

'The Killers' opens with a thrilling prologue that sees two hired thugs (William Conrad and B-noir stalwart Charles McGraw) harass the patrons at a small-town diner on their way to assassinate Swede Andersen. The characters' quickfire exchange of dialogue resembles something that Tarantino or the Coen brothers would have written decades later, only better, because screenwriter Anthony Veiller (with Richard Brooks and John Huston) reproduces the conversation from Hemingway's short story almost verbatim. After Andersen is unresistingly gunned down in his bed, the screenplay then expands upon the foundations laid down by the source material, using flashbacks to fill in the empty spaces at which Hemingway had only hinted. Veiller, whose work before WWII was dominated by romantic dramas, comedies and light mysteries like 'The Ex-Mrs. Bradford (1936),' appears to have been hardened by his work on Frank Capra's "Why We Fight" propaganda series, and the dark, cynical post-War tone he brings to Swede's tragic story is an ideal representation of the noir spirit.

Burt Lancaster shows promise in his screen debut, though the film's narrative structure does keep the audience distant from his character, an issue that Welles somehow avoided in 'Citizen Kane.' As the resident femme fatale, Ava Gardner never quite inspires the collective hatred garnered by Barbara Stanwyck in 'Double Indemnity (1944)' or Jane Greer in 'Out of the Past (1947),' but perhaps that speaks to her charms – that, despite her betrayal, we're still unwilling to treat her with due contempt. Good-guy Edmond O'Brien cheerfully and voyeuristically experiences the wretched life of a gangster through the intermediary flashback device – he ends the film with a cocky grin, like an audience-member emerging from a screening of the latest gangster thriller. Throughout this review, I've been making allusions to 'Citizen Kane,' but there's a very important difference between the two main characters: Charles Foster Kane had all the money in the world and got nothing out of it. Swede Andersen wasn't even that lucky; he didn't even get the money.

You can scan thru many publications and they will tell you that Robert Siodmark's adaptation of Ernest Hemingway's story The Killers is quintessential noir, and whilst I haven't seen enough of the perceived classics to make a sound judgement, I do understand why this one ranks so high.

Perfectly directed by Siodmark because it is washed with a moody ambiance that befits the script, the main players in the piece are bang on form to realise the mood and sombre tempo that makes the film a winner. The story basically revolves around Burt Lancaster's Swede Anderson who upon learning that hired killers are out to fulfil a contract on him, promptly stays horizontal on his bed and awaits his fate. We then follow Edmond O'Brien's insurance investigator Jim Reardon as (thru a series of flashbacks) he reconstructs Swede's life and what caused his demise.

The story encompasses one of film noir's most well known femme fatales in Ava Gardner's foxy Kitty Collins, and it's certainly the film's driving force as we observe her part in Swede's life, for better or worse as it were, but ultimately it's the classy framing of the film that marks it out as essential viewing. It's oppressive, it's almost stifling, and it's certainly story telling of the highest order, but mainly it just looks so fecking gorgeous you feel privileged to have been part of it. 9/10

This film seems to get a lot of love, and to extent, it deserves the acclaim. The first 20 minutes of the film is an adaptation of a famous short story of Hemingway. The film starts with two killers taking over a diner, waiting for a local known as "Swede" (played by Burt Lancaster in a breakthrough role) that they've come to kill. When Swede doesn't show, they leave, and Hemingway's ubiquitous protagonist, Nick Adams, races to the Swede's apartment to warn him.

For the first 20 minutes, the writing is excellent, the dialogue terse, and the viewer is left with a grim view of the coldness of life, which provides moments of sudden danger and incomprehensible actions.

And then Hollywood makes its contribution. Around the gem of a short story, the film makers added a backstory explaining the Swede's actions (or lack thereof) including crime, a femme fatale (played by the gorgeous Ava Gardner), a robbery, and a conflict about stolen money. The larger film is far less interesting. Unfortunately, the film spends most of its time following the actions of an insurance investigator played by Edmond O'Brien, who just cannot command the screen as well as Burt Lancaster and Ava Gardner can. Perhaps if Lancaster and Garnder had been given more prominent rules and O'Brien had been marginalized, the relative triteness of the larger screenplay could have been overlooked.

I give this film a 6. The first 20 minutes are epic, but the rest isn't.

This is a beautifully made improvisation on a Hemingway story that screenwriters Tony Veiller, John Huston and Richard Brooks, along with director Robert Siodmak, have somehow turned into baroque film noir. The movie starts out with a couple of hired gunmen looking for a character named Swede in a small New Jersey town. They tie up some people they encounter in a diner where they expect the Swede to be, then go and look for him, as he has not turned up at his usual time. A young man they tied up breaks loose and goes and warns the Swede, who thanks him but does nothing, remaining in bed, smoking a cigarette, waiting for the killers to show, which in time they do. The rest of the movie is an exploration, conducted by an insurance investigator, into the murky issue of why the Swede allowed himself to be murdered, and who ordered the killing in the first place.

I can't say the movie's exploration of the Swede's character runs deep, or even that it's satisfactory in its psychology. It works so well because it's excellently written, photographed (by Woody Bredell), and acted (by Burt Lancaster, Ava Gardner, Edmond O'Brien and Albert Dekker, among many others), and consists of flashbacks, and in some cases flashbacks within flashbacks, as its labyrinthine plot, full of double crosses and unexpected turns, drives the film with a relentless urgency that in the end has less to do with psychology than the workings of fate. There is an overwhelming feeling in this film that people behave the way they do because they are driven by forces they cannot understand. In this sense the story in itself is, as presented, shallow and depressing, and yet the movie is so well-crafted, with the action at times seeming to be choreographed, that the end result is akin to an existential roller-coaster ride, if not much to think about.

After an amazing first 15 minutes which is just pure class, the film sadly drops to average, even below average as it really begins to drag. If only it retained the same quality, look, feel and dialogue throughout the whole movie that was used in the classic opening scene. If it did, then I can understand all the high ratings. However sadly what is a boring middle and average ending, is why I give this such a low mark. The stand out performances for me in the movie was not Lancaster or Gardner, but the two hitmen we see at the beginning. My advice, watch the opening first 15 minutes only and then read the short story the movie was based on instead.

No need to recap the plot. Lancaster and Gardner may get star billing, but O'Brien gets the screen time. In fact, Lancaster's role is spotty, while Gardner's only big chance comes at the end. Otherwise, she sits around, looking beautiful and sexy, which she's supposed to. Clearly, O'Brien's insurance dick is no Phillip Marlowe. Instead he has to answer to a by-the-numbers boss (MacBride in a surprisingly straight role). Still, Reardon (O'Brien) has the one feature required of all noir private eyes—he's a seeker after truth, come what may. And in this case, it's what's with the suicidal Swede (Lancaster).

Also, get a load of that opening scene—a midnight diner, shadowy figures, an empty street. Noir seldom comes any purer. All that's missing is a lonely train whistle. In fact, I'll take that extended scene as the movie's best. McGraw and Conrad drop enough tough talk on the poor counterman to drown the average fall guy. It's from that tense 15-minutes that the movie gets what grit it has. The story's remainder is more like a metaphysical puzzle, as Reardon tries to piece together a solution to Swede's mysterious death. Trouble is he's got to rely on second-hand sources since Swede's in no condition to talk. Plus the sources from his past are disconnected in the telling, so it's like trying to figure out a jigsaw. Then too, will the pieces all fit since somebody could be lying—maybe the squinty Dumb-Dumb or the cringing Charleston, or even the curiously laid-back Colfax (Dekker).

This is a narrative you have to think about once it's over. Because, like a highway under construction, there're a lot of twists and turns. Curiously, the main part is largely devoid of action or even much violence. Instead, the writers and director Siodmak settle for atmospheric exposition, and I'm not sure if that helps or hinders. But either way, the unraveling is compelling. Then too, that final scene on the staircase is oddly reminiscent— in this case, Mary Astor's elevator going down at the end of The Maltese Falcon (1941) despite her emotional pleas.

Anyway, 40's noir hardly comes any purer, from spider woman to fall guy to $50 lighting bill. So if you don't mind a complex plot-line, this is one to catch.

"It's a really a good yarn." That's what President Ronald Regan said about Tom Clancy's book "The Hunt for Red October". The same thing can be said about this movie. It's like a big yarn. And in the end you're still not quite sure who screwed who. Two men walks in to a diner. It becomes clear that what they're after isn't eggs and bacon but a man. A man named Swede. Swede has done something. A long time ago and now it's catching up to him.

Ernest Hemingway's "The Killers" is a good film noir. It's based on a short story and the only connection between it and this movie is the opening scene. The rest is written by various other writers. The film was entertaining. Drawn out at times but entertaining none the same. Humor combined with drama like the dialogue in the opening scene makes you think about it later on and it doesn't just leave your mind three minutes later.

The gritty film noir style and filming is quite clear in this movie. Especially in the opening scene which remains as my favorite part in the film. The use of shadow and light is wonderful. As for the rest of the movie, it was good and even a bit thrilling at times. This is definitely recommended to people who like good film noir.

Regarding the latter, that is saying quite a lot seeing as Ernest Hemingway's work is very difficult to adapt and has met very mixed success on film. What is remarkable about The Killers is how it takes a very good and remarkably powerful short story and expands further on it, one of the few Hemingway adaptations to be just as good as its source material and at times be even better than it.

This said it is a fabulous film too on its own terms, and is quintessential film noir, audacious, taut, exciting and suspenseful when it could have been overblown, overwrought or dull if done wrongly. And as much as I did like the 1964 remake, mostly because of Lee Marvin, the 1946 original is the far superior film, with an obvious difference for the better being the production values. The remake was hurt by its rather rushed and cheap made-for-TV look, whereas the production values is one of the strongest things about this version, with its crisp photography, brilliantly atmosphere production design influenced by Edward Hopper and shadowy lighting, that bring such an effective noir-ish atmosphere, the opening scene is particularly striking in this regard.

Miklos Rozsa's music here is one of his most ominous and stirringly orchestrated, used sparingly but with palpable effect, really allowing the atmosphere to speak and enhancing it even further when it features. So good in fact, that it was used again for the TV series Dragnet. Robert Siodmak's expertly direction, which maintains a powerfully bleak tone throughout, and a cracking screenplay are further great things, as is a story that is tightly paced and excitingly taut with tons of suspense and intrigue and intricately done and never confusing flashbacks, not getting dull for a minute. This viewer for one was riveted throughout and never found herself confused.

Strong acting also helps, with Burt Lancaster thoroughly convincing in his first starring role, his best moments in fact are stunning, and Ava Gardner in the femme fatale role is wonderfully beautiful, classy and mysterious. Albert Dekker and Edmund O' Brien are the standouts in support, Dekker is splendidly larcenous and O'Brien drives the investigation with such taut aplomb. Charles McGraw and William Conrad are chilling too, and you wish the film developed their characters just a little more. While the characters are not the most well-developed, they are still interesting and carry the narrative without any annoyances or irrelevance.

All in all, superior version and quintessential film noir in its own right. 10/10 Bethany Cox

Hit men Max and Al come to Brentwood, New Jersey and kill Ole "the Swede" Andreson (Burt Lancaster). Life insurance investigator Jim Reardon (Edmond O'Brien) tracks down the beneficiary of the policy. He is helped by the Swede's friend police Lieutenant Sam Lubinsky (Sam Levene). The Swede was a washed up boxer who got mixed up with some bad people and Kitty Collins (Ava Gardner).

Killing off Burt Lancaster right at the start takes away some of the tension. The movie stalls a little bit after a really compelling start. It would have been much better to have him live and he could hunt down for those responsible. Watching the flashbacks in this movie, the fact that he's already dead is always at the back of my mind. I love the start but the structure isn't as compelling.

The Killers marked Burt Lancaster's screen debut, establishing the stoic persona that would sustain his long and luminous career. Along with Criss Cross (also starring Lancaster), The Killers also records the high-water mark of Robert Siodmak's work in film noir.

Starting with a Hemingway short story (the retelling of which constitutes only the prologue to the film), The Killers endeavors to fill in the "back story" which Hemingway left to his readers' imaginations. That back story explains why the "Swede" (Lancaster) passively, almost eagerly, awaits the nasty pair of torpedoes (William Conrad, Charles McGraw) who have come to hunt him down. The germ of this recreation is Lancaster's small, solitary bequest -- to a chambermaid in an Atlantic City hotel where he had once stayed. Insurance investigator Edmond O'Brien catches the scent of something unusual and can't let it go. His investigations, helped by an old buddy of Lancaster's who is now a police lieutenant (Sam Levene), uncover a botched stint as a prizefighter; a smouldering yet duplicitous temptress (Ava Gardner), and a payroll heist that ended in an elaborate double cross.

Siodmak, having disposed of the end right at the outset, takes a circuitous route through his telling by using a fragmented series of flashbacks. Paradoxically -- much as the false starts and averted climaxes in a Bruckner symphony pay off handsomely in the end -- the story thus gains depth and momentum. Woody Bredell's dark and meticulous cinematography fulfills Siodmak's vision, resulting in one of the central masterpieces of the noir cycle.

The Killers (1946)

This first version of "The Killers" is even more legendary than the Hemingway story it is based on, and director Robert Siodmak keeps the complex plot graphic and engrossing step by step. It's a gritty hunt for the bad guys through a lot of terrific sets, from city inside and out to some country scenes, all really authentic.

It's flashback heaven, which is fascinating but also fragmenting. It's a choppy ride, so if you love aspects of the movie, you'll never get drawn into the flow of it in the usual way because it keeps bouncing between the present and the next flashback, and the flashbacks are told from a whole slew of perspectives, including a man who dies while telling it.

This might be recommended in some ways. The methodical steps end up mimicking an actual investigator's progress, hearing the stories of different witnesses or people who knew the victim. And so the story gets pieced together by necessity. It's tightly woven, and of course photographed in that fabulous late 1940s black and white exaggeration that defines the look of film noir. Flashbacks are of course a staple of the genre, and even the idea of having a main character dead in the first few minutes is something noirs have played with all along (from "D.O.A." to "Sunset Blvd." to name just two). John Huston, of proto-noir "Maltese Falcon" fame, helped write the screenplay, though the best writing seems to come from the first half hour, which is the only real Hemingway part.

We rarely see Burt Lancaster, the headliner, but are glad when we do. We catch more of the plodding insurance investigator, a kind of Bogart wannabe, Edmond O'Brien, who is exactly the needle we need to thread all these pieces together. And if Ava Gardner makes a famous appearance now and then as a mysterious woman mixed up in a crime ring, she is as fleeting as Lancaster. This is a group effort, and you can picture it being filmed in discrete sections with particular actors only needed for small parts of the whole.

Eventually the pieces become clear to the investigator, and to us, and if there is some surprise (and satisfaction) by then, there was much more satisfaction getting there, step by step. A great but in some ways middle of the road noir.

This film noir from 1943 was loosely based on an Ernest Hemingway play of the same name, introducing the world to giant powerhouse Burt Lancaster. The famous 20-minute opening that has two contract killers, Max (William Conrad) and Al (Charles McGraw), arrive at a small-town diner looking for a man named the 'Swede' (Lancaster), is now one of the most widely celebrated scenes in noir, going against type by having it's (anti)hero killed before the film has really begun. As Ole 'Swede' Anderson lies dead, life insurance investigator Jim Riordan (Edmond O'Brien) takes a special interest in the case, interviewing friends and ex-colleagues that leads back to sultry femme fatale Kitty Collins (Ava Gardner) and a $250,000 heist.

While it ticks all the traditional film noir boxes, the main aspect that makes The Killers stick out amongst many other noirs of the period is the cinematography, which is straight out of the school of German Expressionism (German-born director Robert Siodmak would have grown up with the likes of The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920) and Metropolis (1927)). Filmed by Elwood Bredell, long, dark alleyways swirled with steam, silhouetting suited strangers, pepper the film, adding a real sense of style to the proceedings, and adding to the mystery and blindness of Riordan's mission, of which he has little to go on. The aforementioned opening scene, which was later homaged by David Cronenberg in A History of Violence (2005), is a masterwork of tension- building, as two suited thugs press their violent sensibilities onto the simple townsfolk. Producer Mark Hellinger helped create some of the finest noirs of this era, including They Drive By Night (1940), Brute Force (1947) and The Naked City (1948).

Lighting the torch that would be carried on by fellow noir masterpieces Double Indemnity (1944) and Sunset Blvd. (1950), The Killers is tough, unpredictable and dark, representing everything the genre is so lauded for. Anchored by an impressive physical performance by Lancaster, it is really O'Brien who takes the centre stage, playing the shrewd investigator who would become the fabric for many a noir dick, full of confrontational dedication and unconventional methods. But it is Ava Gardner, who plays one of the most devious femme fatales in history, that lingers in the memory, perhaps never looking more beautiful. When the climax comes into force, it becomes clear that the plot is actually very basic, but the film wraps it up in double-crosses, bruising monochrome boxing matches, and some fine dialogue, written by Anthony Veiller and an uncredited John Huston. One of the finest of its genre.

www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

How can a movie possibly sustain the momentum created by the first phenomenally tense fifteen minutes of "The Killers"? In my humble view, this one could not. Once the Prentice Hat Company heist occurred, I admit that I was lost, and I even replayed the movie a few times in order to understand what exactly happened to the loot and how Kitty (Ava Gardner) and Colfax (Albert Dekker) managed to double-cross everyone around them. I admit that in trying to figure this all out, I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I did make an effort all the same because it was worth it to me. By the way, was there a connection between the classic, much imitated opening theme song of "Dum Da Dum Dum" and Dum Dum, the character in the film? I'll think about that tomorrow.

Anyway, the prevailing mood and tension of the opening scene was, at least to me, cinematic perfection, but the problem was that the rest of the film could never maintain the intensity of its opening. Aside from the masters of unmatched evildoing, William Conrad and Charles McGraw, that was Bill Walker who played Sam, the cook. Do you remember him as the pastor in "To Kill a Mockingbird" who demanded that Scout stand for her father when he was passing? That made at least two magnificent cinematic scenes which featured Walker. How many Hollywood actors can make that claim? Harry Hayden played Al, the diner proprietor, who has a staggering 300 credits on this website spanning from the 1930's to the 1950's, so if you grew up watching television or films during this period, as I did, you've certainly seen Harry before.

Edmond O'Brien is one of the most likeable actors of all time. Don't ask me why, but he is, starting from his very first film in 1939 as Gringiore in "Hunchback of Notre Dame" but not to forget "White Heat" and "D. O. A", all personal favorites. He appeared with Gardner again in "The Barefoot Contessa", but the rest of that film is very vague in my mind. As always, Gardner is beautiful here in her film debut, but I much preferred her in "Night of the Iguana" and "On the Beach", films that captivated me to the very end and not just the first 15 minutes as in this case, which didn't even include Gardner. In spite of the strange role as Kitty, this launched her into Hollywood stardom. "I swear. Kitty is innocent!" What an awful scene, but I don't blame Gardner for that. In his film debut at age 33, Lancaster had a much better role as the Swede, and the rest is history. Another bit of trivia is that Virginia Christine, rejected here by Swede for the Gardner character, appeared with him in "Judgment at Nuremburg", although never in the same scene. She was the one who packed the strudel for Spencer Tracy on his way back to Maine.

After all of this commotion, remember that the basic rate of the Atlantic Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey will probably drop one tenth of a cent. That says it all. And being that it's Friday, don't come in until Monday.

I was surprised when I looked at IMDb's list of highest rated film noir pictures, since this movie was well down the list. This review and my subsequent review for DOA are being made to try to correct this oversight. Also note that there was a re-make of this film in 1964 starring Lee Marvin and Ronald Reagan. This review is for the original film only.

This is one of the most stylistic noir pictures made. Like the FANTASTIC opening of Sunset Boulevard, this movie STARTS with the murder of a poor sap and then backtracks to let the viewer slowly understand why this occurred. Surprisingly, the part given to the murder victim in this movie is played by Burt Lancaster in his first picture--what a great first film! Other reasons I liked the film were the cast (I like ugly old Edmund O'Brien--a stand-out noir actor because he is unattractive, beefy and delivers lines like it was from an episode of Dragnet), writing (it keeps you guessing), direction and impressive cinematography.

Do yourself a favor and see it soon.

A noir flick based on a Hemingway story, the opening scene is magnificent. This is a b&w tale told in noir pacing through the bifurcated windshield of the 1940s. Two killers show up in a small-town diner looking for the Swede. They want to kill him; it's what they do, and they're not quiet about it. This is a story told in flash-back. One highlight is the Swede's downfall, the femme fatale, Ava Gardner at her peak. She no good. All the men around her, as she's only surrounded by men, are rough but she's the devil. She looks like a different species when you first set eyes on her. The room is full of men who roughly look and dress alike and then you see her, on the bed *surprise* looking like an alien being. She's all smooth purring greed, which is lust-adjacent, so. Fact is, everybody in this flick is tough as nails. The best friend cop, the jilted good-girl girlfriend, the insurance investigator, even the lone diner who faced the killers. In this noir world everyone has as an iron will that's a bit twisted.

This opens atmospherically, then leads into a plot overcooked by several hours. Well filmed in black and white of course, it has a beautiful look for much of its running time. Edmond O'Brien who should be named as the lead as he has the most screen time and carries us along the plot is good, no better, Burt Lancaster in his first screen role is wooden or overacting, Ava Gardner is similarly poor and the rest of the cast just pass muster. Very overrated. If you want great noir try Murder My Sweet, This Gun For Hire or The Maltese Falcon, but this'll pass the time for you while looking good; no better than that.