I managed to catch The Killers, or Ernist Hemmingway’s The Killers (1946), and thought it was pretty good. So in my recent attempts to have a ‘library’ of noir/crime films that aren’t public domain and are streamed on shaky platforms that might toss it off for any reason and the movie disappears forever, I bought a copy on eBay. It came with another movie, The Killers. Huh? It’s a remake, made in 1964, in color, and with a star studded cast.

Actually, both films are pretty loaded with stars (and many discussed here in the past). But only one features a former United States President.

The Killers (1946) starts off as an adaptation of an Ernest Hemmingway story, about a man warned that two thugs are on their way to kill him, and he lets them; the rest of the movie is a procedural from the view of an insurance investigator as he tracks down the victim’s cronies from a heist involving a lot of triple crosses.

A couple heavies walk into a diner and threaten the staff and a young man, taking over the place to wait for and shoot The Swede, who never arrives. The young man runs off to warn The Swede, who says it’s fine, don’t worry about it. The two thugs walk in and shoot The Swede, movie over. We’re introduce to Jim, the insurance investigator, who backtracks on The Swede’s life as a boxer who falls for a young woman, Kitty, who is mixed up with a small group of guys who are up to no good. The Swede’s boxing career ends and he falls in with Kitty’s gang, even going to jail for Kitty over stolen jewelry. When he gets out, Kitty’s new boyfriend (sorry, Swede) has an elaborate robbery lined up. From there, The Swede double crosses everyone, thinking he’s running away with Kitty, but then Kitty disappears with the money, and The Swede makes a new life working at a gas station until he’s spotted by Kitty’s criminal boyfriend, and realizes that his days are numbered.

Jim learns all of this through a series of flashbacks that are recollections from the people in The Swede’s life, kinda like this was a criminal investigation into Citizen Kane. Jim coming in to follow up on the crime might be the movie’s only real flaw, because, who is Jim? Why not the young man from the beginning of the movie, have him motivated to learn about how The Swede got in this mess? Have that emotional line through the whole movie. But, it’s about the money that the insurance company is trying to recover, so I guess that makes sense. I enjoyed this very much, so I won’t ruin the plot any further than I have, other than people get killed due to more double crosses. It looks great and is pretty suspenseful. Highly recommended!

This version stars Burt Lancaster as The Swede (I wonder if this is where the Coens got “The Dane” from for Miller’s Crossing) and Ava Gardner in their first big roles. We’ve seen Edmond O’Brien in similar roles; another investigator is played by Sam Levene, who provides comic relief as a police lieutenant in two of the Thin Man movies. The two thugs are played by Charles McGraw and William Conrad, who have been in a ton of stuff. The crime boss is played by Albert Dekker, who served a term in the California State Assembly. He did not advance to other political offices.

So, I watched the 1964 version, which was made for TV but released theatrically. I think you can tell by the TV aspect ratio, the use of stock footage, and characters saying “let’s go to Florida” and then in the next scene you just assume they’re in an office or building in Florida.

Two hitmen, Charlie and Lee, go into a school for blind people and kill the only person who can see them coming, Johnny. Johnny is warned by a phone call, but just waits for the hitmen. Later, Charlie wonders why they got paid so much and why Johnny didn’t run or defend himself, so they decide they will look for Johnny’s accomplices from a heist from years ago to see what the deal was and what happened to the money from the heist.

The same thing pretty much happens, but in color, with jazzier music (lots of bongos), and Ronald Goddamn Reagan talking tough, planning to rob a mail truck carrying payroll, and slapping his wife Sheila. And it ends bad almost everyone, I don’t know how this would have been enjoyed as a TV movie. Maybe TV movies were edgier than what we were used to in the 80s & 90s. Kids, network TV would make their own movies, for a while. (I don’t know the economics of this or the whys, sorry.) What I’m really focused on here is that the bad guy is played by RONALD REAGAN, who would become Governor of California soon after and then President of the United States. The same job George Washington and Abraham Lincoln had. Also that doesn’t seem impressive now, considering who has the job currently.

This movie tries to be edgy with the contrasting villain types, from Charlie (Lee Marvin) the methodical and stern older criminal vs his more hip and wild partner Lee (Clu Gulager), to the point where I thought there’d be some kind of face off between them. Everything else is kind of schmaltzy, from Johnny’s racing partner who misses him, to the love story between Johnny and Sheila that develops under Ronald Reagan’s watchful eye. Johnny is played by John Cassavetes, a respected stage & TV actor, who I honestly know from a great Columbo episode. Sheila is played by Angie Dickinson, and other big character actors include Claude Akins and Norman Fell.

Was it as good as the original? No, that’s a high bar frankly. Was it any good at all? The actors do plenty with the material, but it doesn’t feel that fleshed out. Like, was Johnny even hiding? in a School for the blind? I don’t think he used a different name. (The Swede, in the 1948 version, has an alias while working at a gas station.) Where did the thugs get the info on Johnny that he may have had a million dollars from a heist? How does he not know who hired them? I think that’s what made this an emptier story; that it’s the killers (!) who are trying to solve the mystery. Like, they’re jerks, even if they let people they interview live (after threats to the contrary). I don’t feel anything for these guys, they just shot a guy in a school for visually impaired people, harming some of them in the process. That’s why I mentioned the emotional connection to the young man at the diner who worked with The Swede at the gas station – give us someone with a direct link to the victim, to give them a reason to find out what happened for the rest of us. Granted, I saw the 1946 version, so I knew the story when popping in the DVD for the remake. Regardless, it’s just jerks double crossing jerks. Anyway, Ronald Reagan decided he didn’t like being a movie villain and gave up acting, and now you know the rest of the story.

Oh, I will mention one more weird plot thing about the remake: There’s a stock car race that Johnny is in, he is distracted by his new love Sheila, and the race track announcer is just describing what Johnny is up to in the race. “he’s going for a pit stop, it looks like he’s in trouble…” doesn’t mention the other racers. Like the narration is for the TV viewer.

I would recommend the 1946 version. There’s no reason to not watch the remake, but I don’t think you’re missing anything if you don’t. The original starts off pretty tense and stays compelling. Give it a watch!