Watch The Killers For Free

Redundant and unnecessary.

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Ernest Hemingway's short fatalistic story about a man meeting hid death most stoically gets another telling in this remake of the 1946 film that starred Burt Lancaster and Ava Gardner. John Cassavetes is the luckless victim and the femme fatale is Angie Dickinson. In the title roles are hit men Lee Marvin and Clu Gulagher who gun down Cassavetes. Marvin wonders why he and Gulagher were paid far more the going rate for this hit and why Cassavetes seemed so resigned to his fate. The two turn detective replacing Edmond O'Brien's role in the 1946 film and find out Cassavetes who is a racing car driver was the wheel man in a mail truck robbery. By the way even I could have planned the robbery better with less trouble that would have made Cassavetes role in it quite disposable. But that's just one weakness.Masterminding the robbery in his last big screen role and only villain is the 40th President of the United States, Ronald Reagan. This was a hard to see film for decades while Reagan embarked on a political career that took him to the top. I don't think that was an accident. Don Siegel directed this film and well. But I think the main problem other than really a well planned caper is the lack of rooting interest in this cast of thoroughly bad people as leads. No rootin interest here for anyone, a good deal of fascination though.As for Cassavetes if you saw the first film with Lancaster and Gardner, than you know how thoroughly Cassavetes will be destroyed here.Destroyed body and soul.

One morning, hit men Charlie (Lee Marvin) and Lee (Clu Gulager) enter a school for the blind and terrorize the principal until she reveals the whereabouts of a teacher, Johnny North (John Cassavetes).There are plenty of notable things about this movie, not least of which is the cast. Beyond the three mentioned above, you have Ronald Reagan as a mob boss and Angie Dickinson. Have you ever seen Reagan play a nasty villain who likes to slap the ladies? Not until you see this. Also notable is the made-for-TV status (even if it fell through) and the direction of Don Siegel.Most interesting is the continuity of the source material. Hemingway's short story is just that -- very short, focusing mainly on the killing of one man. In the 1946 Robert Siodmak version, we get what happened before the killing, and here we get what happened after. If it was not for the twenty year time change and new cast, these stories could actually go together and be less of a remake and more of a sequel.

Much like the 40s Lancaster vehicle, this Don Siegel-directed flick takes Hemingway's short story as a starting point to a noir classic. On paper, the differences are relatively minute, but in execution, these could not be further apart.Gone is the scale and class of the gorgeous B&W original, and in comes a gritty, grainy, dynamic cinematic pit-bull. It's not Siegel's most polished work, but it might just be his most inventive and playful, from a cringe-worthy opening scene in a clinic for the blind to a coldly pessimistic ending by way of racetrack madness and hanging femme fatales out of windows. Siegel makes the most of a modest budget and, as in most of his work, uses it to create a pedestal for his cast and their performances. And what a cast...It takes too many expletives to praise Lee Marvin in general, and especially here, so if you have any interest in him, go see this now. What you also get but hadn't bargained for, is a superbly reptilian villain from Ronald Reagan (!?!), who also shares a scene for the ages with a scheming Angie Dickinson. Much of the fuss around this film tends to be made in regards to a psychotic Clu Gulager, and it is well deserved, but that would be overlooking the man who anchors the whole show: John Cassavetes. Beyond giving the proceedings a strange aura of respectability, he generously gives it a tragic sense of reality that makes the surrounding characters more believable.You often find people compare this to Pulp Fiction when grasping for film references. This probably sets up unfair expectations, not least of which the idea that a streamlined, 90-minute film noir might have anything in common with a 150- minute "epic". But it is indeed pulp, and of the highest order. It is also, arguably a better film.A little diamond in the rough, worth seeking out.

I have seen this film many times,and I have never tired of it..considering it was made for TV, somehow the film got into the movies,the cast is top class.It was not even called the Killers in the USA.Lee Marvin and Clu Gulager are contract killers...who get curious about one of their hits,they are breaking the hitmans code ,but smell a big payoff...the cast is classy with the beautiful Angie Dickenson at the height of her powers, throw in Ronald Reagan as the top crook with the superb John Cassavetes as the fall guy and the sparks fly.Clu Gulager was a great actor and in this film plays a very believable second string to Lee Marvins relentless and merciless killer.Throw in some great car scenes,and a cool ending,and you have a very enjoyable movie,with sub themes of greed, betrayal,and unrequited love.All in all a classic,very watchable,and you cant say that about many 1960s made for TV movies ..Super film.