MovieChat Forums > The Killers (1964) Discussion > liberals and reagon haters must love thi...

liberals and reagon haters must love this movie!


it must be a hoot to see him as the bad guy then gets killed.

reply

Haha. That was kind of funny.

But just because I dissaprove of the way Reagan (not Reagon) ran the country, doesn't mean I have to not like him in movies. The same goes for Charlton Heston. Planet of the Apes is one of my favorite movies.

I had the oppurtunity to visit Ronald Reagan's ranch here in California, and I remember thinking of how much fun Ronald Reagan would have been to be around. But that doesn't necessarily have any correlation between my dissaproval of his political policies.

But yes. You're post did make me laugh...

reply

Of course, almost no one under the age of 60 knows enough to even discuss Reagan's acting or his politics, but that doesn't stop them from parroting what they read on bumper stickers.

Like most studio contract players, Reagan performed in the crap roles, with the crap scrips he got dealt, and occasionally had a bit -- like Kings Row -- that weren't the usual formula westerns or zany comedies that paid most of the studios' bills. Kids who grew up after the days of all black-and-white TV see mostly the cream of the 1930-1960 movies and don't realize that the vast bulk of movies of that era were forgettable drivel with all the artistic possibilities of a steaming pile of cowflop. Ya just can't go wrong selling that quality to the American consumer. Great drama happened -- far more than today, actually -- but it was far from common.

Reagan's roles were almost entirely B-grade, at best, and of no character depth at all. He did a workmanlike, competent job with them and, in the few rare occasions he had a role that wasn't a cardboard cutout, he showed surprising talent that the studios never bothered to take further. Considering his liberal activism and strong union politics in a time when studio bosses were decidedly conservative and anti-union, the lack of studio opportunities were hardly surprising.

While criticizing his conservative policies makes one popular amongst the politically illiterati who make up the Left, it might prove instructive to actually read Reagan's political commentary and writings from the period, which betray a geopolitical understanding and insight far beyond his peers of the time. Of course, most people don't even know he wrote columns, so Xerox their opinions of him from other mindless X-generation non-thinkers.

The Left, of course, can never forgive Reagan because he knew exactly how bad the Soviets were, and exactly how to destroy them without firing a shot.

reply

While criticizing his conservative policies makes one popular amongst the politically illiterati who make up the Left, it might prove instructive to actually read Reagan's political commentary and writings from the period, which betray a geopolitical understanding and insight far beyond his peers of the time. Of course, most people don't even know he wrote columns, so Xerox their opinions of him from other mindless X-generation non-thinkers.

You sure spent a lot of energy composing to make the right sound intelligent, Im impressed. Im not sure what readings you base your judgment of his writings on, but I found Regans view of the world to be about as naive as the majority of movies from his era.

Stand by for justice!

reply

"You sure spent a lot of energy composing to make the right sound intelligent, Im impressed. Im not sure what readings you base your judgment of his writings on, but I found Regans view of the world to be about as naive as the majority of movies from his era. "

It's impressive that you manage to be so condescending while at the same time failing to master basic grammar and spelling.

And congratulations on so aptly demonstrating the kneejerk reaction of the non-thinker referenced by the earlier poster.

reply

It's impressive that you manage to be so condescending while at the same time failing to master basic grammar and spelling.

And congratulations on so aptly demonstrating the kneejerk reaction of the non-thinker referenced by the earlier poster.

How long did it take you to write two sentences? Honestly now. I only ask cuz it was very well written! I'm not sure what posters you're referencing though, all I see is text in this thread.

Stand by for justice!

reply

"I'm not sure what posters you're referencing though, all I see is text in this thread."

Your humor is nearly as effective as your spelling and reasoning skills.

reply

Okay, you win. You're much better at sounding smart than I.

(This time I'm timing you)

Stand by for justice!

reply

"Okay, you win. You're much better at sounding smart than I. "

You're correct.

Which brings us back to an earlier point: why should we be interested in the opinion of someone like you who knows nothing about the person he is writing about, and can not form a coherent sentence in the process?

reply

I've read quite a bit on Regan and his government actually. I'm not sure where in my writings you've come to conclude I know nothing. Are you a close relative of his? Regans I mean. Or just a big fan?

I don't come to a movie board to discuss politics in depth or try to show off my knowledge and ability at stringing together sentences with unnecessarily inflated vocabulary. I was just responding to a bitter post I found ignorant and in the process have rooted out an amusing individual to play with.

Sorry i offended your hero/cousin/infatuation. He seemed like a decent fellow, I've nothing against him personally. But I never knew him personally, as you seem to have.

Stand by for justice!

reply

"I've read quite a bit on Regan and his government actually. I'm not sure where in my writings you've come to conclude I know nothing."

Really. Could you name anything you've read? Because I would have to assume that someone who has read "quite a bit" would know how to spell the man's name correctly.

"I don't come to a movie board to discuss politics in depth or try to show off my knowledge"

That is fortunate.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

smokehill retreivers,

You are a assuming much when you say people under 60 do not know who Reagan is. I am 41. The very first Presidential election I was eligible to vote in was his second run for office.

Ya, I remember your boy, Reagan, all right. Reagonomics... well, I do not want to get into a political discussion. Just suffice to say that his tenure in office was more memorable than most of his movie roles.

Believe it or not, many people under the age of 60 are also aware he was the President of SAG as well as an actor, too. Many of us have even seen many of the movies he appeared in. He was not considered a great actor by any or even a good actor by most. I think his role in The Killers was his best work, followed by his role as the drunken fop and socialite friend of Bette Davis' character in Dark Victory.

Don Seigle had good instinct to cast Ronnie as Browning in The Killers and he talks about it on the Criterion Collection Double DVD release of both versions of this movie. But, his tenure as the President of SAG is generally looked upon as his best work in Hollywood.

You do know what the Criterion Collection is, right? Or are you just a Reagan fan? If you like movies in general and collect them, you may have heard of the Criterion Collection. If you are merely a Reagan fan, well, I would imagine this is your first reference to it.

Do you know what SAG is? I can explain that one for you as well, if need be. Let me know.


Berlitz and proud of it.

reply

[deleted]

This assumes a lot. I am merely 30, but I remember Reagan quite well from his years as President, particularly the last few. More importantly, as a classic movie lover, I first saw his movies before I was a teenager. I chose to do a report in the 7th grade about his movie career.

How old a person is does not determine what facts they know. Age may account for experience, but not knowledge.

Personally I liked Reagan then, and even more now that I can appreciate what he did for this country. Like any President, he wasn't perfect and he couldn't please every political faction. He came close, as evidenced by his carrying 49 of 50 states in his 1984 re-election victory.

As an actor, he is better known for his amiable presence than for delivering Oscar-caliber performances, but that's okay. He remained a popular celebrity for over 30 years, making dozens of movies and starring on TV. To rise from lifeguard to radio announcer to actor to Governor and then become President of the United States is an extraordinary story.

reply

mr., im a 'lefty' me self, and still i have to comment on your excelent and informative post.

disregard social norms, indulge every whim, , mock posers,sleep with whores,

reply

Yeh, I hated Reagan and I loved this movie. But that's not so much to do with Reagan as with it just being a terrific movie. One of the few cases where the remake is as good as the original.

Never thought much of Reagan as an actor but this is by far the best role I've seen him in. He is actually quite creepy as a villain.

If you're like me, it's possible you're a clone generated from my stolen DNA

reply

Reagan was quite creepy as the villian in this movie.

On the Criterion Collection DVD, excerpts of Don Seigle's book are read. He stated that he was originally tapped to make this movie in 1946 but was not hired because someone in charge of greenlighting the picture did not like him or the producer at all.

It really is no wonder that this movie is as good as the remake. Seigle had a vision for it even before the first version was made.




-Long Live the Gangs of Berlitzes-


Berlitz and proud of it.

reply

I thought Reagan was great as Jack Browning in Killers '64. I haven't seen any of the other films he was in, nor do I have any desire to. I can't imagine him in any other movie (or any other moment of his life) being as cool as he was here.

I also cracked up when, in his first scene, there he was standing right beside Norman Fell! And as I like to tell the uninitiated, if you've ever wanted to see Reagan bitch-slap Angie Dickinson, this is the film for you!

The [email protected]

reply

HBO aired this film last week. I originally saw this flick as a teenager on TBS.

Personally, I thought Reagan was great in this film. Politics aside and his previous acting work, it was interesting to see him cast as a heavy, abuse women, snipe people from high-rise windows and use slang (talk about "the great communicator"). He's one of the reasons to watch this film.

This is a cool film irregardless any feelings folks may have about Ronald Reagan's presidential policies.

reply

There was a skit once on Saturday Night Live where Reagan is in the Oval Office meeting girl scouts as the dumb affable President. Once they leave, he turns into a Jack Browning type plotting and planning against the Sandinistas. I saw this movie this morning for the first time.

reply

I'm not right-wing, yet I get a hoot out of watching him slap that lame dame in the face (she had it coming), though Lee Marvin and Cluh Galagher deal with her in a nicer manner.

I found him to be one of the highlights of the film, an overall very good one!

reply



Reagan was MUCH BETTER in this role than his one as President. Someone slip the scene of him slapping Angie Dickinson to CNN so it can be shown at the RNC during commercials.

reply

The '64 version is possibly the only remake to truly surpass the quality of the original. (Those who think the new version of "Cape Fear" outdid the original must be smoking something). Not to say that the original wasn't very good, but the remake is even better for two reasons: (1) the cinema's top action director of all time, Don Seigel, and (2) the clssic, definitive Lee Marvin performance. He is priceless.
"I'm sorry, I, uh, don't have the time."

Now to Reagan. The left hardly hates him because he supposedly figured out how to deal with the Soviets. The left rightly hates him because he desensitized this country to the fanatics of the so-called Religious Right, and, in so doing, paved the way for the worst administration in American history - that of George W. Bush.

For examples of how well religious fanatics run governments, check out the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the rest of the Middle East's more enlightened administrations.

That said, Ronald Reagan was very good in this, his last film, as was Albert Dekker in the original role. The only advantages of the original were the great Edmond O'Brien in a role that was not reprised in the remake, and, of course, the unmatched beauty of Ava Gardner.

That said, the cast of John Cassavetes, Lee Marvin, Clu Gulagher, Ronald Reagan, Angie Dickinson, Norman Fell, Claude Akins, etc. is unparalleled.

And now a trivia question:

Who is the only performer to appear in BOTH versions? (Answer below)








Virginia Christine who was Lt. Lubinsky's wife in the original and the secretary in the school for the blind in the remake.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

You're either on drugs, Sentenza, or you're greatly diluding yourself. James Baker is the one that really ran this country during the "Reagan Years". You just don't like to have to think too much, and guys like Reagan say to you, "Great. My kind o' guy."

reply

[deleted]

I'm a flaming liberal and I like the movie. I loved seeing Reagan as a bad guy, not because of his political views, but because he did such a good job in the role. Also, nobody dies like Lee Marvin.

reply

[deleted]

Look! Another Republican that can't spell, even when its his wet dream's name!

reply

There's always somebody like you, itching to stir the fudge!

Dale

reply

Congratulations, alxnrth. That was even a complete sentence. No, we sure don't want anybody disagreeing with a Republican, do we? After all, everybody knows that they're the only real Americans, right, you self-righteous pinhead?

"There's always someone like you, ..."

Yeah, there's always someone like me who just can't go along with the Republican platform, and just keep their mouth shut, right? Isn't that what you really mean to say? I've got some news for you, by the way - I voted Republican in the last governor's race, in my state. And, here's something that will come as a complete shock to your unaware self, I'm sure - Democrats outnumber Republicans by a margin of 2 to 1, in the U. S. Unfortunately for them, they're entirely too apathetic and entirely too disorganized, which is why Repbulicans even ever have a chance of winning.

You're the type, no doubt, that actually thinks that making an obvious attempt to pander to policitcal factions (women, right-to-lifers, and post-adolescent males), by picking Palin for VP, is a good thing. And, I'd be willing to bet an awful lot of money that, like most of you flag-waving yahoos, with all of your brave posturing, never quite got around to joining the military, did you? Never had time for that little detail, did you? You're too busy thumping your chests about what great Americans you are, as if you had a clue what that means.

Please. Go down to the post office and salute a flag, you jingoistic dunderhead.

reply

SPOILER ALERT!

Reminds me of the first time I saw this movie. I was living in Libya in 82, and it was a rare treat when the stultifying state TV broadcaster would put on a decent Western movie. Everyone was looking forward to watching The Killers - a Reagan film being shown in Libya, where hatred of him was (and possibly still is) Government policy.

Well, you know the scene at the end where Reagan gets shot. There's still a bit of the movie to go, but we never got to see the rest. The broadcast froze at the point where the bullet hits Reagan, rewound a few seconds, and replayed it about 5 or 6 times! And that was it. We fell around laughing - that's the style of Libyan propaganda, very heavy and obvious. An image of the leader of The Great Satan getting shot in glorious Technicolor was too good to pass up.

reply

[deleted]

what a great fvcking story.

so, could I ask what were you doing in Lybia in 82 , or you would have to kill me?

disregard social norms, indulge every whim, , mock posers,sleep with whores,

reply

What could be more awesome than that?

reply