I know this isn’t a Spaghetti Western, but Sebastian wrote an amazing review of this release from Plaion Pictures. Wondering if anyone knows where one might acquire a copy without giving up a kidney to get it. Thanks in advance.
This is the review in question
the 4K looks fantastic, not sure why Plaion has so far been the only one to issue it on 4K?
Fantastic write-up! You made me want to get this 4K even more.
As the film was shot for TV the 1,33:1 aspect ratio must be the original one, the intended one.
Hemingway’s The Killers is only a short story (an excellent one) of a few pages, actually 9 pages in my version, and I’m not sure if the 2 films use any of its dialogues. In fact both films have nothing in common with Hemingway, both just use an idea of the short story of 2 killers looking for a man, who apathetically accepts to be killed by them. The protagonist of the story is actually one who only witnesses the killer’s behaviour in a diner and tries to warn their victim. We don’t find out why they want to kill him, why he does not want to run, not even if they ever find him, but assume that it might happen within a few hours or days.
The film just uses this basic idea and does what the story is not in the slightest interested in, to show the whys and hows.
And Siegel’s film is for that all indeed a remake of Siodmak’s film, using the ideas of the film and not of the short story. Both are similar good, yet quite different in style and story.
Siegel also remade another noir film for TV, which also was shown theatrically in some countries. The Hanged Man was also shot in 1964, and is based on Ride the Pink Horse (1947). It also has a prominent cast with Robert Culp, Vera Miles and Edmond O’ Brien.
intended for TV that is. I am militantly anti-4:3 
I need to rewatch this, I notice that when I wrote the review I didnt even have a 4K TV…
1 Like
Why?
So you don’t watch films made before the mid 50s, which nearly all have an 1,37:1 aspect ratio?
I also prefer easily widescreen formats, but the intended aspect ratio is the one I want to have. Similar to that I would never watch a b/w film in a colorized version.
In that case here, if it was shot for 1,33:1 a 1,85:1 version should lead to stuff like scenes with cut-off heads. But of course it is also possible that Siegel shot for 1,85:1, but that does only make sense if a theatrical release was maybe intended.
Siegel started directing features in a time when 1,37:1 was the only used format, and later made the step to widescreen by making both, films using anamorphic lenses and making them open matte. The last ones could be shown full screen on TVs and in 1,85:1 theatrically, but on TV you watched them then usually with unnecessary stuff on top and bottom.
No that’s fine, of course the widescreen version here is a result of masking, but as long as they don’t bring 4:3 TV screens and theater screens back, I prefer to watch movies in widescreen typically, and I despise modern day artsy filmmakers who go academy aspect ratio on me just to be funky (e.g. “American Honey”)…
Yes, but if it was shot for 1,33:1 the masking must result then in odd looking picture compositions.
Would be interesting to check The Killers for such.
And calling all modern 1,37:1 films “artsy” is a bit discriminatory … 
Actually Nolan’s the Odyssee was shot in the IMAX 1,43:1 aspect ratio, but at the same time also so that it could be shown in the usual 2,35:1 format for the standard theatres.
That’s at least kinda odd, cause you see in IMAX only lots of unnecessary stuff then, but it’s huge of course.
but that applies to all flims shot open matte, and I would assume they compose their shots usually with the idea in mind that they may later have to mask it somewhat to accomodate theatrical exhibition… but i will keep an eye out next time i watch it
I saw it at the cinema when it was released in the UK. I thought it was a trash TV movie then, and I certainly wouldn’t waste my time with it now. It was made for US TV, so the correct ratio is 4:3.
Most likely, but not necessarily.
Even if TV was the original destination Siegel may have shot it with cinema in mind though.
No he didn’t. It is obviously framed for 4:3. What cinema ratio would you you suggest 1.77:1, 1.85:1?
It’s 4:3. It’s a crappy little movie. Siegel needed it because he was doing TV series at the time and had no clout. Look at the pics on imdb that have been given the 1.85 treatment - missing chins, missing heads. Real clumsy framing.
Siegel didn’t do a cinema movie until 4 years later in 1968 with Madigan which gave him a bit of an uplift. He was a hack. Dirty Harry lifted him to god-like heights. But he was still a hack.
you’re making all the Siegel fans mad now
2 Likes
Well, I’m sorry, but I just never rated him. And I did see quite a lot of his films. I even read his book.
Madigan was pretty good. I felt Dirty Harry was overrated, but Clint Eastwood’s delivery of some great scripted lines saved it. Two Mules didn’t quite make it as a Spaghetti copy. It was quite slow moving. But the Killers was the pits. I actually paid to see it because I was a big fan of Lee Marvin. Just my personal opinion. Don’t take it too hard.
Anyways the Arrow disc also has the film in the 4:3 open matte version. And the plaion edition has it on the BluRay at least
Everyone who has the Plaion edition says it looks phenomenal. I know it’s a Tarantino fave.
I assume you are in a minority with such a negative opinion for such a gifted director.
He was an action specialist, and for a certain kind of genre movies he belonged imo to the best from the 50s to the 70s. Without making the same kind of masterpieces which Peckinpah or Leone were able to do.
But he made many great films like Riot in Cell Block 11, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Baby Face Nelson, The Line Up, Flaming Star, Coogan’s Bluff, Madigan, Dirty Harry, Charley Varrick, The Shootist, Escape from Alcatraz and some others.
And The Killers is for me, despite noticing its TV origin, another good one.
Checking the net for the aspect ratio question, and in this case DVDBeaver, I found this:
“*The Killers has a place in history for being the first purpose-made American TV movie, at a time when television sets universally cam in the squarish aspect ratio of 1.33:1. However, The Killers was intended from the onset to be show-able in cinemas, at a time when widescreen was all but universal and many projectionists were no longer able to screen films in the TV-shaped ‘Academy’ ratio. On January 155h, 1964, when the film was still known as Johnny North, the daily edition of variety reported that ‘in all probability’ ‘North’ will be released in Europe as a theatrical film, and thus, turned out to be the case.”
From that it is very likely that it was shot open matte, so that both a fullsreen showing on a 4:3 TV (with unnecessary space visible on top and bottom) and also a widescreen matting for cinema was possible. But that only works if it was shot for 1,85:1 (or maybe 1,66:1, which often was still used in European countries).
Like all open matte films were shot in these years.
On DVDBeaver you can find many screen shots, and none of them looks imo like it was not shot for 1,85:1.
2 Likes
Yes, I might be in a minority. Clearly the studios liked him or he would have disappeared. You can see widescreen framed shots on imdb. Some of the framings are chopping off chins and heads. A good cameraman would use the 1.85:1 marked area in the viewfinder to make sure that the framings would work for widescreen.
An interesting example is Hellbenders. Two cameras were used, one with open matte and one with matte. When I saw it at the cinema, the projectionist showed it full 4:3, meaning that almost every other shot had the matte showing. He obviously didn’t realise he was supposed to wind the mask in.
When it was shown on TV, they looked at the matted shots, and zoomed in to make them 4:3. So now the whole film was cropped at the sides and at the top. Nice (sarcasm).
I actually checked the IMDB photos, and none of the 16:9 ones looked odd, on the contrary the 4:3 ones all looked like being made for widescreen, on top and bottom nothing important was visible.
You can check the screen shots on DVDBeaver, they all look good.
I have seen a few 1,37:1 films masked for a 16:9 TV image, and there always were a few shots in which heads were really cut off in the middle. Or even the whole head was gone.
I’m pretty sure now that The Killers was shot for widescreen.
Two cameras? Unlikely. As you wrote a paragraph up, they may have a guiding line in their viewfinder to allow them to compose the shot in anticipation of the matting of the image if that’s the case. They don’t film the same stuff with two cameras or lenses