Stanley Kubrick was the director, cinematographer, editor, co-producer and co-writer of his second movie and commendably, despite his lack of experience and an obviously low budget, "Killer's Kiss" proved to be an extremely enjoyable and visually impressive film noir drama. Davey Gordon (Jamie Smith) is a washed up boxer who meets and falls in love with a dance-hall hostess called Gloria Price (Irene Kane) and together they plan to relocate to Seattle. Unfortunately, Gloria's violent employer Vincent Rapallo (Frank Silvera) has designs on her and dispatches two of his henchmen to deal with Davey. However, due to a couple of unexpected coincidences, the plan goes wrong, the two men kill Davey's manager and the police suspect that Davey is the murderer. In order to prove his innocence, Davey pursues Rapallo and this eventually leads to a final confrontation between the two men when they engage in a spectacular and well choreographed fight for supremacy. Throughout the story the action takes place in locations which seem claustrophobic and often the framing of the shots emphasises this impression. Davey and Gloria's living areas and Rapallo's office are all small. Camera positions which look down on the characters when they're on the stairs in the couple's tenement building and in the dance-hall entrance area also appear to significantly constrict the space they occupy. During a boxing match in which the two boxers are already confined within the ring, when Davey's opponent stands up to start the bout, he is seen from a low viewpoint behind the still seated Davey, with the result that the space which he visually inhabits is made even smaller as he is then seen framed by Davey's right leg. Even the outdoor sequences in the latter part of the film convey the same impression as narrow streets and alleyways surrounded by very high buildings seem to close in on everyone who enters those areas. Some good ideas are also used to make the film visually interesting. Davey's face is seen peering through the water in a fishbowl and the viewpoint is the position of the wall behind the bowl.. Similarly, when Rapallo throws a tumbler at a picture on the wall of his office, the glass is seen shattering from the viewpoint of the picture. A dream sequence is photographed in negative and the final confrontation between Davey and Rapallo is staged in a warehouse full of mannequins in a sequence which is rather reminiscent of the "hall of mirrors sequence" in "The Lady From Shanghai". There is also a brilliantly composed shot of the streets down which Davey is being pursued by Rapallo and his men where the lit area of the street and buildings is reduced to a limited area on the bottom left hand side of the frame with everywhere else being bathed in black shadow. Rapallo's thugs are also shown in silhouette when they attack Davey's manager and their elongated shadows on the walls of the alley seem to exaggerate the sense of danger involved. The night time street scenes shot in Times Square are particularly good and the other New York locations are also portrayed in a manner which powerfully conveys their squalor and potentially threatening atmosphere. "Killer's Kiss" is rather short and contains some dead pan performances but its real strength lies in its incredible visual impact and its ability to evoke threatening and oppressive atmospheres so successfully.

Killer's Kiss is an incredible film technically. The lighting, set and cinematography are nothing short of stunning. The cinematography was incredible, and the lighting showed only what Kubrick wanted to be seen. Where the film comes up short is in the plot and the character development. The character's are boring (a great feet to accomplish with a title like Killer's Kiss). The audience doesn't really get involved in the story. The acting isn't wonderful, but at least it's believable. The plot line is extremely poor. Killer's Kiss, shows us where his talents are: Directing, and Cinematographer; and more-so where they don't: Writing. Killer's Kiss is a wonderful film to watch if you like to see good lighting and cinematography, or if your a Kubrick fan. Otherwise, it's not worth the hour.

Few have captured the glitter and grub of a cityscape better than this 70-minutes of neon and alleyways. The plot's all over the place, along with choppy editing and so-so acting. Thus, the storyline leaves a lot to be desired. Nonetheless, the visuals are consistently striking, from crowded dancehall to jagged rooftop. Clearly, Kubrick's sense of compositional artistry has already kicked in. And judging from the slick flashback of The Killing (1956), a lot was learned from this project. Sure the movie's done on the cheap and Kubrick has to do everything but cater the food. Still, the imagination is rich and pervasive at a time when Hollywood was arguably most straitjacketed. Despite the many flaws (god-awful musical scoring), this slender film put Kubrick on the movie-making map. Not surprisingly, his next film The Killing would provide a lot more to work with. All in all, the production remains a treat for the eye, if not for the ear; that is, if you believe urban dour can be made compelling.

I assumed like most that if you watch a known filmmakers lesser known works you might get a treat and maybe some insight into how they started. After this one, makes me wonder how Kubrick got from this to 2001. This is a not a very good early work. To start with, the actors chosen in this are just terrible. You talk about coming straight outta "Acting Class 101". Take a look at the actors in this and their credits and see why they don't have many. Simple, they can't act. I think the tell-tale warning sign for this one is the lack of dialogue. This film seems like an early Warhol work or some of that 70's black and white independent cinema stuff. Zero actors and a slap shot script that pre-dated that 70's junk. This was obviously done all (or mostly) by Kubrick himself. I'm guessing he panhandled for loose change to get this thing made. Wow, save your time and patience for a better film and remember, just because a film comes from a highly accredited filmmakers canon....doesn't automatically make it worth seeing. This one was a 100% flop.

Spoilers herein. There's nothing like this stuff. If you ever thought Kubrick was a genius, you should consider that such an eye is not learned, and one would expect to see it in the young man. Here's where he is taking chances. He produced, wrote, directed, photographed, and edited this effort. Here you see some real energetic expression of more controlled notions you see later on: -- time and space symmetries, lots of them -- lots of narrative in inanimate objects from the environment -- dancing/boxing: life as a test performance, with the space between being dead time -- narrative folding -- a mimimalist, deceptively symbol-laden story that all but ignores the actors -- a consistent `eye,' often from waist level when the lovers are together -- stylized voice-over All this is fascinating enough. But an extra treat is to see this next to Welles' near masterpiece `Lady from Shanghai' of "48. Check out showdown in the manikin warehouse compared the manikin part of `Lady's' funhouse at the identical part of the story, with the same loser-woman dynamic. Irene Kane has real presence despite her relatively poor acting. Kubrick married her ballerina `sister.' Wonder what happened to her?

I am about to say something so radical, that many film lovers will probably automatically dismiss the rest of this review. I much, much prefer director Stanley Kubrick's earlier work. While later in his career he became known for his obsessive-compulsiveness that led to him often filming the same scene a hundred or more times, in his earliest work he was quite the opposite--shooting the scene right the first time because he couldn't afford to use a bazillion feet of extra footage with each film. He was a master of the simplistic and reminded me, a bit, of Sam Fuller--who was also an incredibly talented director when given almost no budget. Both actually were not at their best when the studios gave them more money--at least when you are looking for the percentage return on their investment. Sure, Kubrick also did some great films with a large budget (DR. STRANGELOVE comes immediately to mind), but for tight and exciting films, it's hard to beat KILLER'S KISS or THE KILLING--two exceptional Noir films. Now I am NOT saying that KILLER'S KISS is a perfect or even near-perfect film--there are some technical problems that make it obvious it isn't great art. But, given that Kubrick was on welfare when he made it, he had almost no money or backers and he had equipment problems that necessitating re-dubbing the film, it's an amazing little film. In particular, the black and white camera work is among the best I've seen of the era for a Film Noir picture---dark and occasionally just a bit grainy and filled with amazing camera angles. I particularly loved the boxing match--bizarre but highly exciting camera shots abounded, you could see and almost feel all the sweat on the boxers (more so than in more polished films like CHAMPION or REQUIEM FOR A HEAVYWEIGHT) and the boxers looked like they were beating the crap out of each other--not pulling their punches or dancing. As for the story, it ain't deep but it's a textbook example of "simple is best"--and for some films this is definitely true. The only failings are minor and can be forgiven considering the budget and that this is Kubrick's first film. Occasionally poor dubbing, a few irrelevant camera shots and two scenes that summarized what happened instead of actually filming the scenes that just screamed "we ran out of money". The ballerina scene was poorly done--just showing the same dancer for a LONG time while the female star told her life story. It just looked cheap. Also, the final scene where the hero gave a lengthy exposition what happened once the police showed was obviously done because of economy--I really wanted to see instead of hear about this. Overall, despite some minor problems, this is a great film for young film makers. This is one of the very best independent films you can find--and few films have come close to it for a quality to investment dollars ratio. For a few other exceptional low-budget films, try CARNIVAL OF SOULS, STEEL HELMET, the original VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED and TWO THOUSAND MANIACS! (this final one is a bit terrible in spots, but is amazingly watchable--and bears repeated viewing). There are many, many more and when I find one of these films, it thrills me.

Killer's kiss does not deserve to use memory space, even for a movie buff. I wonder what makes it worth watching. Not the acting nor the directing. The filming locations maybe. The story? It's a lame one: hardly any tempo and a poor development. Surely the fact that it's an early Kubrick directorial (and writing and lighting and editing) effort artificially keeps it away from oblivion. Some people in the audience seemed to be pleased to see Kubrick prove very little here. They laughed during what is intended to be the key scene in the warehouse, just before the epilogue. Although I didn't find it funny, neither did I find the scene more effective than the rest. To sum it up I was quite disappointed. I didn't expect a great movie but I was not prepared for something that boring. Anyway what remains is that Kubrick managed to shoot that movie on a shoestring yet he wears too many hats. Reminding next year's The Killing I believe he learned a lot from that poor work. That's what is important after all.

I saw this film about two weeks ago on AMC. It was in the morning so there was no tag by Bob Osborne when it ended and since I did not catch the very beginning, I did not see the credits. I saw the boxing match and it was BRUTAL. What a fighter goes through was never conveyed more clearly and more succinctly. I remember Frank Silvera from other films (and it was his name that I looked up to find here at IMD. The actors were unknown and the two leads were not that convincing but the story was riveting. I was prepared for an ending suitable to the type of dark film it had been up to that point. I really liked the ending that was revealed. I came here to read comments on this little known film and was totally surprised to learn that Stanley Kubrick directed it. He told a story in a lean, sparse way that was different from the way he told later films but his genius was showing here. Bravo to all connected with this little gem!

Stanley Kubrick's films were notable for, among other things, his control over the medium. Even in bad films like Barry Lyndon or Eyes Wide Shut it was always clear that Kubrick was getting exactly what he wanted. But when he made Killer's Kiss, he obviously hadn't got it all figured out yet. The movie has some interesting pieces, scenes with striking lighting, original, clever ideas, but it also has drably lit scenes and hackneyed dialog. You can see the future Kubrick in individual shots, but it's all over the place. The movie has the quality of a student film, in which Kubrick is so excited by all his super cool ideas and all the fun stuff he can do with film that he throws it all in willy nilly. It is difficult to believe any of the people on this site who are declaring this movie a brilliant classic would do so if they'd never heard of the filmmaker. The story is perfunctory, the pacing is sluggish and the acting is abysmal. The movie is really only notable for film history, a way of understanding Kubrick's thought process as he was teaching himself the art of film. But it's a lousy movie.

It's just over an hour long and even so we have the trademark Kubrick opening, where he takes his own sweet time in letting us know what the film is about but somehow draws us in all the same. Look: it's an hour long, and it's a slight, hour-long kind of story. Don't expect anything more. I think there's also rather clearly a moment when Kubrick realised that he didn't know how he was going to end it all - to be honest, I have a sneaking suspicion that a similar thing happened on "2001", "Eyes Wide Shut" and even "Dr. Strangelove". In each of these cases it was the prompt for a daring and unconventional conclusion. I wish I could say that was the case here. This doesn't prevent it from being involving while it lasts. Kubrick once again demonstrates the he could point a camera at anything at all and make it interesting - the images are amazing, yet entirely functional. If you have ever loved any black-and-white camera work you'll love this. It's also a masterpiece of violence-without-violence, if you know what I mean. It deserves to be more well-known than it is.