This wasn't bad by any means, I just know that Stanley Kubrick said that his first movie was his least favorite and even tried to destroy it at one point. Though this one he still said was amateurish, he never tried to get rid of it forever. I guess this was probably more suited to the movies of the time, being a gritty noir-drama-romantic film, and it was good as a movie of the time, but as a Kubrick movie, I feel it really doesn't quite stand up to his others and maybe you would agree with me that it might be his weakest film. What I thought was great in this movie though was the cinematography. You can really see him growing into his own in that respect. Kubrick started out as a photographer and always had one of the best eyes for film and setting up some really beautiful shots. This film is no exception and if your a fan of interesting filmography and cinematography like I am, this film definitely delivers in that respect. However, the story I feel really falls flat, I think this is more a problem with the times for me than anything else and I'm more interested in more complex stories for the modern age. It's still Kubrick though, but without the edge you expect from his later stories. It was okay though, passable, but something you'd expect more from a less skilled director. I would recommend this more to fans of noir films from the 50s than to Kubrick fans, but Kubrick fans should probably watch it too.

While it is not among Kubricks' best (his masterpiece to me will always be 2001', though personally rate most of his films very highly indeed), 'Killer's Kiss' is a significant improvement over his previous film 'Fear and Desire' (by far his worst and the only film of his this reviewer deems bad).'Killer's Kiss' has problems. Aside from a suitably slimy turn from Frank Silvera as the villain, the acting is quite weak with a lot of going through the motions and lack of interest. The music is overly bombastic and inappropriately jaunty, instead of fitting with or adding to what's going on on screen it distracts heavily from it. The film also gets off to a rather slow and uninteresting start.Once 'Killer's Kiss' gets going though, it's quite good and solid. There is much more of Kubrick's trademark directing style and it's far more accomplished whereas in 'Fear and Desire' inexperience showed badly. For a very low-budget film, it also looks great, it's beautifully shot and there is some wonderful use of lighting, light and shadow.There is nothing confusing, self-indulgent or irritating about the writing, and aside from a slow start and a couple of moments too stretched out there is enough suspense and tension to keep being engrossed in the atmosphere-heavy story. The climax is just terrific and the ballet sequence is also memorable.All in all, quite good and improves significantly over the mistakes made previously. It's still not perfect and doesn't see Kubrick at his best, but it's still solid. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Since the rediscovery of "Fear and Desire" (1953), "Killer's Kiss" (1955) no longer bears the curiosity status as Stanley Kubrick's earliest film, and it hardly fits into the Kubrick canon anyways, so to speak. It is, however, an interesting film both from the perspective of its genre and its creator, thus remaining as an enduring meeting place. Although "Killer's Kiss" might be your standard B-movie with a low duration which was probably produced just to accompany a bigger production, it still has its striking moments of poetic intuition. Its finale among abandoned mannequins could very well be a classic. The story as well as its representation have the basic traits of film- noir, the darker crime genre which crystallized in post-war American cinema. The majority of the film consists of a long, mainly uninterrupted flashback sequence as a boxer recalls the past days that have led him where he is now. He became involved with a beautiful woman living next door who has a violent, jealous gangster boyfriend. The boxer and the woman find their reflections in one another. They are two hurt, lost, and lonely souls wandering the streets of New York. Boxing rings, rooftops, apartments, and dark alleys serve as the primal settings of the genre, while a desperate loner, a femme fatale, and a gangster as its archetypes. Strong contrasts in lighting characterize Kubrick's expressive mise-en-scène making several shots prime examples of the film-noir aesthetics. Although "Killer's Kiss" surely has the trademarks of film-noir, it does feel a little bit off, yet not in the masterful sense of "Kiss Me Deadly" (1955). This is most likely due to the film's low budget which, however, also gives the film its gritty touch. One simply gets similar enjoyment from watching the characters walking the streets of New York as in Cassavetes' "Shadows" (1958). Moreover, some of Kubrick's visual decisions with regards to composition and camera angles feel conspicuous. In other words, despite potential weak points in the film's style, it also had the edge and piquancy which give the whole of the film its poetic dimensions.Overall, one might characterize "Killer's Kiss" as poetic pulp. Its stylistic touches rise above its mediocre content. While the film might strike like a sore thumb in a director's oeuvre who later became famous with his sublime and breath-taking images of grandiose awe, it also has the benefit of strangeness which is why it will continue fascinating film buffs.

This movie seems way ahead of its times just due to its cinematic pleasure. The protagonist narrates the story that had happened to him in the past few days and it seems like he is recalling all those events which make it very genuine. There is a boxing match, a fight between the lead lady and villain and then the hero takes on the charge trying to rescue the girl.There is a good turn of events in these parts but all these have become so very clichéd that just does not interest you but on the better side you can view it as how those scenes were shot and then you could appreciate something. I particularly loved the roof top shot when the hero runs over the connected roofs and final clash between the hero and the villain, there was something to it. It was humorous as well as satisfying. So this movie seems to be for those students studying film direction, and it is only this part the movie gives something and that too quality stuff considering the genre. Apart from that there is nothing in the movie, simple plot, some good cinematography, good direction but plot is too weak for you to like the movie.