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.

Perhaps the most notable trick that Kubrick pulled off in this fledgling effort was to shoot several sequences in the 'city that never sleeps' and catch it napping. It was so disconcerting to see an almost deserted Times Square followed by first a car journey through totally empty streets and a chase across equally empty roof-tops with not even a distant sound of what had to be heavy traffic below. It was equally clear that Kubrick had dipped heavily into the oeurvre of William Irish/Cornell Woollrich and maybe even watched such low-key adaptations as Phantom Lady and The Window. It was equally clear the film was made for a stick of gum and couldn't run to even mediocre acting talent. It's probably fair to say that if it didn't have the name Kubrick attached it wouldn't have attracted the amount of ink it has. Watchable - barely.

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.

The Killer's Kiss is the second film of Stanley Kubrick, where as well as the direction, he is the author of screenplay, cinematography and editing. The strength of the movie is the direction of Kubrick, while the screenplay is very simple, where the characters are distinct and strongly characterized. The director build the movie with an circular structure, where the prologue and the epilogue are in the present and the story of the film is a long flashback. The cinematography is elaborated (noir style). The movie is a fable and there are different elements that show it: more mirror, the nightmare, the long sequence of the dancer girl (a best scene in the whole movie). An imperfect work but it strikes