Visitors Review

johnnyboyz (2012-05-25 21:35)

Really enjoyable and interesting early film from Kubrick.

I think in Killer's Kiss you can really start to see the genius that isStanley Kubrick beginning to push through. By the time the film hadreached the finale of its 67 minute runtime, I was ready for it tocarry on and keep on going giving us more and more. Alas, what happensnext on the train journey away from it all is never revealed but isn'tthat the sign of greatness when a director can leave the audiencewanting more even when they've rounded the film off in a satisfactorymanner anyway? Over the coming decades, Kubrick would go on to cover arange of genres such as war, comedy, horror, science fiction and soforth, all with tremendous results, but this seems to be his onlydivulge into noir and it goes without saying that it is a damn shame.In true noir fashion, Killer's Kiss begins in the present and goes backinto the past as an anxious and somewhat lonely man regresses on what'shappened. Needless to say it isn't good, it usually isn't in the genreof noir. The man is Davy Gordon (Smith), not a disgruntled P.I. orsomeone else connected to anything legal or illegal whom teeters onboth sides of the law but a boxer, plain a simple, perhaps a boxer dueto Kubrick's 1951 short Day of the Fight given its boxing content.Following Davy's fight, he is awoken in the middle of the night byGloria Price's (Kane) screaming and it turns out she's having a bit oftrouble with her employer Vincent Rapallo (Silvera) who is helplesslyin love with her as it is and thus, the obsession inspired behaviourdoes not bode well with a woman unafraid to use her voice and looseenough as it is anyway. Naturally, Davy gets involved but ultimately itwon't be for the good. The film carries a fair amount of chemistrybetween the two leads and the scenes they share work to a degree butKubrick would never become one of those sorts of directors and it's nosurprise that the graphic content and element of antagonism are the keythings here. There is a feeling of power struggle between two sides andwe get a feeling there's something at stake once Davy has meddled withthe affairs of criminal boss Vincent.What follows is the alleyway killing of a certain character by hoodsemployed by Vincent and you do get the feeling that although he isn'tallowed, Kubrick really wants to show us the beating to add to thedanger these gangsters pose as well as well before that the expressionof love between both Davy and Gloria. But he can't due to thecensorship rules although it doesn't detract from the film's quality –later on, Kubrick would confront global fears such as nuclear war andmake a black comedy out of it and with A Clockwork Orange, he wouldpull the film from cinemas himself due to all the content many peoplewere unhappy with; examples of taboo subjects and lack of compassiontowards censorship that were trying or wanting to break out in Killer'sKiss.The film continues down its unpredictable route of noir and crime,using bizarre street locations full of towering chimney's and bizarredesolate buildings as the finale nears. The location work echoes AClockwork Orange, for example the opening underpass/tramp beating sceneas well as the great use of the grand hotel in The Shining as a closeand claustrophobic area, almost threatening in its presentation. Butwhat follows the scenes of chase in this film is a finale fight thatshould be mentioned within the same breath as the hall of mirrors fightin Welles' The Lady From Shanghai, itself a noir from a legendarydirector. That is when the final fight occurs in a mannequin dollfactory. As the fight goes on, the dolls become increasingly eerie; theaudience almost distracted by them as they watch on in a human-likemanner. Killer's Kiss is a fascinating and really nicely unfolded filmthat ranks up with some of Kubrick's best in my opinion and should beseen by as many of his fans as possible.

2001Rulz (2012-05-25 18:32)

Good Early Effort by Kubrick

I think that Stanley Kubrick could have made Killer's Kiss a lot better,but, of course, back in 1955, he was not well-known at all so he had to workwith what he had. Besides, he only had $75,000 to make this film, and Ithink that Kubrick did a good job in this early effort. You can tell thatthis is a Kubrick movie because of his cinematography and his camera angles,but, unlike most of his other films, he didn't exactly choose the bestactors. I'm not saying they were terrible, but they could have been better.Killers Kiss is very well shot and has some excellent scenes, especially thechase involving Davy, the thugs, and the old manequin factory. The premiseand story of the movie are good, but the ending is just your typical happyending, very un-Kubrick-like. I wish that he would have come up with abetter, more original and satisfying ending. But for one of his early films,Kubrick did a good job directing Killer's Kiss. If you can get your hands ona copy of this movie, be sure to get it, because you can't find it in manyBlockbusters or in the TV guide that much. Any fan of crime movies,film-noir, or Kubrick movies will like this one. -2001Rulz

(2012-05-24 13:22)

Brilliant

The movie was incredible. Pure genius. The only problem I had with it was that the story moved too quickly (the movie's only 67 minutes long), but I guess that probably had to do with the budget.

(2012-05-24 04:45)

Many, many interesting aspects

This is an heroic film; with very little budget, Kubrick delivers so many interesting and innovative things. It might be very rare that something like the electrifying box combat was filmed before or after. A veritable photographic "tour de force"! The sequence of the ballet dancer is quite something as well. The history, quite short according to the limited time of the film, is nevertheless vivid. Atention to detail and great photography creates environments very efectively, like the dance club, the evening in downtown, the modest appartments, and the noticeable upward shots in the railway station.

John N. (2012-05-22 16:32)

A touch of inspiration but a very hollow ending

With all the recent Eyes Wide Shut hype, I went back to takealook at this early Kubrick work. Yes, you can see some touches ofinspiration in this period piece, but I think it reallyfellshort. For its day, the boxing sequence was pretty good,thoughI was more impressed by straight ahead camera angles inRequiemfor a Heavyweight. Kubrick's gladiators didn't even seemlikethey were taking hard shots at each other -- not nearly ashardas the sound effects would have you believe.Anyway, I thought Irene Cane did a fine job playing a waywardgirl looking for some purpose in life. She latches ontowhateverlifts her spirit for the moment and then can so easily turnitaway with a casual look. So near the end of the film whenshe'spleading for her life with her offer to leave her new lovertomarry the thug she had seemed to take pleasure in spurning,wejust aren't sure whether she is simply acting desperate orifshe really can recant her affection so easily. And themaincharacter, Davy Gordon, openly considers this too as hedashesthrough the window to save his own neck.If the film just ended right there, with those threds left unresolved, itwould have been a much better movie. Davy couldhave boarded his train to the West never knowing what becameof his two-day girlfriend or the thug she tried to appease.Andwouldn't it have been ironic if she were forced to marrythatman -- like her sister was forced to marry someone shedidn'tlove? That would have been a cruel twist of fate indeed!Yet what we got was neither cruel or unusual or even mysterious.No, we got the standard Hollywood ending to a film which had done a goodjobof breaking a standard Hollywood mold to thatpoint. If it wasn't Kubrick making this film, making thatwomanrun down the stairs into her lover's waiting arms as thebigmusic came up to signal the Happy Ending(TM), I would havejustclicked off the TV and forgot all about it. But this isStanleyKubrick!!!!!! Boy was I disappointed! The only thing I canhopefor was that the movie studio forced him to edit his trueendingand Kubrick wasn't in a position to reject them at thatearlystage in his career.Oh well. See this movie if you're a Kubrick fan, but don'tsayI didn't warn you that the ending is completely Hollywood.

(2012-05-22 08:00)

This is someone's second film?????

And made with nothing we could name a BUDGET?? It's only the first of Kubrick's films I ever see (don't shoot me for this - I'm sorry), but if this is ANYTHING to go by, if it gets any better after this one I won't be able to give enough stars for the last ones, as AMAZON only allows for five.It can only be a genius who can come up with this film. A thin (yet NOT weak) storyline, almost no dialog in the first half of the film, but still keeping me glued to the edge of the seat for the entire length of the film. Wonderful, brilliant and unbelievable are the only words i can fnd for this man. It's only 4 stars, otherwise I'll be in even bigger trouble when I watch the other ones....

Det_McNulty (2012-05-21 12:28)

A Sweat Filled Outing Of What Was Soon To Come

After the critical and commercial failure that was Fear and Desire –awork Stanley Kubrick reportedly disowned- he released his secondfeature-length picture, Killer's Kiss. Although deeply blemished, itboldly paved way for the career of one of contemporary cinema's mostbeloved and greatest directors. As the tagline maliciously utters, "HerSoft Mouth Was the Road to Sin-Smeared Violence", as for its time itwas reasonably bloodthirsty, with its intensely choreographed boxingmatch and gripping finale. Do not let this marketing tagline deter youinto believing this is all about fight scenes, because there is afervent element of romance additionally integrated and so it avoidsbecoming superfluous.Concluding where it first began, this cold-hearted thriller weaves anoirish web of macho deceit and feverish obsession. Kubrick utiliseshis minimal budget of $75,000 admirably and displays his talent bymaking the low-budget appear nearly as costly as the Hollywoodproductions of the same period. Filming in his hometown of New YorkCity, the city streets are deftly captured with naturalistic maturityand expressionistic manoeuvring. The camera places a morose gaze on itseven moodier characters, observing their moping around in a way whichechoes their botched ambitions, neediness and boiling frustration.My fundamental gripe with Killer's Kiss is that it feels far toocasually strung together, in a way which makes a lot of the scenes feelboth useless and ineptly edited. This leads to a dispersal of tension,thus it does not feel as taut as it should do for a film-noir. If youare able to excuse the overly dramatic performances, bare screenplayand weak editing to the shoe-string budget then you will witnessconsiderable vigour in its short running-time (falling little over anhour). Ultimately, it is all about the perishing style with Killer'sKiss because the narrative is far too iffy for much attention to bespared, let alone critically garnered.Kubrick was not eager to "get deep" with his second-feature, but ratherto make a name for himself in the industry with something which wouldallow him to have more control over his future directional attempts.For any aficionados of the man's career there are many examples ofthemes and imagery which is further studied in the director's latercareer. So, if you are willing to view this sketchpad of motifs, thenprepare to witness the irrefutable promise Kubrick offered with hisominous noir.

danielll_rs (2012-05-21 00:47)

Pretty good, but...

I know, I know. "Killer's Kiss" was one of Stanley Kubrick's first motionpictures and was made with very little money and no great Hollywood star. Iknow that. But if you compare this one to the perfection of "2001: A SpaceOdyssey", the brilliance of "A Clockwork Orange", the frightful suspense of"The Shining", the beauty of "Eyes Wide Shut" or with any other great filmof his, it's kind of a disappointment.Let's go to the story: a fighter falls in love with his neighbor, thegirlfriend of a gangster. This is the plot. Most of the film is predictableand the acting is kind of bland. However, we can see some traces of a youngKubrick. The camera-work is just great, and some scenes can talk forthemselves. There's not much dialogue here, and Kubrick fill this with sometakes that are, if not memorable, at least beautiful.If you haven't seen any other Kubrick picture, this is a very goodbeginning. But if you are like me, a huge Kubrick fan, this is not a greatfilm, just a very good one. But I can't give it less than a 8/10, because...hey! It's Kubrick!

rooee (2012-05-19 17:26)

Punchy

Killer's Kiss isn't a great film by any stretch of the imagination.It's poorly acted on the whole, often incredulous, and full of abyssalplot holes. But it's essential viewing for all Kubrick aficionados.Apart from anything, it's a logical starting point, given the fact thatFear And Desire is unavailable (at the director's own behest).This is film noir in its true sense: made on a shoestring budget withno permit to film, Kubrick was forced into the dim back alleys of NewYork to tell the story of a failed young boxer (Jamie Smith) who fallsfor Gloria Price's gangster's moll. In doing so he garners theattention of the fearsome Vincent Rapallo (Frank Silvera, returning towork with Kubrick after Fear And Desire). Following a well-stagedrooftop chase, the movie culminates in a memorable battle in amannequin warehouse.It's clear to see a skilled film-making talent blossoming here - themovie is brilliantly shot and atmospherically lit, while the openingboxing match is undeniably powerful, cleverly choreographed and packedwith punchy cuts. The post-dubbing (whereby all the sound and dialoguewas laid on afterwards) was, shall we say, a 'learning' experience forthe director, although it does not detract from what is essentially avisual experience with a paper-thin plot.Well worth a purchase for Kubrick completists and noir enthusiasts.

vostf (2012-05-19 15:00)

Not much to see except the Kubrick name on it

Killer's kiss does not deserve to use memory space, even for a movie buff. Iwonder what makes it worth watching. Not the acting nor the directing. Thefilming locations maybe. The story? It's a lame one: hardly any tempo and apoor development.Surely the fact that it's an early Kubrick directorial (and writing andlighting and editing) effort artificially keeps it away from oblivion. Somepeople in the audience seemed to be pleased to see Kubrick prove very littlehere. They laughed during what is intended to be the key scene in thewarehouse, 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 Iwas not prepared for something that boring. Anyway what remains is thatKubrick managed to shoot that movie on a shoestring yet he wears too manyhats. Reminding next year's The Killing I believe he learned a lot from thatpoor work. That's what is important after all.

(2012-05-19 17:11)

Picture By The Director As A Young Man

"Killer's Kiss" would most assuredly be relegated to the dustbin of history, repository of a thousand and one [less expensive] noir knock-offs, if it hadn't been directed by a 25-year old Brooklyn-born novice filmmaker who grew up to be Stanley Kubrick. Still, save for the novelty of a few directorial flourishes and motifs that would pop up in Kubrick's later films, "Killer's Kiss" is little more than light entertainment. It's not an important film. Which is fine, because it was never intended to be. Kubrick intended it as a calling card to Hollywood, and on this level, ultimately, it is a success.Davy Gordon (Jamie Smith) is a prizefighter, once fraught with potential, but now saddled with a reputation for a glass jaw and bad luck in important fights. He's fed up with New York City, and is thinking about going to live on his Aunt and Uncle's horse ranch in Seattle. After another defeat, alone in his apartment, he sees that a woman (Irene Kane) in the next building is being threatened by a much older gentleman (Frank Silvera). Ever the do-gooder, Davy runs to her aid. It is this choice, to get involved in the affairs of a stranger, which propels the film down its perilous path.Gordon is a very laid-back presence. He has not the usual angst of the film noir hero. Instead, he relies on an affable, but brooding, charm to get through the picture. Silvera does little more with his creepy dance-hall manager than sweat and stammer and try his best to look menacing. Even his touches of philosophical cynicism ("Can happiness buy money?" he asks at one point) don't really work as well as they should. He's also not a very intimidating presence, which hurts the film some. Kane, I have mixed feelings about. Upon first seeing the film I thought she was a revelation, bringing some sorrow and depth to the role of a dime-a-dance girl with a past. She may not have much in terms of acting chops, but she does have promise. Add to that the fact that she has Audrey Hepburn-esque beauty (a grand statement to make, I know, but she won me over on first glance), and you'd think she'd be a star for a long time. Alas, fate conspires against her, for due to a problem with his soundman, Kubrick had to redo the actors' voices in post-production. Kane, a stubborn girl who later became a respected journalist, refused to do any more work on the picture, so her voice was dubbed by someone else.Kubrick, even in his nascent period, was still a force behind the camera. A rooftop chase scene is exciting even though the only sounds we hear are a moody, atmospheric percussion score (the rest of the film fluctuates between aggressive jazz, and soaring, melodramatic strings). The sight of shadowy figures, racing in the dusk of day across a New York skyline, is wondrous to behold. He handles the scenes set in Time's Square with aplomb, made even more impressive by the knowledge that he had no permits to film there. Often, his camera had to be hidden in the back of a car. The director's more oddball touches are also all over the film. Besides the dream sequence that foreshadows "2001", a shot in negative of a drive down a narrow alleyway, he does a lot of weird work with windows and mirrors. One shot is set up from the bottom of a fishbowl. Another gets the point-of-view of a picture frame, moments before it is shattered by a shoe. There's also a boxing scene early on that appears to be shot from every angle possible. I'll have to look again to make sure, but I believe we even get a glove's-eye-view. It's a rather manic approach to capturing the sweet science on celluloid ("Raging Bull" it isn't). But Kubrick does come up with something visceral, giving the audience a taste for being in the ring.The final duel takes place in a mannequin warehouse. The two combatants begin fighting over a girl, then, using stray limbs lying around, end up fighting *with* girls. It's unintentionally comic, a little surreal, and a tad overlong. It would have become a classic film scene if: 1) "Killer's Kiss" had been a success; or 2) the fighter's had been less inept with their weapons (even armed with an axe and a spear, it takes forever for someone to draw blood)."All my life I've really spoiled the things that meant the most to me," says Silvera's Vincent at one point. It's a startling confession, coming from a film noir stock character. These people aren't supposed to have any self-awareness -- for they are little more than pawns on a cinematic chessboard -- and yet here's Vincent acting as his own psychologist. It's flourishes like this, along with Gloria's monologue about why she chose the profession she did (played as the voice over of a scene showing a single dancer performing a moody ballet), that somehow elevate "Killer's Kiss" over similar pulp fare. Look at me go on and on. I was going to give this film 3-stars (which it probably deserves if you aren't a Kubrick completist), but I appear to have talked myself into a better rating. Kubrick, ever the effective polemicist, strikes again.

pervis ellis (2012-05-19 04:34)

Sexual Violence & the Production Code

Does anyone know if the Production Code (1934-1967) had any affect onthe final cut of Killers Kiss? I heard that the film had sexuallyexplicit scenes before Kubrick finally sold (and re-edited) it to UA orwhatever studio. Can anyone point out some of the more implicitsexuality of the movie? I know that sexual violence was a big theme inKubrick's movies and that he would go to some length to smuggle the notso implicit sexuality under the nose of the censors. Clock Work Orange(1971) being the most obvious example of sexual violence, where a womanis beaten to death with a big dick statue, in Eyes Wide Shut (1999)where a masked orgy becomes the almost cult like murdering of TomCruise and even in Fear and Desire (1953) where the horny solider can'thelp groping the female hostage. Lolita (1962), made just five years before Hollywood's adoption of MPPAfilm rating system, was absolutely ruined by the Production Code and alot of the implicit stuff sexuality was deeply imbedded. So maybe someof the more alert and perverted IMDb users can pint out some of theimplicit sexuality in Killers Kiss. I'll start with the fight scene in the manikin warehouse. Using thelimbs of the female body for violence. Violence generated by the desirefor a female.

(2012-05-17 13:39)

An anthropological study of New York City in the 1950s

This review is from: Killer's Kiss (DVD) As others have commented, this film is certainly not in the league of Kubrick's masterpieces. The grandiose, philosophical themes pervading his most important work are conspicuously absent. However, when viewed outside of the context of his later work, the film certainly has its merits. Kubrick began his career as a photographer for Look magazine, and in a way image drives this film more than plot or character. It should come as no surprise, then, that the single most outstanding of these merits would be Kubrick's shots of New York City. One should remember that, aside from 1947's "The Naked City", few films prior to "Killer's Kiss" were largely shot on location in the Big Apple. What distinguishes Kubrick's film in this regard (from "The Naked City" and other predecessors) are the wonderful and incredible details he captures. There is a scene early in this work where Kubrick takes us into Times Square - not just through the use of wide establishing shots a la "The Sweet Smell of Success", but through close-ups of the toys in store fronts. It looks like a home movie, AND ITS SUPPOSED TO!!! The beautiful roof top scenes rival similar images in "On the Waterfront", and the sight of Jamie Smith standing under a marquee in Times Square reminds one of similar images in later films like "Shadows". He consequently places us in an environment and time (e.g., NYC in the mid-1950s) as skillfully as any other filmmaker in any film before or since. If, like me, you are a fan of films like "Midnight Cowboy", "Taxi Driver", and "Shadows" and want to see a healthy chunk of the root of those films, look no further than "Killer's Kiss". (note: The fairest star rating I could give this film would be 3 1/2. As this is unavailable, I would opt for 3)

Davey Collins (2012-05-17 11:54)

very stylish, very under-rated

Simply put: one of the most stylish film noirs. Stanly Kubrick's and FilmNoir's most under-rated titles. It kept me enthralled with its visuals andstrong mood. Entertaining to say the least. I would highly recommend thisto anyone interested in noir.

(2012-05-11 12:53)

killer's kiss

This review is from: Killer's Kiss (DVD) what s stinkeri guess every director has to start somewhereand i guess this was STANLEY KUBRICKS starterwhich was the only reason i bought iti now have all of his films in my collection but let's be brutally honest here it stnckwith a capital "S"i will say i'm gladmr kubrick seemed to haved llearnedfrom his no plot crappy or dare i say it ok i will no story what soeverok the only thing about the moviethat resembled a story was the endingwhen the killer "kissed" his girlfreindi guess thats where the title comes from

fvila (2012-05-11 03:05)

Survival and redemption

Some people complain they don't understand 2001, A Space Odyssey: wellhere is the movie for them to see, because the story is the same. Aman, alone, fights for survival, facing an evil and mysterious enemy.By coming out scarred but alive, he reaches grace-redemption-love. Thefeeling of loneliness is acute. Beautiful, haunting scenes come oneafter the other. Dialog is down to a minimum, and as in 2001 is keptdeliberately trivial not to interfere with the visuals (that's mytheory, anyway). 2001 is set in space, Killer's Kiss is set in NewYork, but both are filmed as dark, hostile, beautiful, mysterious, andthreatening places. It may look like a "film noir" but that is just theouter shell.

silverkid (2012-05-08 21:27)

The Genius of a Young Stanley Kubrick

Killer's Kiss is a 1955 movie produced, directed and written by a 27year old Stanley Kubrick. Coming off the heels of a poorly receivedfirst effort, 1953's Fear and Desire, Kubrick stormed back with aninteresting little story set in the heart of New York City. The film'sprotagonist Davy Gordon, is a struggling local boxer who gets involvedwith a woman, Gloria Price who's ex, Vincent Rapallo hasn't let go ofher yet. Kubrick slowly, and movingly, shows the two principals takingthe downgrade: Davy fighting a losing bout in the ring while Gloria istrying to push off some heavy passes from Rapallo.While the pair try to flee the city, Rapallo and his henchmen foilthere escape. Price meanwhile, has changed her mind and decides she'sbetter off with a real man, Rapallo. In the thrilling climax, Gordonand Rapallo battle it out in a run-down mannequin factory whichforeshadows his technique shown in later masterpieces. "Killer's Kiss" was a first-class suspense film that foreshadowedconscious and technique that Kubrick was to take to the limit in lateryears. After all, the ending was fair enough for the Fifties. Out of apossible 5 stars, I give young Stanley Kubrick's "Killer's Kiss" 4stars.

ALauff (2012-05-08 05:35)

A Born Noir Director

Stanley Kubrick's raw, austere first feature is perhaps best viewed asan extension of his documentary short Day of the Fight, whichchronicles the preparation of an on-the-rise boxer and approaches theBronx with the same subterranean eye for littered streets, baretenements and ominously gray mid-day skies. Davy Gordon, the washed-upprotagonist of Killer's Kiss, is far from the polished youngprizefighter of that earlier film, his fight-day routine consisting ofpacing about his ramshackle apartment and stealing gazes at hisneighbor, a fetching blonde named Gloria who lustfully reciprocates.She's involved with a jealous hoodlum (Frank Silvera) who runs thedance hall at which she works. When Davy intervenes in a disputebetween them, Silvera targets him for a fall.As he would in many of his subsequent features, Kubrick uses genreframework (here, film noir) as a means to explore charactersnegotiating an irrational environment in which they're both victims andmanipulators. Society is only as backward as mankind, so here we haveDavy, a man who miscalculates the situation (and realizes he does so)but determines to bull ahead anyway. Tellingly, Kubrick uses a dissolveflashback to clarify the inciting incident (Silvera's assault onGloria), which Gloria relates to Davy secondhand. The next morning,Gloria tells one more story, also relayed via dissolve, about herballerina sister's unhealthy attachment to their father (a stunningscene that conveys background information in the most disturbing,expressive way imaginable). These flashbacks cumulatively suggest that:(a) Gloria is neither fatale nor innocent, but something much morepsychologically elusive; (b) Davy is out of his depth; and (c) Kubrickenjoys toying with the guilt-and-victim archetypes of noir, using themas an instructive link to his worldview.Kubrick was already operating at near-peak technical efficiency despitebudget constraints (he also photographed, wrote and edited the film).The exaggerated sound design paints an oppressive and crude tone.There's a scene in which Davy phones his gym and the sounds of sparringand heavy-bag work emanating from the other line resemble the grindingcacophony of a printing press. Shooting on location often withhand-held cameras, Kubrick "finds" seemingly spontaneous details thatfactor significantly in the story: as Davy waits outside the club forGloria to collect her money, two costumed street dancers swipe hisscarf, leading to a chase that results in Davy's manager beingmistakenly beaten to death by Silvera's goons. Davy's bout, a brief tour de force of editing and camera-work,similarly benefits from the director's workmanlike approach: movingbeyond the short's detached fascination with boxing as competitivesport, Kubrick thrusts his camera into battle, weaving between flyingfists, moving low, always staying dangerously close to the combatants,capturing boxing at its most kinetic. (The only other director I canthink of to film boxing this way is Michael Mann, whose Ali-Listonfight almost certainly borrows elements from this scene.) In starkcontrast, the climax—a chase across rooftops filmed via tripod from arestrained distance—defiantly holds the tension at a remove, the cameraplacidly surveying and literalizing the world's indifference to thishuman plight. When Silvera and Davy finally duel in a mannequinfactory, the struggle for survival is desperate and pathetic, and thescore quiets to emphasize their wheezing and posturing. It's brutal anddebased, but just as the sanctioned boxing match, ironically the purestvalidation of life in a human society that swindles and betrays withimpunity. Clearly, Kubrick always had a noir kind of sensibility, andon evidence of this and The Killing, he probably could have made thistype of film his entire career and still been considered one of thegreatest directors of his time.

Martin Teller (2012-05-05 04:45)

Killer's Kiss (1955)

Well, the performances are atrociously bad, the storytelling is clunkyand even some of the editing choices are poor. It's certainly not ofthe great noirs. But Kubrick's photographic talents are quiteprominent, and the film looks absolutely fantastic. From the fightscene to the warehouse climax, it's a terrific example of noirlighting. Even the ballet scene, as plodding and unnecessary as it is,looks dynamite. Also the use of real New York locations adds a lot ofspice, as does the jazzy off-kilter score. The whole thing has asurreal, almost dreamlike quality to it. At any rate, I'd rather watchthis than SPARTACUS.

Michael Gillespie (2012-05-04 15:58)

The movie is very good with one minor problem; the acting.

Stanley Kubrick combines several techniques to make this film bothunique and original for the time period. He utilizes voice-overtechniques,flashback, and creates wonderful imagery with an interpretive balletnumberduring an expository flashback. He also films one the most realisticboxingsequences, realistic in its brutality and naturalism. The one oversightthat Kubrick makes is in casting. Frank Silvera(as the protagonist)isbothbland and devoid of depth. Jamie Smith(the antagonist) is a stereotypical"thug" with little to offer this otherwise excellent film. The onlyexcusethat master film maker Stanley Kubrick could possibly offer would befunding.