A young Stanley Kubrick's bare-budget film - perhaps his first "mainline" movie - shows him still in the minor leagues but very close to making it to the Major Leagues. In fact, he did so the following year with "The Killing," a film noir that still ranks among the best. At any rate, this is an opportunity to see Kubrick at work right before he "makes it" in the business.

With an almost-nothing budget you aren't going to draw too many professional actors, and that certainly was the case here, but still is worth watching. It's definitely a "B" noir that is more melodrama than crime until the ending when it gets very, very suspenseful featuring a chase over New York City rooftops and then into abandoned warehouses.

Jamie Smith and Irene Kane are the stars and if you've never heard of them, it's probably because they weren't exactly Humphey Bogart and Bette Davis, acting-wise. The other star, Frank Silvera, at least is a name I recognized.

Overall, the best feature may be the camera-work. It gives us a preview of the visual talents that Kubrick would bring to the big screen in following decade. On its own merits, if you are a film noir fan, you'll want this in your collection.

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

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.