(2012-05-01 08:23:49)

Striking cult movie!

The Noir film in the fifties reached its absolute expansion and sheer maturity, dealing with all sort of tragic experiences, the loser gambler, the renegade kid, the abominable fear of the atomic treatment, the counterspies, the antihero raising, or the most intimate prototypes of the last page of the newspapers. Indeed, a whole generation accustomed to fabulous examples of the genre demanded major inventiveness and lurked in the intimacy of the dark projection halls. It would be said that any serious filmmaker should to make his incursion in the genre; from Orson Welles (Mr. Arkadin and Touch of evil), Hitchcock ( Strangers on a train), John Huston ( Asphalt jungle), or names we used to associate with other genres such as Anthony Mann, renowned directors such Robert Wise (The set up), Fritz Lang ( The big heat) Elia Kazan (Panic in the streets), Billy Wilder (Sunset boulevard), Edward Dymtrik (The street with no name and The sniper) threw their respective hats in the arena. But the emerging figure of a genius in progress as Stanley Kubrick who just opened his enormous wings, immediately captured the attention around him. Killer's kiss was Stanley Kubrick's second feature film that, although its low budget, achieved a distinguished acknowledgement at the most unexpected levels, due among other details its ambitious display of visual unity, of harrowing sequences as Davy's manager murder in hands of the members of the Rapallo' s clan where the visual devices remind us to the Third man, the amazing chase throughout the roofs of the buildings, the ironical gaze around Manhattan's fantasies as well as suggestive elements that implies seduction, and violence. Another remarkable factors to take into account are the handle of the inner tension of the characters, the employment of the time as metaphysical device, the existential uncertainness of our loser boxer, lonely and hopeless that is corresponded absolutely by his girlfriend Gloria, a dancer of a dark nightclub and the final sequence where the use of female mannequins are employed as defensive weapons in the hair raising fistfight.

(2012-05-01 02:15:58)

This one was great

This film is a masterpiece. However, every subsequent film of Kubrick's is completely worthless garbarge.

Look Closer

(2012-04-30 04:18:11)

Kubrick's fully formed masterpiece at age 27

At an age when most wannabe filmmakers are still 'in training' StanleyKubrick was producing full length feature masterpieces.I'm still shocked at how many fans of Kubrick's later work do not appreciateKiller's Kiss. While the basic plot of the movie is nothing special anddecidely more 'Hollywood' than Kubrick's later works there are more signs ofhis trademark style in this film than I feel there were in The Killing orPaths of Glory. Kubrick's own cinematography in particular blew me away. The use of depth,light and shadow and of his trademark moving camera show us more skill andthought than directors with dozens of films and much better scripts undertheir belt. And Kubrick's trademark use of his camera to observe silently,capturing the true spirit of his characters when they are alone (no music,no dialogue) is seen over and over in the apartment. If Kubrick's directioncould turn a story like this into such a masterful cinematic experience Ishudder at what he would of done with this film had he made 10 or 20 yearslater. If you love the unique cinematic idiosynchracies of Kubrick's later workthen you MUST SEE KILLER'S KISS!

(2012-04-29 19:51:16)

Definitely an early sign of what was to come.

First off, a quote from an earlier reviewer: "Poor Stanley. He got stuck with a pretty lame script for this one." Funny. You see--and I'm not making this up--KUBRICK WROTE THE SCREENPLAY!!! Moving on. This was an enjoyable, if flawed, film, with some great scenes . . . and some real duds. The direction is great (obviously), and the acting is, even at its worst, passable, but the story is lacking in inspiration. Still, pretty damn good for a director's second feature-length film.

(2012-04-28 21:26:40)

For Kubrick Fans' Eyes Only: Others Beware!

There may be something that one can glean from KILLER'S KISS, but I think it will be lost on anyone that is not already a die-hard, Kubrick fan. That is to say, if you haven't seen any of Stanley Kubrick's films, do not start with this one under any circumstances. I kept asking for more. The fact that Kubrick had directed it raised my standards far too high. I kept waiting for a complexity in the story to arise, for the characters to grow some depth, for the subtle "turn" in the plot. But nothing ever came. And then the film ended, after only 67 minutes. As the credits rolled, I sat there in shock before finally muttering: "I guess that was it." Of course, there are some highlights in the film. The lighting is great, the shots are nice, etc. But compared to his later work, KILLER'S KISS fails to meet the director's own standards. So what is the use in seeing this film? I agree with one reviewer who commented that this film is like an artist's early "throwaway" sketches. While you can catch glimpses of Kubrick's later glory, on the whole the film lacks heart and should have been left on the drawing board. But a star does not emerge overnight-we must take his early, inexperienced work with his later masterpieces. Thus, if you are interested in Kubrick, the director, you might enjoy dipping back into his filmography to see where he came from. But if you are interested in catching a good noir, I would recommend over a dozen films before KILLER'S KISS would even make the list.

(2012-04-28 11:27:22)

YOU CAN'T POLISH A TURD!

I was quickly saddened when I realized the story wasn't organic. Organic means the characters are driven by their realistic wants and needs. No matter how beautiful the lighting, cuts, camera angles, and composition are, it's all for nought, when the heroine, who'd just been sexually assaulted, doesn't think twice about going back to the scene of the crime (the villain's office) and being alone with the perp, to pick up her check. Equally disturbing was the new boyfriend, who knew the score, allowed her to. Another thing was the super-lame voice over narrative, which was put in to neatly tie together what they didn't, but should've shot. While I realize it was low dough and made in another time, it simply wasn't a good story and sorry Stanley, it wasn't well told.To be watched only on a rainy day when you've got to scratch your jones for gloriously gloomy black and white, noirish, urban shots, or when you've got an appointment in an hour or so and don't have time to watch something good.

caa821

(2012-04-26 09:50:20)

2* for performances, 3* for nostalgia, 2* for locale

This is a B-minus film noir, with C-list thespians, and a look atStanley Kubrick's fledgling efforts on the barest of "bare bones"budgets. It is indicated that production cost $75K. No U.S. receiptsare shown, but they couldn't have been a lot - although it apparentlyrecouped cost and maybe 20% profit in - of all places - Spain.As one person commented, the lead couple certainly weren't Bogart andBette Davis (hell, they weren't even, say, Sonny Tufts and VeraRalston).The view of New York City more than a half century ago is one of thebest aspects. There is also a silly scene with some "raucous"Shriner's, with fez, teasing the "hero" by grabbing his scarf. This isa glimpse of the "silent-generation" 1950's, especially at this timejust a few years prior to the city riots, assassinations, all theVietnam goings-on, etc. in the 60's. During this time, harmlesslyhell-raising Shriners, along with dentists and doctors on convention,and the like, WERE the most adventuresome persons found on citystreets.One thing I appreciated was Kubrick's realistic portrayal of the leadmale, as a moderately-talented boxer, but possessing a "glass jaw,"rather than some sort of minor hero. And the boxing scenes wereexcellent, despite Kubrick's lack of a budget and many of the technicaladvances which were later available for boxing genre movies in lateryears.Actually, the acting was at a level for which "B-" may even begenerous, but we perhaps afford it a few more compliments because ofwho made it. Still, an credible piece of nostalgia.

ccthemovieman-1

(2012-04-25 18:12:25)

A Sneak Peek At Things To Come

A young Stanley Kubrick's bare-budget film - perhaps his first"mainline" movie - shows him still in the minor leagues but very closeto making it to the Major Leagues. In fact, he did so the followingyear 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 beforehe "makes it" in the business.With an almost-nothing budget you aren't going to draw too manyprofessional actors, and that certainly was the case here, but still isworth watching. It's definitely a "B" noir that is more melodrama thancrime until the ending when it gets very, very suspenseful featuring achase over New York City rooftops and then into abandoned warehouses.Jamie Smith and Irene Kane are the stars and if you've never heard ofthem, it's probably because they weren't exactly Humphey Bogart andBette Davis, acting-wise. The other star, Frank Silvera, at least is aname I recognized.Overall, the best feature may be the camera-work. It gives us a previewof the visual talents that Kubrick would bring to the big screen infollowing decade. On its own merits, if you are a film noir fan, you'llwant this in your collection.

whitesheik

(2012-04-25 02:07:34)

A game effort - but MASTERPIECE - hardly

It's most amusing to read the comments at the IMDb re Killer's Kiss(and every other movie ever made): The loud shouts of MASTERPIECE arelaughable. It's just amazing how people see what they want to see, orsee what they want to see based on some critic's evaluation. Killer'sKiss is hardly a MASTERPIECE - it's an interesting film by an evolvingfilmmaker, but undone by its crude post-synching (it actually remindsone of the French nouvelle vague which would come along in about fiveyears), and it's horrible script. However, there are some wonderfuloccasional images, and the ideas, if not always the execution of them,are interesting, technique-wise. Nice shots of 1954 Times Square, too.The one sequence where you could really say, "Yeah, this guy is goingto be really good" is the mannequin sequence. I don't know what boxingsequence the IMDb MASTERPIECE zealots were watching, but it's clearlynot the one in this film, which is fine and nothing more. Apparentlythese Kubrick-heads have never seen The Set Up.

(2012-04-24 18:28:05)

GOOFY GRINDHOUSE

This review is from: Killer's Kiss (DVD) low budget sleaze, with some flashbacks with narration, including one that involves a...ballerina?!the shots of 50s nyc are great, but most of this movie is cornball ed wood stuff.an ed wood movie, as directed by stanley kubrick!

jlight-1

(2012-04-24 08:35:55)

Not bad, but Kubrick fans might be disappointed

A good film noir piece, although it plods along at times, and someof the acting tends to be wooden, particularly from Jamie Smith,who plays the lead role. A sequence in a mannequin factorymakes the movie worth seeing. As well, some good visual effectskeep this film from becoming too dreary. Not too much to suggestKubrick's style, so if you're looking for a gem like A ClockworkOrange or The Shining, you won't find it with this film.

antonjsw1

(2012-04-23 15:01:14)

Solid no-budget film

You can see the beginnings of the career of a landmark director here.Despite the fact the film had a tiny budget, Kubrick does an impressivejob with a tight, simple and compelling story. He undertakes his ownphotography brilliantly, and the film is generally well edited,particularly the boxing match and the rooftop sequences that are partof the film's climax. However there are a couple of edits that are abit rough in some places. Nevertheless, the story is compelling enoughthat you quickly ignore this as you are swept along in the story androot for the hero/heroine. The action sequences are well realised andthe payoff is satisfying if corny. In fact, this film the charactersare very much archetypes of the films of the time, and is beforeKubrick really starts to think about challenging the film-making andstorytelling conventions of the industry. Nevertheless there aremoments where the directors future can be glimpsed including some useof flashback and some interestingly composed shots, as well as filmingon real locations with depth of field without resorting to the trick ofprocess shots for the background.The acting performances are OK, but you feel this is mainly due toKubrick teasing good performances out of them. Jaime Smith and IreneKane don't seem to have gone onto prolific careers in acting after thisfilm. Frank Silvera is OK at the main antagonist, and did go on to havea very successful career in television, theatre and film. He gives themost interesting performance in the film. Ultimately though the filmbelongs to Kubrick.

JohnWelles

(2012-04-16 10:07:30)

An Early Kubrick Movie That is Also An Interesting Film Noir.

"Killer's Kiss" (1955), acclaimed director Stanley Kubrick's secondfeature film, starred Jamie Smith, Irene Kane and Frank Silvera.The story looks like it was partly inspired by Robert Siodmak's TheKillers (1946): A boxer called on the slide Davey Gordon (Jamie Smith),is awakened from a dream (a stunning piece of surrealism, it's onlyfault being that it is too short) by the screams of Gloria Price (IreneKane), who lives on the other side of his apartment block, as herlecherous boss Vincent Rapallo (Frank Silvera) forces himself on her.Gordon goes to her help, but Rapallo escapes. He falls in love withGloria, a "dancer" at a nightclub run by Rapallo, but in doing so, hefaces Rapallo's wrath and his deadly vengeance.While the plot may be slightly run-on-the-mill stuff, the movie as awhole is certainly not. Shot on the streets of New York by Kubrickhimself, the picture benefits enormously by this "breathing" quality,making the story more believable as it's set and shot in a real place,a rare practice at the time (one wonders if Kubrick did this for purelyaesthetic reasons: the budget of the movie was only $40,000 or so,extremely cheap even then for a movie). The camera-work is very highcontrast black and white, all the automobiles surfaces gleaming andenabling the tower blocks Gordon rushes past during the final look darkand foreboding. He also inserts a few stylistic shots like Gordonlooking through a fish-bowl; but Kubrick uses these sparingly so theyalways look unexpected. Along with the beautiful cinematography, theaction is the highlight of this motion picture: a violent and ruthlessboxing match early on, shot with a hand-held camera is exciting andbrutal; capturing what the sport is really like. Another set piece isjustifiably famous: a climatic fight between Gordon and Rapallo in amannequin store house with fire-axes.But there are flaws, flaws than cannot be overlooked even if one iskind to the young Stanley Kubrick and very lenient. First and foremostis the acting: Irene Kane as the woman who sparks off all the troubleis desperately weak and is hard to see why a Rapallo lust after her andGordon falls in love with her so quickly. Silvera is excellent as ourvillain and Smith, while nothing special, is good enough for his part,but because Kubrick opted to film the movie "silent" and then put inthe sounds in post-production, not only do you have errors like carsdriving in the background but no noise issuing forth from them, but theperformances are made rather stilted and the dialogue spoken doesn'talways match up to their lips. The motion picture is in (a needless)flashback, so we are given a redundant voice-over and the ending in thetrain-station is overly-sentimental and it is not only alien to theworld of noir, but alien also to Kubrick. Despites these flaws, themovie reminds an enjoyable, at times very exciting, film noir thatisn't just for Kubrick buffs.

ALauff

(2012-04-15 19:24:21)

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.

gavin6942

(2012-04-10 19:36:49)

A Short But Powerful Noir Film

Davy (Jamie Smith), a washed-up boxer, intervenes when a prettydancehall girl named Gloria (Irene Kane) is brutalized by her hoodlumboss and lover (Frank Silvera). Gloria falls for her rescuer and angersher boyfriend, who promptly sends men to kill him. But when Davy'sfriend is murdered instead, the lovebirds must run for their lives.Stanley Kubrick, at the time a welfare recipient, was the writer,director, cinematographer and producer of this film. Of course, todaywe know his as possibly the greatest director who ever lived. And thisfilm showcases how, early on, he was ready to direct. (There are alsofine performances despite the cast not being known actors.) The scene with the telephone, the woman changing and the mirror?Brilliant shot. I loved the stark contrast of the ballerina scene,really pushing the monochrome boundaries. Awesome use of rooftops,great crane shot of the men running, perfect scenery and a nice scorefor this part of the film...

pervis ellis

(2012-04-10 00:23:47)

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.

Petri Pelkonen

(2012-04-07 12:49:03)

Early Kubrick works fine

Killer's Kiss shows us the relationship between a welterweight boxerand a dancer.He loses a fight and her boss is causing the girl sometrouble.Stanley Kubrick co-wrote and directed Killer's Kiss in1955.It's a good film made in a film-noir style.It's a small and cheapmovie which was filmed in the back alleys of New York.It looks realgood.The chase scene on the roof is pretty exciting.The actors arefairly unknown.The main couple, Davy Gordon and Gloria Price are playedby Jamie Smith and Irene Kane.The bad guy, Vincent Rapallo is played byFrank Silvera.Kubrick, who would have turned 80 last summer was anamazing movie maker who came up with many masterpieces.Killer's Kissshows us a little of that Stanley Kubrick we knew later.

(2012-04-07 09:17:27)

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

This review is from: Killer's Kiss (DVD) 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....

edwagreen

(2012-03-30 17:45:03)

Killer's Kiss Kayoed Early *

First class Stanley Kubrick stinker about a pugilist's finding lovewith a dancer who tells him a story of woe.Seems that her ballet sister married a wealthy man to help them carefor their ailing father. On the day of his death, the sister killedherself. Come on, this is just a little too much to take.The acting is absolutely awful. The cast seems to read their lineswithout feelings. For a pugilist, this guy is far from punchy.The woman at the dance hall has a black boss who is insanely jealousand doesn't want to let her go. Blaming the boxer for her departing, hesends his goons after him only to have the latter kill his manager bymistake.The story lasts for 70 minutes. 70 minutes of sheer ennui.

(2012-03-30 09:07:39)

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.