Mon 30 Jul 2012
A Movie Review by Dan Stumpf: KILLER’S KISS (1955).
Posted by Steve under Crime Films , Reviews[12] Comments
KILLER’S KISS. United Artists, 1955. Frank Silvera, Jamie Smith, Irene Kane, Jerry Jarrett, Mike Dana, Felice Orlandi, Shaun O’Brien, Barbara Brand. Director and co-screenwriter: Stanley Kubrick.
Recently saw Killer’s Kiss which immediately became my favorite Stanley Kubrick movie, which ain’t saying much, but is intended as a compliment nonetheless. A lot of folks consider Kubrick a genius, and a lot think he’s a pretentious bore; I’ve always thought he had some talent but tended toward self-indulgence, with his failure to capture Nabokov’s Lolita on film particularly disappointing, coming from one as intelligent as Kubrick says he is.
Anyway, there are a few — a very few — really cheap really good movies to come out of Hollywood, and Killer’s Kiss is one of the tackiest and best. It’s not as good (or as threadbare) as Ulmer’s Detour or Bluebeard, but then nobody could do as much with as little as Ulmer, whose films sometimes amaze one by the very fact of their existence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQePeeM6ElM
But though not on the same level as Ulmer’s poetic cheapies, Killer’s Kiss is nonetheless right up there with Murder by Contract (1958) and Blast of Silence (’61) as a gritty, stylish thriller done for peanuts.
The cast is non-professional but talented, with Frank Silvera particularly good as a lecherous dance-hall owner who murders for love, and Irene Kane inadequate but haunting as the neurotic object of his attentions.
There is some very effective use of seldom-lensed New York City locations — which seems innovative but was probably merely necessary — particularly the roof of a warehouse, which stretches out like some improbable desert before the hero fleeing across it.
There are also a couple of very visceral fight scenes, the most memorable of which involves the hood and the hero smashing each other with clubs, spears, and plaster mannequins. It makes one realize, with a twinge of regret, how skillful a filmmaker Kubrick could be when he wanted to Show Feelings instead of Explaining Ideas.
Surprisingly, in fact, Kubrick resists the temptation here to wallow in his own concepts. There is, for example, a part early on where he cuts between the prizefighter hero and the taxi-dancer heroine getting outfitted in their dressing rooms. Almost any other director would have cut back and forth several times, to make sure no one missed the point about professional athletes and prostitutes both being paid to ruin their bodies for the pleasure of strangers, but Kubrick cuts only once, realizes the point is made and gets on with things.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkPUWpcYBhE
Also, this is the only prize-fight movie I’ve ever seen that has only one shot of a spectator grinning while the hero gets his face punctuated. In every other fight movie, the Director’s not truly happy until he’s looked down his nose at fight fans by showing lots of low-angle shots of them porking out and screaming for blood, just to make sure the moviegoers can feel morally superior to them.
Killer’s Kiss has just the one shot of Silvera getting turned on while he watches the fight on television, a restraint amazing coming from Kubrick.
July 30th, 2012 at 9:07 pm
For one reason or another, none good, I’ve never caught up with this movie. All I’ve seen of it are the two clips above from YouTube. (Since it’s a short film, what that does mean is that I’ve seen 20 to 25% of it.)
But just from that small fraction of the film, it’s pretty obvious that Kubrick knew exactly what he was doing, and that in this movie is the essence of film noir.
Kubrick also seems to gotten a lot of mileage from some no-name actors. Anyone who’s seen the movie can feel free to contradict me, but I think Dan’s review backs me up on all three statements.
July 31st, 2012 at 2:38 am
I’ve never seen the movie, either. Kubrick had a genuine talent, but he does seem to have been desperately in need of someone to advise him. 2001 and THE SHINING have moments of real genius, but they are punctuated with things that make you want to throw things at the screen. He was just allowed to have his own way far too often. It’s possible that that he would have produced far better movies in the days of the big studios, where he would not have been allowed to get away with so much.
July 31st, 2012 at 6:24 am
Just saw Kubrick’s very first film, FEAR AND DESIRE, which is a cheap-cheap-cheap war film about a few GIs trapped behind enemy lines (a popular theme of cheap-cheap-cheap war films because you didn’t have to hire an army of extras). Unlike most of its ilk, FEAR/DESIRE doesn’t have a lot of stock footage to make it look more expansive: just a claustrophobic (in the outdoors!) intensity I found compelling, plus a lot of pretentious stuff and one really really nice bit with a raft drifting down a river. Catch it if you can.
July 31st, 2012 at 6:33 am
I agree that KILLER’S KISS is excellent. It can be found as an extra on the Criterion edition of THE KILLING.
I also agree about having problems with 2001, LOLITA, and some of THE SHINING. EYES WIDE SHUT also was a mis-fire. But take a look at some of Kubrick’s other excellent films:
PATHS OF GLORY starring Kirk Douglas in one of the great anti-war films.
DR STRANGELOVE starring Peter Sellers in a great black comedy.
CLOCKWORK ORANGE–Excellent look at a possible future. A very disturbing film.
FULL METAL JACKET–An excellent Vietnam war film.
SPARTACUS–It’s been awhile since I’ve seen this movie but I remember thinking it was one of the better historical adventures.
BARRY LYNDON–Excellent historical film.
The reason Kubrick was allowed to go over budget and have his own way is because he made some great films, many of which I’ve listed above.
July 31st, 2012 at 10:13 am
I caught this one recently on TV, too. For a low-budget noir film, I thought it worked well. Walker Martin is right; some Kubrick films are brilliant; some are a yawn. I’ve never been able to sit through THE SHINING.
July 31st, 2012 at 12:53 pm
I would agree with Walker about FULL METAL JACKET, DR STRANGELOVE, PATHS OF GLORY and SPARTACUS (although it’s interesting to note that Kubrick later distanced himself from the film because he was working on a production that he didn’t have full control over). CLOCKWORK ORANGE is well made but rather unpleasant. It misses the whole point of the original book, and appears to celebrate the violence of the main character rather than try to understand it. BARRY LYNDON is a beautiful movie, but I’ve heard it described as a movie version of a coffee table book, and I think that’s true. It never really connects to me emotionally. That sort of coldness and distance is common to a lot of his later films.
July 31st, 2012 at 4:24 pm
CLOCKWORK ORANGE is a very violent and unpleasant film but one that has to be seen by any lover of quality SF or student of the bizarre.
I saw it when it was first released and noticed a couple in their sixties take the seats in front of me. They both appeared cheerful and in good health. However, by the end of the movie I noticed them leaving and they seemed to be in a state of shock, with the man helping his wife walk out of the theater.
It is a real horrorshow and might change your feelings about the cheerful movie, SINGING IN THE RAIN.
July 31st, 2012 at 6:35 pm
I saw A Clockwork Orange as a teenager and loved it. I took my wife to be in our early twenties to see it, and she walked out on it. I now have no desire to watch it. The violence which had no affect on me as a younger man now sickens me. That being said, I still think it’s a great movie. I hope that last line makes sense to someone other than me.I also have problems watching war movies with gruesome depictions of body parts spread around. “BATTLEGROUND” from the 40’s is my favorite war movie that gets it’s point across without the gore. I think Kubrick’s best films are Paths of Glory & Dr. Strangelove IMHO. Walker, do you think Gene Kelly ever saw Clockwork? And if he did, what went through his mind as Singing in the Rain was sung?
July 31st, 2012 at 10:22 pm
Paul, I bet Gene Kelly never saw CLOCKWORK ORANGE. I cannot imagine any of his friends ever recommending the movie to him. I have the strong feeling that Kelly was a fan of movies from the early days and probably did not go to see the more recent films, especially the controversial ones.
August 1st, 2012 at 4:56 am
I understand that the only reason that Macdowell sings the song during his character’s terrible spree is that it was the only song that he knew the lyrics to!
August 1st, 2012 at 6:27 am
You might be right Bradstreet but I heard that the song, Singing in the Rain, was picked to accent the terrible nature of the crime. The song is a cheerful classic from a well known musical sung by the villain as he performed his sexual crime. Not a scene that any filmgoer will ever forget once seen.
July 26th, 2024 at 10:06 pm
[…] No, not Ed Wood and Plan 9 from Outer Space. The laying of that egg was immortalized in a movie of its own, a decade later. This film is about the somewhat more talented Stanley Kubrick, and the movie was Killer’s Kiss, reviewed here: https://mysteryfile.com/blog/?p=18638 […]