The Curse of the Cat People

The imdb summary itself states that this is a "mostly unrelated sequel." I have to disagree. I felt like it was purely a sequel on the established facets of the original storyline. So who's advice are you going to take, a world famous website visited by millions of people every day that's sole purpose is to collect data on films, or some idiot from WI who really likes Lorenzo Lamas?

Love it for different reasons than Cat People. While CP is clearly about a truly supernatural event, Curse plays off the ambiguity of childhood friends to create its own haunting atmosphere. The threat in Curse is more diffuse, less certain. And while there are less pure thrilling moments in Curse, it's conclusion exceeds that of CP. Two excellent, yet very different films.

Magical and elegant. Even if it wasn't any good, you have to admire the balls. Flush with a pastoral elegance that feels as at times like Borzage or late Murnau. As usual for Lewton, there's a few side characters who are just as interesting as the main characters - the "villain" is actually probably the most sympathetic character in the whole film in her own way. It's a loving film, with an open heart. Sort of laid the groundwork for Spirit of the Beehive and Pan's Labyrinth.

Ann Carter gives one of the best child performances in cinema. An oddly charming little movie, but don't watch it expecting horror; this is much more of a fantasy.

Even better than the excellent Cat People. It lacks the menace of the first film, but it's a strange and kind of magical film about childhood terror and fantasy. It has some beautiful photography, too.

Oliver Reed is the curse of the cat people! If the 1st movie was a textbook example of how to be a terrible husband and partner, the sequel is the logical follow up - how to be a terrible parent and father. If you found Oliver and Alice horrifying in Cat People, then you will definately be horrified that they were able to procreate.

What the hell is wrong with this movie? Bad acting all around, atrocious dialogue, terrible parenting, in fact everyone treats the main little girl horribly. The moral of this story is lie to your kids so that they will like you.

Such a strange combination of suburban kitsch and atmospheric horror. Even though it doesn't really go anywhere in the end, I still found myself captivated by the sheer strangeness of it all, not to mention the killer cinematography and Simone Simon in a sheer hip-hugging dress with no bra. I can see why others don't care for this, but I got a real kick out of it. In its own way, a precursor to The Night of the Hunter (written by one of this film's admirers, James Agee).

A very vanilla sequel, lacking the mood brought to the original by Jacques Tourneur's direction and Simone Simon's screen presence (she's present, just without that troubled, schizophrenic undercurrent). Instead it boasts a soft and benevolent aura that seems to hang over an angelic little girl, played with all the stilted clumsiness you'd expect from a child actor in the 40s. And what's up with that tenuous and undercooked "eccentric neighbors" subplot?

I don't really like this one any more or less than the first movie. Movies about rosy-cheeked angelic children always rub me the wrong way, and Ann Carter is about as precious as they come. On the other hand, I like that there are multiple interpretations and that it's not necessarily a horror film at all, so I guess it balances out. Kent Smith seems like a douchebag. Not just his character, but the guy himself. Some really nice lighting and effects in this one.

The title is a downright cheat -- _Curse_ isn't really a horror film at all -- but this is still an extremely haunting, often moving, and poetic pic contrasting Amy's melancholy hallucinations with the overinsistent clarity and relentless reality of her suburban surroundings. Another neat job by producer Val Lewton, Bodeen, and the entire RKO crew.

I like this film ... a lot. I like "Cat People", but I think it's a bit overrated by people who think horror films are only good if they contain no horror. This sequel takes the very brave route of not being a horror film at all and barely even being a sequel to the original film. It's a beautiful and atmospheric study of the dangers facing quiet, imaginative people when they come up against assholes who think everyone needs to be exactly like them.

Cute, but ultimately gripping and haunting little fantasy film about a girl desperately trying to connect with Irena's ghost, because, well, at home nobody cares about her with the exception of Edward, the house's maid -- father is willing to punish her if she insists in 'seeing' this imaginary grown-up friend. Not nearly as brilliant as the original, but still charming in its own terms, depicting childhood's imagination as a series of discoveries not always understood by adults.

Each film should be graded on its own merits but sequels come w/ 1 expectation: that at least it's in the same genre ballpark. Having been understandably praised for delivering an unconventional horror film w/ a monster we never actually see, Lewton apparently got it into his head that he would pull a bait & switch: use the "same" characters (although the protagonist/"monster" is now a fairy godmother) & bookend this heartwarming(??) tale of an imaginary friend w/ implied menace.

Very sad and touching movie about isolation and loss and grief and all that comes with it. How a spouse might try to forget about the past once they die all funnelled through the eyes of a kid who is suffering her own form of isolation because of her social tendencies. Great performances even the kid! Had a nice feel to it it's definitely got a lot more underneath than the first Cat People flick but the atmosphere isn't quite up to snuff.

The Curse of the Cat People (1944) made a stronger impression on me than it's prequel Cat People (1942). It's a different kind of movie which borrows only it's characters and name to benefit from the success of the 1942 movie. Yet, it's drama is more chilling than it's horror relative. Child psychology dipped in haunting atmosphere, which had glued. The little girl was terrific, and so was pretty much every other character involved in this complex childhood story!

Pales in comparison to Cat People, but once you get past that it's a pretty fine film. The child acting is actually pretty good and the film trades the menace and hard shadows of the original for a soft and magical look. It works quite well as the story of a lonely little girl and her imagination and it moves along at a nice pace.

A lot of people complaining about a lack of cat people, idiots every one of them. The title is simply missing punctuation, it's actually called "The Curse of the Cat: People" it's about how people are the enemy of the cat, film's still no good though

Star Rating: ★★★★★

Even my 6-year commented "I didn't see any cat people". But beside the misleading title, this is a solid movie with expert usage of black-and-white. The 6-film Val Lewton DVD compilation I bought last year is still proving to be a terrific purchase.

79.000

Another solid Lewton "horror".

While the direction isn't as solid as the original Tourneur film, this one is more enjoyable. This is actually one of the better sequels I've ever seen.

watched: 2013, 2022

Gone is the thick psychological torment of the first film, and in comes a somewhat lighter (but still atmospheric) portrayal of childhood insecurity and the power of imagination. Most child actors from this period of Hollywood history are horrible, but Ann Carter plays the role with an unusual amount of solemnity that perfectly matches not only the character she is portraying but also the mood of the film. She should totally have given some acting tips to Kent Smith, anyhow.

Odd fantasy. Not much happens, but it is absorbing nonetheless.

No where in this film were there cats. Nor were there curses. In fact there is hardly anything here that links this movie to its predecessor. I loved the first Cat People, but this one was just NOT what I was hoping for. The direction here is quite good though, with great uses of lighting, but I just could not get into the loose story. Perhaps I need to watch it again with different expectations.

Seriously, where are the cats?

72.750

Not as engaging as its predecessor, "Cat People," but still good. It's not a horror movie like the original and tells a completely different kind of story. If I were to wager a guess, I'd say that higher ups made Val Lewton keep the title and names of the characters and make it a "sequel," but Lewton made a completely different movie. Watch it as an unrelated movie.

Except for the child's parents and a few brief references this film has nothing to do with the first film.Instead we get a light fantasy about a girl and her imagination that did nothing for me.

A lot of people consider this every bit as good as Cat People. For me, it's the weakest film of Val Lewton's superb RKO run.

Unconventional sequel to the 1942 hit. Good acting and a delicate atmosphere make this the most unusual film in the Val Lewton canon, not so much a horror film (despite a token dark old house) as a gentle fantasy.