jsk32870 Strike One: labeled as "horror" which simply can't be more inaccurate. If this is "horror" then "Halloween" is a "family" film.Strike Two: There is no obvious or even subtle "curse" as mentioned in the title of the film.Strike Three: There are no "cat people" anywhere to be seen.For reasons I cannot fathom, many reviewers here give the film a pass on all of this and rave about the film while stating "oh just forget the title." OK...recall the sequel to "Frankenstein" - "Bride of Frankenstein" - now imagine there is NO bride, there is NO Dr. Frankenstein, and only the monster appears, but only in a few scenes and not really as the monster but in some other manifestation, and it turns out the film has nothing really at all to do with Frankenstein or the monster or the bride, but some other character you'd never heard of. Um, what? That would be a mess. And yet, that is what you have here with "Curse of the Cat People." This cannot be excused, I'm sorry.I understand that Val Lewton wanted to name the film something else and not have it linked to "Cat People," but he lost that argument to RKO and as a result we have this film as is. It must be graded as such, and unfortunately it's a jumbled mess that doesn't make much sense when viewed as the continuing story from the original. Perhaps the most aggravating aspect of the film (aside from the title) is the father, Oliver, suddenly having a serious memory block on what happened at the climax of "Cat People." In that one, his first wife was revealed to be able to change into a panther and she literally died in panther form. Oliver witnessed this and it's how the film ended. Suddenly six years later his memory has apparently been completely lost and now he says his first wife 'drove herself mad' because she believed fantasy stories! Wait, what? Does Oliver not remember seeing his dead panther-wife lying on the ground six years ago? What are you talking about? This made absolutely no sense, even more so when he became intolerant of his daughter's alleged fantasies, because having witnessed a real-life panther woman, he of all people should be open to fantastical stories. But no.It was also irritating for Oliver to castigate his daughter Amy for not having friends or playing with them, because what we are shown doesn't jive with his claims. The opening scenes show Amy playing with other children. Yes, her mind wanders as she sits there, but she is playing with them. Later when talk of her birthday party comes up, she is excited and rattles off the names of at least five children she expects to see at her party. If this child was a loner with no friends, how is she able to identify several children coming to her party? And why is she excited to see them? And later, when it is learned that the party invitations were not mailed, and thus the children weren't invited, the children are upset by this and shun Amy in retribution. Now, if Amy was a loner with no friends, why would all of these children care about her party at all? They shouldn't even want to go. None of this makes any sense. The film-makers utterly failed to establish that Amy really was a loner or a dreamer who was losing touch with reality. She was a typical little girl who occasionally chased butterflies and somehow this translates into 'she lives in a fantasy world?' I don't think so.The film suffers from these flaws, and others, and what you're left with is a confusing hodge-podge that also, at times, manages to exude some real charm. That comes mainly from Ann Carter as Amy; she was very convincing, especially for a child actor. I also enjoyed Simone Simon's 'cameo' and the cinematography is also noteworthy.In sum, not a total loss, but not at all as advertised. More like a sheep in wolves' clothing (jumbled on purpose, because it falls flat and is not horror in any sense of the word). 6/10.

GL84 Trying to help his shy daughter, a man's efforts to give her a friend results in her conjuring her mother as a playmate and spending more time with her to where they find the truth about her and try to stop her before she gets to the child.There isn't a whole lot to this one. One of the better points for the film is the general plot-line. It's a little original and does offer up some potentially disturbing ideas here of the dead mother coming back to her daughter as an imaginary friend, though that tends to fall off quite easily in here. Every now and then, this pops out a pretty nice suspense scene, as the initial walk-through of the house does get some good moments in, as there's a really creepy air going through the place from the large amount of furniture and other objects found to the darkness of the place really makes for a creepy sequence. What also works is the latter scene where she's startled in her sleep from the howling wind, mainly for adhering so closely to horror conventions over the years. The only other thing that works here is the final chase, as the run through the snowy forest looking for her friend, the dogs on her trail and finally finding shelter at the house here for a big final confrontation. These here are the only right parts, but as much good as there is, there's the same amount of bad. This is due to their not being a whole lot wrong since there isn't much at all to the film. Nothing much happens at all in the way of scares, suspense, action or even jumps, and at times very rarely feels like a horror film. There's a bit of potential due to the original plot, but the fact that nothing at all happens really destroys this one. That is the main and central flaw with this one, which is just as bad as it's other one, where it rarely feels like a horror film. This is due to the film really failing to make any real threat associated with what's happening here as though everyone here knows who she is and what happened to her that doesn't come across over to this one. This really could've done something by hinting that the daughter could've started to act like her mother once they let her in on who her playmate really is when she was still alive, but instead this one utilizes the time showing her shyness with other kids and treats the whole affair like a story told by a child with an overactive imagination. This is a really damaging part here as this here not only devalues of lot of what happened in the original but really keeps the film from really embracing what kind of film it really is with the avoidance of being a horror film so much a part of this one. Likewise, the other part that makes no sense here is the relationship of the two women in the house who are given a status to each other but continually deny it without saying why, and the entire point here is lost and quite confusing. These are the main strikes against it.Today's Rating/G: Nothing.

writers_reign For reasons best known to the cynical, exploitationers concerned, this film was screened in a double bill with Cat People, to which, of course, it bears only the most tenuous connection. Like Cat People - in which I detected several flaws - I found here one gigantic flaw but again that may stem from the fact that I was watching both some seventy years after they first hit the screens. When, towards the beginning of the movie, Amy's contemporaries - three little girl who decline to play with her - first notice the old, large, house, it is on a regular block alongside others, yet when Amy runs out of the house in the last reel, she stumbles on the house after running through the WOODS for several minutes and it is completely isolated. That to one side I can but agree with several people who have recorded here their enchantment at this beguiling movie which is surely, as several of them noted, one of the finest depictions of a lonely child ever put on screen. Of the two titles in the double bill I found this the most enjoyable, entertaining and thought-provoking.

wes-connors In Tarrytown, New York, lonely preteen Ann Carter (as Amy) relates to butterflies rather than other children, which worries father Kent Smith (as Oliver "Ollie" Reed). The girl is also befriended by aging actress Julia Dean (as Julia Farren), who inhabits the neighborhood's "haunted" house. Next, young Carter announces her best friend is Mr. Smith's deceased first wife, ghostly beauty Simone Simon (as Irena) from "Cat People" (1942). Smith and pretty second wife Jane Randolph (as Alice) hope their daughter isn't afflicted with the horrific curse that killed Ms. Simon in the earlier story...This sequel strikes a completely different tone than the original, but it works beautifully. Key to "The Curse of the Cat People" is the fact that Simon left no descendants, so producer Val Lewton and his team went in a different direction; this story amounts to Simon's redemption. In the lead role, Carter is captivating. The blending of her loneliness with the stories involving Simon and Ms. Dean are satisfyingly intertwined. Dean revels in her role as a washed up actress likely stricken with Alzheimer's; oddly, she received no "Supporting Actress" consideration. Of course, the title and promotion cheat.******** The Curse of the Cat People (3/2/44) Gunther von Fritsch, Robert Wise ~ Ann Carter, Kent Smith, Julia Dean, Simone Simon