Showing posts with label 1940s. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1940s. Show all posts

1.08.2025

The Wolf Man (1941)

DIRECTED BY

George Wagnner 


STARRING

Lon Chaney Jr. - Lawrence “Larry” Talbot/ The Wolf Man

Claude Rains - Sir John Talbot

Warren William - Dr. Lloyd

Evelyn Ankers - Gwen Conliffe

Ralph Bellamy - Captain Paul Montford

Patric Knowles - Frank Andrews

Bela Lugosi - Bela

Maria Ouspenskaya - Maleva


Genre - Horror/Supernatural/Werewolves


Running Time - 70 Minutes



PLOT

After his brother’s death, Larry Talbot returns home to his father and the family estate. Events soon take a turn for the worse when Larry is bitten by a werewolf.


REVIEW

Considering the first big horror film of 2025 is Leigh Whannell’s adaptation of THE WOLF MAN, I figured it was the perfect time to go back to when the werewolf film became mainstream. While Universal Studios’ WEREWOLF OF LONDON from 1935 was officially the first feature-length werewolf flick, that film bombed at the box office at the time although it has now gained a cult following and even a hit song inspired by it. It took six years for werewolves to be cool and engaging for moviegoers, with 1941’s THE WOLF MAN becoming a huge hit and inspiring multiple sequels, spin-offs and even remakes along the way.


While the 1941 WOLF MAN is definitely a product of its time, the film still holds up for the most part and continues to inspire werewolf lore to this day. Probably the most iconic aspect of this classic horror film is the make-up of the title character. While very primitive compared to what would come along much later in films like 1981’s AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON and THE HOWLING, the prototype for those later looks begin here. Yes, the Wolf Man looks less like a real wolf, and more like a regular man who hasn’t shaved for years and probably in good need of a dentist. But for the time, this was pretty impressive make-up work and probably horrified audiences.


THE WOLF MAN also has some thick atmosphere and cool locations going for it. Director George Wagnner does a nice job visualizing the story, using the setting quite well, especially at the end where the Wolf Man is hunting within the forest as he chases his love interest while others [including his father] chase him down. Even during the daytime scenes, there always seems to be a sense of dread and bleakness that the characters can’t overcome. Wagnner showcases through the use of fog and mist at night, while main character Larry Talbot encounters strange characters who deal in the mystical arts. There’s a level of spook all around THE WOLF MAN.


And while it may look goofy to many today, the transformation scene is still quite impressive considering this was done in 1941. It’s just a simple series of dissolves with actor Lon Chaney Jr. being shown with more werewolf makeup on in each frame. But again, 1941 audiences probably ate this up and were terrified by this metamorphosis. I honestly prefer this to much of the CGI transformations we get today, as I would rather have a werewolf look like this than look like a cartoon character. But that’s just me, I guess. 


Also quite simple is the story written by Curt Siodmak. The narrative is easy to understand on paper, as it’s pretty much a man’s struggle to deal with his animal instincts when he’s bitten by a werewolf. Larry Talbot is already treated as somewhat of a black sheep within his own family, struggling with relationships with his father and those close with the Talbot family. His issues are made worse when he has no control over his new werewolf persona, killing people and stalking an engaged young woman who has refused his advances.


While Larry is a problematic character in a lot of ways, especially in how he doesn’t listen to his love interest Gwen [who is an engaged woman in love with another man], he’s really the only character we follow throughout. He’s the only character we care about because he has depth and is the only one who struggles with anything major in THE WOLF MAN. You want him to reconcile with his father. You get upset when people tell him he’s mentally ill because he believes in werewolves, to the point where he claims to be one himself. You wish he could have a chance with Gwen, who is sweet on Larry but faithful to Frank. Larry is a complex character in a simple narrative. Unfortunately, none of the other characters come close to having any depth or interesting arcs besides maybe fortune teller Maleva, who pops up whenever she needs to bail Larry out of a werewolf situation. Most of the other classic Universal Monsters films have supporting characters you can identify with, but THE WOLF MAN suffers from not having many. Pretty tough to do that when your movie is only 70 minutes.


And while the story is simple, you can take a lot of thematic subtext from THE WOLF MAN. Is this film about male puberty and sexual repression? Are we dealing with topics of duality, like a Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde situation? Is this a story about mental health and mental illness? Is Larry dealing with paranoia, anxiety, depression with everyone around him treating him feel lesser because of it, to the point where he has to transform and take it out on people as a mindless animal? Is this just a film about good and evil, or love and rejection leading to terrible things? There’s so much psychological analysis you can make out of this film, which makes it timeless in a way. THE WOLF MAN may be a monster film on the surface, but there’s a much deeper interpretation of the narrative underneath it all.


Siodmak’s biggest contribution to werewolf lore are all the elements he brings to the table here that quickly become incorporated in other mainstream werewolf movies. We have the weakness of silver. Werewolves have the mark of a pentagram once they’ve been bitten. There’s even the famous quote about men turning into wolves as “wolfsbane blooms and the autumn moon is bright.” Like George A. Romero would do with zombies in the late 1960s, Siodmak formed the werewolf tropes as we know them today. 


The acting is perfectly fine here. The biggest impression is obviously Lon Chaney Jr. as Larry Talbot, aka the Wolf Man. At times, his performance is a bit awkward. But for the most part, he carries himself quite well and makes Larry a sympathetic character with goofy charm. Chaney Jr. also looks great in makeup, which makes him ideal for this dual role. Even better is Claude Rains as Sir John Talbot, Larry’s father. His performances are always top notch whether it’s in horror or something like CASABLANCA. The man brings class to every movie he’s a part of and here’s no exception. I liked his chemistry with Chaney Jr. Cool to see Ralph Bellamy here, even though he doesn’t really get a whole lot to do. Same for Bela Lugosi, who is gone as quickly as he appears. Maria Ouspenskaya is pretty great as Maleva though, bringing an air of mysticism to the proceedings. A good cast, even though a lot of them aren’t given much material to work with.


THE FINAL HOWL

While not the best Universal Monsters film ever made [my nod goes to 1935’s THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN
], the original WOLF MAN is still pretty damn good all these decades later. Curt Siodmak crafts a simple [maybe too simple?] story that introduces a lot of the werewolf tropes that would continue to be implemented in werewolf movies to this very day. Director George Wagnner does a nice job visualizing the narrative with nice atmosphere and a spooky mood in the last half, while highlighting the use of makeup and dissolves to showcase the werewolf transformation. It may look hokey now, but it probably wowed audiences back in 1941. The actors are fine, mainly Lon Chaney Jr., Claude Rains and Maria Ouspenskaya. I wish the supporting characters had more depth because you don’t really care for them [Chaney Jr.’s Larry Talbot has the only real arc]. And the film may be a bit too short at seventy minutes to give the actors more to do. But THE WOLF MAN is a classic for a reason and still maintains a charm that will continue to make it resonate for many moons to come.



SCORE

3 Howls Outta 4

(8 out of 10)







2.29.2020

The Invisible Man Returns (1940)

DIRECTED BY
Joe May

STARRING
Cedric Hardwicke - Richard Cobb
Vincent Price - Sir Geoffrey Radcliffe
Nan Grey - Helen Manson
John Sutton - Dr. Frank Griffin
Cecil Kellaway - Inspector Sampson
Alan Napier - Willie Spears

Genre - Horror/Mystery/Science Fiction

Running Time - 81 Minutes


PLOT (from IMDB)
Framed for the murder of his brother, Geoffrey Radcliffe (Vincent Price) is scheduled to hang. After a visit from his friend Dr. Frank Griffin (John Sutton), he vanishes mysteriously from prison. Police Inspector Sampson (Cecil Kellaway) realizes that Griffin is the brother of the original Invisible Man and has given Geoffrey the formula to aid his escape. Can Geoffrey elude the police dragnet and track down the real murderer? More importantly, can Griffin discover an antidote before the invisibility formula drives Geoffrey insane?

REVIEW
With the new adaptation of THE INVISIBLE MAN out in theaters by the time you read this, I figured it would be cool to go back and watch some of the original Universal Studios films that popularized the H.G. Wells character on the silver screen. Since I already reviewed the first 1933 adaptation of THE INVISIBLE MAN directed by James Whale and starring the incredible Claude Rains, I figured I would take another look at the first sequel to that film - 1940’s THE INVISIBLE MAN RETURNS. It’s a film I hadn’t seen in many years and I was curious to see how it held up after all of these years. While not as iconic or as good as the first film, THE INVISIBLE MAN RETURNS is a sequel that’s probably better than it has any right to be. It’s no surprise this film made a decent profit at the box office, which led to a few more sequels and spinoffs down the line.

THE INVISIBLE MAN RETURNS is not as much of a sequel, as it is a sort of reboot of the first film. It follows many of the same beats - Invisible Man running from the law while growing mad from the invisible serum, has a beautiful fiancee who supports him despite his condition, and he has to deal with a rival of sorts that’s doing him wrong. Unlike the first film though, the characters are a bit more grounded and developed despite a slightly lesser story holding everything together. THE INVISIBLE MAN RETURNS is not really a horror film beyond the title character’s condition, but rather a revenge story and melodrama about an innocent man using his condition to find the real person who murdered his brother [a crime he’s framed for] while struggling with the invisible power that’s corrupting him and driving him insane. It’s pretty much an 80-minute soap opera in a lot of ways, focusing more on romance, friendship, and righting wrongs through violent means. It’s told well enough to remain engaging throughout, but it lacks the power of the original’s storytelling. There was a mood, an atmosphere, and even an obvious attitude in the first film that created this magical energy the old Universal Films had no trouble in creating. The fun factor of being sort of terrified by the Invisible Man is now gone, as we’re now meant to sympathize with his plight.

That’s not to say that the sympathy angle is a bad thing. In fact, I respect the writers of this sequel for taking a different avenue with THE INVISIBLE MAN RETURNS, making it stand out from the first film in a natural and refreshing way. The character of Geoffrey Radcliffe isn’t like the original’s Jack Griffin, who was unlikable from the start and reveled in causing fear for those around him. Radcliffe is a good person, framed for a crime he didn’t commit, yet he has no proof right before he’s executed. However Griffin’s brother, Dr. Frank Griffin, gives Radcliffe the formula to escape and find the real killer out of friendship. In a strange way, Radcliffe becomes a detective, haunting those who have wronged him while searching for answers as to who really murdered his brother. The insanity only comes when he’s under the serum for much longer than necessary, turning him into what Jack Griffin had become throughout the first film. Radcliffe doesn’t have a ton of development, but it’s obvious he has a sense for justice and loves his fiancee Helen and supports Frank when it comes to his scientific discoveries. You’re allowed, as the audience, to rightfully support Radcliffe and feel bad for the guy when the serum starts taking over.

It helps when the supporting characters are well defined in their roles. Helen is the typical token girlfriend who worries about Radcliffe. But she believes in his innocence and is willing to participate in helping him solve the case, even when the solution shocks her and tries to deny it. But she always has his back through thick and thin. Frank tries to make up for what his brother had done in the first film by giving the serum to Radcliffe to turn the wrong into a right. He’s also hard at working at an antidote that only half works when it brings the subject back to the visible spectrum before killing them accidentally. He tries to keep Radcliffe’s eyes on the mission, struggling to ground him when his friend slowly goes mad and paranoid. On the other side of things, Radcliffe’s cousin Richard Cobb doesn’t seem all that concerned that a family member is about to be executed for a crime he didn’t commit. In fact, he seems to be trying to worm his way into Helen’s life as a replacement, which she’s blind to. And of course, you have the obvious police officers who are in disbelief that they’re dealing with an invisible man while doing the best to do their jobs. They use clues from the previous encounter with Griffin to expose Radcliffe and put him back in custody. All the characters have a distinct role that all flesh out the film’s narrative in a natural way, creating a world that’s easy to invest oneself into.

Probably the biggest flaw of the story is figuring out who the real murderer is. If you read the character descriptions above, it’s easy to see who the villain of the film is. And we learn who it is during the film’s second act, pretty much taking away any sort of suspense or tension from the story. The rest of the film after that seems to be Radcliffe messing with the culprit to get him to confess, or just getting revenge by killing him. It takes away a bit of steam as the detective aspect is pretty fun, turning the film into your typical revenge flick without much revenge going for it. In fact, things get a bit slapstick which takes away something from it all. It’s still fun to watch, but you can just feel the inferiority compared to the original movie.

Like the first film, THE INVISIBLE MAN RETURNS has a huge focus on its special effects, which probably impressed a lot of people in 1940. In fact, this film was nominated at the Academy Awards for that very category. And like the first film, they look pretty damn great for its time. We get the classic full-body bandage and all, creating an invisible illusion when they start to unravel from Radcliffe’s body. We get actors interacting with nothing or nobody, selling the dialogue or physical interactions with the Invisible Man. There is some green screen that works - in particular a scene where Frank takes Radcliffe’s blood from an invisible arm - while others are pretty bad, especially during the film’s final act. The newest aspect of the effects here involve when subjects become visible again. Unlike the first film, we get dissolves of the invisible subject displaying their bones first, then their veins, and then they’re visible form. It’s actually pretty damn cool to see, considering the film is 80 years old. It also reminded me of 2000’s HOLLOW MAN, which was obviously inspired by this film for that special effect alone. I do feel the special effects were used more creatively in the 1933 film, especially when it came to objects hovering on screen and just the action choreography of other actors reacting to something that wasn’t there. But the sequel is no slouch and still impresses for the most part today.

While he’s no James Whale, Joe May does a commendable job continuing what he had started. Like I mentioned, the use of the special effects is well done for its time, continuing the great visuals that the first film had presented. May also directs a well paced film with some decent action and good dramatic moments that keep you engaged throughout. I do feel that May plays things a bit safe, considering how far Whale pushed the use of special effects and the direction of the actors to interact with someone who wasn’t onscreen with them. There is also a sly wit and charm from the first film that doesn’t really exist in this sequel. Maybe it’s because we’ve seen most of this done slightly better before and expect the film to expand on those previous ideas. The dissolve into visibility is a great touch, but the film needed more than that. Even by 1940, the visual presentation feels old hat. May also has issues with tone, never sure whether to take things seriously or play them for laughs. That’s not to say that Joe May doesn’t do a good job, as THE INVISIBLE MAN RETURNS is still well made and does what it needs to justify its existence.

The acting is also pretty solid here. It’s weird seeing Cedric Hardwicke get first billing here in hindsight, considering who else is in the cast that became a major star later on in his career. But Hardwicke is really good as Cobb, playing the antagonistic side of things and being a thorn in Radcliffe’s side. He plays smarmy and conniving very well, playing off of the rest of the cast entertainingly. Nan Grey is good as Helen, Radcliffe’s loyal girlfriend. She doesn’t really play a damsel-in-distress, helping Radcliffe prove his innocence while dealing with the surreal events around her. John Sutton keeps things grounded as Dr. Frank Griffin, taking the entire story seriously and bringing some gravitas to what should be a silly concept. But the real star here is a young Vincent Price as Radcliffe, showing early on why he continued to shine bright in the genre throughout his iconic career until his unfortunate passing almost 30 years ago. You don’t really see his face until the very end, as he’s covered in bandages or is invisible for the rest of the film. But his voice is so strong that it expresses a lot of what he’s feeling, even when you can’t see him. Price isn’t the Vincent Price the legend at this point, as his voice doesn’t carry that charming menace we’re used to - even though some of that does come out when he plays up the madness near the end. But the man is so good, even in his earlier films, truly carrying this sequel and making it worthwhile on all fronts. I’ve always been a huge fan of Price and this film is a good reason why.

THE FINAL HOWL
While not up to the level of the 1933 film, 1940’s THE INVISIBLE MAN RETURNS still manages to be a good time. The sequel’s story follows similar beats, yet changes it up by having a protagonist who is sympathetic and is made invisible to solve a murder he’s been framed for. This is a positive, as it makes the sequel stand out as a revenge and love story rather than one meant to scare audiences. The special effects are just as good here as they were in the original film, with an added bonus of dissolves revealing veins, bones and an epidermis prior to turning fully visible that inspired later films like 2000’s HOLLOW MAN. And the acting, led by a young but still magnetic Vincent Price, carry the film well and keep you invested in the story. However, the film has competent, yet really safe, direction by Joe May who tries to be James Whale but doesn’t quite reach that bar with his inability to maintain a single tone, as well as not being able to charm and excite the audience like Whale had done with the first film. Plus, the mystery of the person who framed the lead character is easy to figure out and takes away a lot of the tension and suspense a film like this should be able to maintain until the film’s climax. Still, THE INVISIBLE MAN RETURNS is a worthy sequel that has something different to offer if you’re a fan of the original film and its concept.


SCORE
3 Howls Outta 4


10.18.2016

Original vs Remake: Cat People (1942 & 1982)



DIRECTED BY
Jacques Tourneur (1942)
Paul Schrader (1982)

STARRING
Simone Simon (’42)/Nastassja Kinski (’82) - Irena
Kent Smith (’42)/John Heard (’82) - Oliver
Jane Randolph (’42)/Annette O’Toole (’82) - Alice
Tom Conway (’42) - Dr. Louis Reed
Malcolm McDowell (’82) - Paul Gallier
Ruby Dee (’82) - Female
Ed Begley, Jr. (’82) - Joe Creigh

Genre - Horror/Drama/Supernatural/Animals Run Amok

Running Time - 73 Minutes (1942)/118 Minutes (1982)


It’s been quite a while since I’ve done an Original vs. Remake post. Due to lack of time and laziness [sorry about that], I haven’t really treated this segment with as much respect as it deserves. However, thanks to Ryne from The Moon is a Dead World and his Halloween Fifteen, I finally get a chance to resurrect this bad boy. This time around, it’s for 1942’s CAT PEOPLE and its 1982 remake of the same name. Both films deal with the “scary” idea of female sexuality, but executed in completely different ways due to the eras they were released in. And while one film is definitely better than the other, both films are worth a look. Let’s see why both films deserve their nine lives.

PLOT
(1942)
Oliver Reed (Kent Smith), an architect and a hopeless romantic, goes to a local zoo and meets the beautiful and mysterious Irena (Simone Simon). Really quickly, the two end up marrying - yet Irena has not consummated the marriage with Oliver. Apparently, Irena comes from Serbian descent and has a big fear that any sort of intimacy will unleash a dormant evil inside of her. Supposedly to legend, her lineage will transform into giant cats if they become angry or sexually aroused. Oliver doesn’t get it, only leading him into the consolation of his co-worker Alice (Jane Randolph) out of frustration and unhappiness with Irena. Irena becomes increasingly jealous, coincidentally leading to a series of events where both Oliver and Alice are attacked by a black leopard. Is it just pure coincidence, or is Irena’s legend coming into fruition?

(1982)
Irena (Nastassja Kinski) arrives in New Orleans to visit her estranged older brother Paul (Malcolm McDowell) whom she hasn’t seen since childhood. She is soon disgusted by Paul’s lustful interactions with her, especially since they’re family and because she’s a virgin. To escape from this stress, Irena visits the local zoo and asked to join the workforce by zoo curator Oliver (John Heard). She agrees, especially since she has become fascinated by this new panther at the zoo who has been on a killing spree. Paul eventually reveals to Irena that they are the last two of their species - a cursed tribe who are only allowed to mate with each other. If they mate with humans, they’ll turn into giant cats that can only be cured by murder.

REVIEW
(1942)
The Val Lewton produced CAT PEOPLE is one of the finest horror films ever made. In a lot of ways, it’s probably should be considered the first psychological horror film - more concerned with playing tricks on your mind through shadows and sound, rather than showing us what we may think is going on. Val Lewton and director Jacques Tourneur changed the horror game, getting away from the Universal monsters and putting a more realistic spin while maintaining a supernatural edge.

The story itself really isn’t anything special. The premise that a mysterious person may be able to unleash something more monstrous, and hurt the ones they love because of it, is nothing new even by 1942. In fact, THE WOLF MAN had done it already in 1940. The way it’s executed is a different matter. The social commentary is an interesting one, as it seems to imply the danger of female sexuality. One of the main characters, Dr. Louis Reed, explains that Irena’s delusional tales of turning into a cat-person is because she’s afraid for sex and how it’ll change her once she has it. I’m sure feminists would have been in an uproar if the term had existed back in the early 1940’s, but it adds a memorable layer to the narrative. As the film moves along, you’re left to wonder whether Irena is really cursed, or if it’s all a figment of her imagination. There’s a scene where Irena finds a key in the lock of a panther cage, giving us a few beats until she presents the key to the zookeeper. We notice the cage door may have been a bit loose, meaning there’s a possible predator on the loose. So is the stalker an actual animal, or Irena herself in her primal form? Until the very end, we’re never really sure even when the hints hit us on the head. 

The characters are fairly basic on the surface but add a lot of depth to the story. Irena is exotic and social awkward, making her an interesting character when it comes to her relationships. She quickly falls in love with good guy Oliver, even though she knows she can’t have sex with him and be his wife in the most complete way. She is encountered by women dressed in black, calling her “sister”, almost sensing Irena’s struggle with wanting intimacy. As the film moves along, we watch Irena change from soft-spoken woman to jealous and angry wife, almost becoming “catty” with her rivals. Oliver is a hopeless romantic who is willing to marry a beautiful woman without sleeping with her. How many men would do that today in 2016? His naivety and wanting happiness with a woman who excites him makes you want to root for him, even though we know his idea of romance isn’t exactly realistic. There’s no hope for Oliver and Irena, even though you wish there was for Oliver. At least he has Alice, his co-worker who admits having a crush on him. Yet, Alice never tries to ruin his relationship with Irena, actually trying to help Irena with her issues so she could make Oliver happy. Because she becomes the target of Irena’s anger, Alice is the one who figures it all out and try to save Oliver from his wife. Then we have Dr. Reed, who tries to help Irena, but really lusts after her. It’s as if he finds Irena’s story so bizarre, he wants to test her theories on a personal level, being her first. I think we can guess how well that goes for him. Not a lot of characters in CAT PEOPLE, but they add a lot to the film.

The direction by Jacques Tourneur is pretty fantastic. Tourneur tells us a lot with so little, focusing more on the psychological aspect of filmmaking rather than the visual style of showing us a monster to scare us. CAT PEOPLE is filmed almost like a film noir at times, using the dark and the light to the film’s advantage, showing us things that may or may not be there. Probably the film’s best, and most iconic moment, is when Alice is walking through the park after a meeting with Oliver. Irena has seen the two interact and follows Alice in jealous rage. As Alice walks, we just see her walking with the sound of high-heel footsteps behind her. Then subtly, the footsteps are gone, yet Alice is still being followed. After a suspenseful cat-and-mouse chase, Alice is startled by the hissing of a bus that is making its stop. We then see movement in the trees as Alice is freaked out. But is it just the wind, or cat-Irena? A scene later, where Alice is terrorized by the growling and shadow of a large cat at a swimming pool, only to later reveal Irena just wanting to ask Alice a question, is also presented extremely well. Both scenes present terror in a more emotional and mental manner, rather than a visual one, letting our minds play tricks on us to see things that probably aren’t there. Tourneur is very subtle in his direction, creating a haunting mood that lingers because he doesn’t really show us anything. CAT PEOPLE is a thinking man’s horror movie, which is probably why it has stood the test of time compared to some other horror films of the same period.

The acting in CAT PEOPLE is a bit dated. It’s 1940’s acting that presents itself as more romanticized and stagey, rather than something more natural and improv. But Simone Simon carries herself well as Irena, conveying a layer of mystery while also coming across as sympathetic due to her strange belief. Her struggle to be normal, despite the fact that she feels that normalcy will destroy her relationship with Oliver, is conveyed well. I do feel Kent Smith and Jane Randolph come across as a bit old-timey in their performances, but it works for their characters and for the time. Tom Conway plays Dr. Reed in a semi-lecherous sort of way that I liked. The actors are fine here, even if modern audiences might find the performances a bit hammy.

(1982)
After the success of 1978’s INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS remake, the idea of a CAT PEOPLE remake was discussed. It was on the back burner until the dual release of two werewolf films - 1981’s THE HOWLING and AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON - both films that displayed incredible transformation effects. Wanting to be different from the original film, director Paul Schrader and writer Alan Ormsby want to showcase some cat transformations, while also destroying any subtlety the original had proudly showcased. While the 1982 remake is definitely of its time and does certain things well, it also proves why sometimes less is more. 

The story takes the same commentary on female sexuality and really hammers it into the audience. We know right away that Irena is a virgin, with her brother Paul leering and lusting after her the moment he lays eyes on her. He stalks her like a cat, and even tries to rape her at one point, almost wanting to destroy her innocence to unleash who she really is. Unlike the original, we know for a fact that Irena and Paul are cat-people who can only mate with each other to keep their animal selves in check. In many ways, Shrader and Ormsby are not just focusing on just female sexuality, but sexuality of both sexes. For Irena and Paul, it leads to dangerous moments where their lust leads to murder. Sex isn’t really a fun thing. It’s a dangerous, evil aspect of our selves that many of us struggle to control. Paul picks up random women and hookers, having sex with them and then killing them to fully satisfy his lust. Irena wants to have sex with Oliver, but knows doing so will lead to something bad that could destroy them. CAT PEOPLE is sexually charged, using its eroticism to tell a dangerous story of how caving in to the pleasures of the flesh will only lead to destruction. While it’s an interesting foundation to base a movie on, it almost feels as if our filmmakers are criticizing human nature. We are sexual creatures, so why punish us for that?

The story also takes away what made the 1942 version work - the subtle nature of the cat legend. What worked there is that we barely saw anything when it came to Irena. Was she a cat? Was she just delusional? Was she maybe a serial killer with an excuse? Until the very end, we had to keep guessing. In the 1982 version, we start with the whole backstory, with how the cat-people tribe would sacrifice people to maintain their race. Paul and Irena actually possess cat-like agility and traits, such as yellow eyes and claws. When a panther murders a prostitute and is later caged, we know right away it’s Paul - especially since Irena is attracted to him in that form. The last act of the film features Irena understanding her ancestry, struggling with her human and cat sides. I shouldn’t complain too much about this, since 1982’s CAT PEOPLE does exactly what a remake should do - take what was established in the original and update it for a modern time. It’s a different take on the same story, which gives it a reason for audiences to watch both versions. But the subtlety still works from the 1942 version very well. And while I get the sexuality of the remake, it seems like it’s more style than substance.

It doesn’t help when classic scenes from the original are redone when they aren’t necessary. The bus and pool scenes are updated for the remake, but without the depth of the original. These scenes added something in the 1942 film, as the mystery elevated these moments. Watching them in the remake makes them seem pointless, especially when we know Irena is really a cat-person. Plus she goes after this version of Alice, who is Oliver’s co-worker and nothing more really. Why would Irena feel threatened by her? Why would she be a target? It’s just done to pay homage to what people remember from the original. But if these scenes were missing, the only things that would be missing are Annette O’Toole’s boobs [as nice as they are]. 

The characters are also lacking in this version as well. Irena and Paul are interesting because they’re cat-people who are forced to commit incest in order to survive and re-populate their race, as they’re the only two left. Irena’s struggle here isn’t as deep as in the original, although watching her confusion and frustration about the truth about her life is pretty good. Paul is purely a predator, who just wants to be with his sister sexually. The other characters, like Oliver and Alice, don’t get to do much but window dress. Oliver could be an interesting character, as the character gets more to do here. But he’s just there because the original had an Oliver, and there needed to be a rival for Paul when it comes to Irena. Alice is just a co-worker. Another character, Female, should have been given more to do since she knows about these cat-people. But she’s barely in the movie. There is so much potential to update all of these characters, but it seems Schrader and Ormsby were more focused on getting people naked.

The special effects by Tom Del Genio, Pat Domenico and Karl Miller are pretty good here. The cat transformations are done well, using editing to show the change for the most part. It’s no AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON, but it’s a nice attempt. I actually thought the death scene of one of the zoo workers was a better effect, where panther Paul rips the arm of Ed Begley, Jr. It looks pretty realistic and adds much needed blood to the modern remake. It’s pretty tame otherwise in terms of gore, but it’s not bad.

The direction by Schrader is more hit than miss. The photography of the film is absolutely stunning. The reds and oranges used for the land of the Cat-People is just strikingly beautiful. Also beautiful - Nastassja Kinski, who Schrader enjoys filming in her clothes and especially out of them. I’m not complaining. She is a gorgeous woman. I think it added an erotically charged atmosphere that audiences for that time were able to accept and to understand. And the use of Giorgio Moroder’s score is just fantastic, with David Bowie’s “Cat People (Putting Out Fire)” being one of his finest hits during the 1980s. I wish the direction was more restrained at times, and maybe had more tension and suspense. But this version of CAT PEOPLE is more of a sex thriller than an actual horror film.

The acting is probably the only real improvement over the original. Nastassja Kinski is not only beautiful, but she captures the innocence of a young woman who struggles with her real identity perfectly. She comes across so innocent, yet there’s a definite sexual energy through her performance that builds and builds towards the film’s end. Malcolm McDowell gives a charged performance as Paul, coming across as a villain who just wants to be loved and lusted by his sister. I wish he was in the film more, but he does well in his limited role. John Heard plays Oliver in a less hopefully romantic way, but more grounded and curious. He and Kinski have comfortable chemistry. Annette O’Toole is cute, but doesn’t really add much to the film really. Ruby Dee is great in her small role as Female, bringing mystery to a too small of a role. And Ed Begley, Jr. is there to be sacrificed for those who lust some blood in their horror. But he’s fine and likable in his short role. It’s a nice cast for a remake that should have pushed the envelope beyond the sexuality.

THE FINAL HOWL
While both versions of CAT PEOPLE are worth watching for different reasons, I get more out of the original 1942 version over its 1982 remake. The 1942 version takes a “less-is-more” approach that is still very effective today, while the 1982 version is more focused on its sexual energy over telling a more interesting narrative. If you want to feel a chill up and down your spine, stick with the original. If you want to feel a chill in your pants, go with the remake. I respect the remake for taking a different approach about that “dreaded female sexuality” and having good performances. But I’ll take the original any day of the week, as it gives me a lot with so little.


SCORE

(1942)
4 Howls Outta 4


(1982)
2.5 Howls Outta 4



CAT PEOPLE (1942)


CAT PEOPLE (1982)


9.25.2015

Midnight Confessions Ep. 76: "Classic black and white horror triple feature"





Our countdown to Halloween starts now and we're kicking it off with some classic horror. This episode we review THE BLACK CAT (1934), THE UNINVITED (1944) and NIGHT OF THE DEMON (1957).







 


Like "Midnight Confessions" Facebook Page: Midnight Confessions Podcast

Follow us on Twitter @MC_Podcast!


Subscribe on iTunes! - Midnight Confessions

Visit our archive stuff - MC_PodcastVault

We're now on Stitcher! - Stitcher Version
Related Posts with Thumbnails