Anyone seen it? I watched it last night. I recently listened to an episode of the film history podcast You Must Remember This and they were talking about Val Lewton. For those who don't know, Lewton was a legendary horror producer at RKO, which was trying to compete with Universal and their monster movies. Cat People, which is produced by Lewton but actually directed by Jacques Tourneur, is one of his most well-known projects The synopsis from IMDB: An American man marries a Serbian immigrant who fears that she will turn into the cat person of her homeland's fables if they are intimate together. I enjoyed this movie. It's short and to the point and Simone Simon has a certain something that makes her very watchable. Even though it's classified as a horror film, however, I thought of it less as horror and more as . . . suspense? . . . a thriller? . . . even a family drama with just a tinge of the supernatural? I dunno. It's really a rather quiet and subdued movie overall, but an enjoyable way to spend 70 minutes. So yeah, anyone else seen this one? @europe1 I know you have. So of course I expect thoughts from you on it.
Girl invited me into her apartment asking if I wanted to see her cat. I said, "Well, you're close..."
I liked it. The scene in the pool was my favorite, very creepy. I haven't seen the remake but it's probably worth a watch if you're in the mood for a little eroticism. It stars Natasha Kinski, daughter of Klaus Spoiler not the one who alleged years of abuse
I also enjoyed the pool scene. It's definitely a standout. I check movies out from the library sometimes and I actually did get the '82 version as well since it was sitting right next to the '42 version. I still haven't watched it yet, though. Have you seen Curse of the Cat People? It's on the same disc I have, double-feature style.
I just spend 5 hours playing fotball. My thoughts are going to be a bit muted this time. It's great. There you have it! I haven't listened to that podcast you mentioned but I assume that a lot of what I would have to say would just be periphery. But it's a superb example of making a film on pure cinema. The movie's budget... well a budget did not exist. They needed to make a cheap film and use what skills they had. They did this through shadows, pacing, editing, suspense, mystery, the creation of atmosphere. The horror is really bare-bones. It's basic resourcefulness and know-how that triumphs a budget. It's an atmosphere masterpiece. On the story front, think about this... Spoiler Simone Simon's character is sympathetic. She does not want to kill. Her panter transformations is a curse. It is involuntary. The curse drives her away from her husband -- and it's excrutiating for her. That sort of sympathy for her character loads up out emotions with additional complexity. Yeah I really loved that one too. The buss scene gives me a laugh these days. Such a cheeky move. I really like the remake. Great example of taking an idea, doing it differently, and ending up creating something very good and interesting yourself. One of the most oddly constructed sequels ever. How someone connected the dots between those two movies I'll never know. However, it is still a very good movie, and also is very strong on the atmospheric front.
Hmm. . . After you Napoleon Dynamite GIFd me the other day about this movie I have to admit I expected a little more. But I'll take it. If you get some time, you might enjoy this: http://www.youmustrememberthispodca...you-must-remember-this-3-happy-110th-birthday Spoiler Agreed. I pretty much fell in love with her character from the first frame and was more or less on her side until the end. You do have to feel for her husband. He made a mistake by rushing in, but that's love for you. He stuck by her hoping she would come around and she never did . . . for good reason, it turns out. What's most unfortunate about Irena is that it was all fate. She didn't do anything of her own accord to bring this curse on herself, it was just a birthright that she couldn't refuse. And consequently, happiness was denied her forever. Instead she just has to stand on the periphery and watch other people have what she never can. Look up "Lewton bus" if you're not already familiar with the term. I'll probably watch it in the next day or so. One thing I like about these old B-movies is that they're short. At 70ish minutes they get in, tell their story, and get out. Pure economy. I've also been watching some of the old Charlie Chan movies lately and they're the same way. These days you'll never see a 70 minute theatrical movie. You barely even see 90 minute movies anymore.
I remember I once told you that you have to watch Rashomon. I'm going to remind you of that from time to time because its considered one of the greatest films of all time even though it was made in 1950. You owe it to yourself to see this film. Watch it.
Yes, I have not forgotten. I've been doing a lot of film history research lately and along with that comes watching a lot of movies. Kurosawa is on the docket, I just haven't quite gotten there yet. I will definitely watch Rashomon, though Seven Samurai has to come first.
Not sure man. The film was made in 1950 but I wasn't aware of any MacBeth adaptation. Its a great film even though its a black and white from 1950. It will shock you how well the story is put together.
They didn't have budget for a little more. I also support using violence to get people to watch Rashamon. Or any Kurisawa movie for that matter. That... was what you guys where discussing, right?
Yea I derailed it a little bit but he needs to watch Rashomon. I know he will like it, or at least I hope he will. I know I did. I've been kinda surprised nobody has used it in one of our weekly polls.
