People are voting emotionally.

The movie is wonderful and true, an act of love in all its contradictions and complexity

It is both painfully honest and laugh-out-loud funny at the same time.

Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

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.

I actually enjoyed this film ore than the much more famous Cat People.This film is worth watching for a number of different reasons.Most people watch this film because of Simone Simone. And while I am a major fan of Simone, this is not one of her better films. She has what amounts to a cameo - as few scenes in which she plays the ghost of Irena - the character from the Cat People film.The central character is actually child actress Ann Carter. She is absolutely mesmerizing in the role of a lonely child. Sadly, she made few films before becoming struck down by polio. It is amazing what can be done with a tiny budget - and a great amount of imagination. For a film buff, the fact that this is the first film directed by Robert Wise, makes it worth watching. He has an adept hand at directing even at this very early stage in his career.

Amy is a shy six-year old girl, withdrawing into a fantasy world of fairy-tales and imaginary friends. Her father Oliver is concerned, and when Amy starts talking about Irena, his first wife, who killed herself, he is alarmed for Amy's safety and sanity.This sequel to the classic 1942 RKO chiller Cat People is the polar opposite - where that picture is a moody, gloomy, tragic adult exploration of sexuality and psychosis, this by contrast is a bright, sweet, child-like and happy fable. It may have some menacing Gothic moments but it's really about Amy's imagination and how she sees the world (much of it is shot from waist height, emphasising her point of view), while the snowy Tarrytown / Sleepy Hollow small town setting adds tremendous atmosphere. The plot doesn't really have much to do with the original movie except insomuch as we see what's happened to Oliver and Alice, and there are inconsistencies (Irena's ghost sings a French carol, when it should be a Serbian one), but it's a lovely little tale by itself, and I genuinely prefer sequels which aren't simply a rehash of the preceding film. The cast are all great (Smith, Randolph, Simone and Russell were all in the original), with Carter giving a naturalistic child performance which suits the material just right. Best of all is Nicholas Musuraca's photography, with its gorgeous shading and texturing; the use of changes in light and tone which prefigure Irena's ghostly appearances are all beautifully done. All in all, this is a slight little old movie, and not as interesting and influential as its predecessor, but it's still enchanting and mysterious, and a very pleasant way to spend an hour.

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