Lack of good storyline.

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

It's a movie as timely as it is provocative and amazingly, for much of its running time, it is weirdly funny.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

Arriving in New Orleans, a woman joining her brother to tour the city finds that a family curse has come upon her which turns her and her brother into vicious, man-eating cats and forces her friend from a local zoo to stop her bloodthirsty rampage in the city.This here is quite the enjoyable enough remake. What really makes this one work nicely is how much it changes around the general storyline of the original to make for quite a more lively effort.by engaging the entire first half in a far more intensive romance between the two as well as the family curse and backstory are mentioned quite heavily in the section of the film, this one gives plenty of opportunities to spread the big storyline featured here about the incestuous nature of the family transforming into the cats. This manages to provide a rather sensuous take which is a far cry away from the original as this one more accurately depicts this by going into the ploy of them having sex and then turning into the cat creatures which is played as far more prominently here both with his attacks on the prostitutes or her seductions which grow far more prominent the deeper they fall, culminating in the several sex scenes here which throw this into far greater light. Likewise, the action here comes off rather nicely y being not only original such as the capture in the sleazy motel or it tearing the assistant to pieces, as well as the recreations of scenes from the original including the park stalking and the encounter in the public swimming pool that is replicated from the original. Coupled with the fine, erotically-flavored nudity and the graphic gore, these here manage to hold this one up over the few minor flaws. The biggest factor is the fact that there's hardly any kind of action or actively going on for the majority of the film as the exaggerated amount of time they begin their romance fills a large portion of the film. This ends up really lowering a lot of what happens here by filling up such a large part of this one with a pretty slow beginning where not much occurs until mid-way through when the murders start. That's way into the movie and the beginning could've used a little more action to beef it up, and while it's still watchable, and really sets up the story well, it's still a tad slow. There was another big problem with this one in that the majority of kills transpire off-screen, merely resorting to stumbling upon the body at a later point. They really looked savage, but there are only a few actually killed on-screen. In this one, the park chase is a major disappointment, especially since the pool attack is superior. The music played over the chase is totally inappropriate and runs the entire mood. That is one point where the original still beats this remake, but overall it's still quite fun overall.Rated R: Full Nudity, Graphic Language, several sex scenes and themes, Graphic Violence and themes of incest.

Cat People (1982) *** (out of 4) Irena Gallier (Nastassja Kinski) arrives in New Orleans to visit her brother Paul (Malcolm McDowell) but soon falls for a man (John Heard) she meets at the local zoo. It doesn't take long for the young woman to realize that there's something not quite right with her or her brother and soon her sexual design brings something else out in her.Paul Schrader's remake of the 1942 film really doesn't have too much in common with that Val Lewton production. I think Schrader and screenwriter Alan Ormsby made the right decision in not trying to just remake that film and instead taking on a different approach. That approach was like several other remakes from the 1980s in that it added up a notch of sexuality. CAT PEOPLE didn't get too much credit when it was released outside the full frontal Kinski but that's really too bad because the film itself is quite good.I think Schrader did a very good job with the material and I thought he managed to milk the sexuality for everything it's worth as well as create a very interesting lead character. I thought the film did an extremely good job at the psychological stuff as the lead character is constantly wondering who she really is and the very also questions what we're actually seeing. The director managed to build up the psychological drama as well as the sexuality in the material. Some have argued that there weren't enough horror elements, which I can understand them saying that but even the original played with your mind more than actually showing you anything.A major reason for the film's success is the performance of Kinski who is simply wonderful in the lead role. The film works because you can believe her as this sweet and innocent woman that we meet at the start of the film. She plays a virgin here and the actress makes you believe that as the innocence just leaps off the screen but she also handles the character once she begins to change. The supporting cast is also great with McDowell is especially believable in the role of the creepy brother. Both Heard and Annette O'Toole offer excellent support as does Ruby Dee and Ed Begley, Jr. in their small roles.The sexuality of the film is certainly something that sets it apart as is the full frontal nudity from the lead actress. I'd argue that the film runs a bit too long as some editing might have helped but there are still plenty of effective scenes. Even the start inside the hotel room with the leopard was quite intense. Schrader's CAT PEOPLE has never really gotten the credit it deserves but it's a nice little gem.

Though widely regarded as one of the finest horror films ever made, the original "Cat People", released in 1942, always struck me as a visual masterpiece luminous to the eyes but cold to the touch. It liked to hide in the shadows, keep its menace restrained, its mood gothically opulent; but when it placed fear directly in our line of vision it forgot to match emotionally, emitting a shallow kind of dread felt more cerebrally than physically. Horror should pump in our veins, causing us to look over our shoulder the second the film closes. Yet despite being called a horror film time and time again, I've never much considered "Cat People" to be one. Instead, I've figured it to be a grotesque fantasy of bloodlust and erotica, inventively packaged but too empty to make much of a lasting impression.Its remake, a 1982 fear-fest directed by Paul Schrader and starring Nastassja Kinski, is similar in its ability to optically arouse but remain intrinsically hollow. Whereas 1942's "Cat People" stimulated our sights with hypnotizing darkness and noir-tinged doom, the 1982 version conversely stupefies with its richly saturated colors and sexual heat. The original had a small budget to work with, director Jacques Tourneur and cinematographer Nicholas Musuraca perhaps accidentally making things visually unmistakable for the purpose of making up for monetary deficiencies. But Schrader, given larger financial opportunity, is able to work on a much larger scale, providing us with a more plentiful plot, more ocular risks, more enigmatic intrigue. I can hardly say if it's superior to its '42 counterpart — they hardly resemble one another, one restrained, one indulgent — but "Cat People" is an artistically formidable fantasy mostly worthwhile. If its overwhelming inability to do anything besides look great wasn't such a pressing issue, it could be considered a masterpiece.But the storyline doesn't allow us to become emotionally invested; conceptually marvelous yet unmistakably outlandish, it is difficult to do anything besides stare, mouth agape, unable to grab onto anything happening on the screen. Because it has to do with The Cat People, a race of centuries past so far evolved that, as of 1982, they resemble sexy humans who literally have an animal deep inside them. But things aren't as simple as they used to be: years ago, when The Cat People were still dominant cats that laboriously reclined on tree branches in windy red deserts (shown in the form of a prologue), mating would come in the form of a female sacrifice from a nearby village. Now, though, the race is almost completely extinct, save for Irena (Nastassja Kinski) and her brother, Paul (Malcolm McDowell).In the first few minutes of "Cat People", the two are meeting for the very first time — and while the impish Irena, sensuous but virginal, remains an innocent figurehead, Paul makes for a more sinister presence, not because he's a Shakespearean villain in the making but because he's more aware of his heritage than Irena is. In everyday life, The Cat People look like anybody walking down the street; but when in the throes of an orgasm, they transform from sexy human to black panther, killing their human mate in the process. Paul understands his threat to society and isn't afraid to utilize it; Irena, on the other hand, is afraid to unleash the beast that resides within her. The anxiety comes to a head, however, when she falls into the life of Oliver Yates (John Heard), a mild-mannered zookeeper who instantaneously bills her as the woman of his dreams. With her sexual nightmares looming in the background (and not to mention her brother, who wants to embark on an incestuous relationship like all Cat People before them), Irena just might have to accept who she is — at a price.The plot is less preposterous the less you think about it; this is, after all, the kind of film that thrives on eccentric chills that trickle down the spine, expecting us to come along for the dangerous ride and forget about any sort of question we might have. Thanks to Schrader's knowing handling of the material (he treats most of "Cat People" like an erotic art house picture, which is more fitting than something akin to a more conventional horror movie), the film doesn't face many concerns when it comes to structure. The problem with "Cat People" is its futile characterizations, which allows for interesting characters more fascinating to look at than to actually care about. Irena is fearful for what will become of her, but because the screenplay is more interested in giving Kinski ample opportunity to smolder, never is the impression quite made; Paul is maleficent, but it's unclear where his villainy will go. And Oliver, taking over Kent Smith's role from the original, is drawn out blandly. The actors are all lensed brilliantly — it's a shame they all remain so one- dimensional than even the more erotic elements of "Cat People" are slightly unexciting.But when John Bailey's cinematography isn't seducing our eyes, Kinski makes for the best thing about the film. A better actress than Simone Simon, she makes it impossible for us not to look at her; her full lips, sphinxy eyes, and Audrey Hepburn-like demeanor makes her a lithe sex object far too knowing to be exploited — she is magnificent. And for the most part, so is "Cat People". But it's so devoid of any kind of emotional interior that any sort of reaction is kept hidden. Fear? Arousal? Allure? It all wants to be there, but "Cat People" remains a devastatingly beautiful film without a heart.

A young woman's sexual awakening brings horror when she discovers her urges transform her into a monstrous black leopard.Something went wrong with this film. The director is a hugely talented man, and has made some great films. Even here, the film looks beautiful and has an incredible color palette. But it drags in spots, seems to switch gears without warning, and just never hits the high notes.The film infamously has been said to have "more skin than blood", and that is quite true. For anyone looking to see Nastassja Kinski naked for long periods of time, this is the film for you. But if you want suspense, go for the original. This one has more gore, which is welcome, but that does not make up for the weak plot.