Nonureva Really Surprised!

LouHomey From my favorite movies..

Bessie Smyth Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

Aneesa Wardle The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

dsayne This review is short and so is this movie. SPOILER! SPOILER! SPOILER! Here is my synopsis: "You're the Catman!" "No, I'm not." (Insert gratuitous cat scene here.) "You're the Catman!" "No! I'm not!" "Meow" "I'm the Catman!" "No, you're not." "Yes, I am!" "No, You're not!" "Meow!" "Let's have dinner." "He's the Catman! Get him!" (Insert gratuitous Roy Rogers fight scene here.) "I'm hiding the Catman in my bedroom." "I'm Catman." "Are you? Is he?" "He is not. Is he?" (Insert gratuitous Gene Autry chase scene here.) "I'm the Catman!" "Surely you're not! Maybe he is!" "Meow" "No! Getaway!" "He was the Catman!" "Was not." THE END. A REPUBLIC PICTURE.

gavin6942 Are mysterious killings in Paris of 1896 the work of man or monster?The best thing I can say about this film is that it has an awesomely choreographed fight in a restaurant, with plenty of flips and tables breaking. The waiter getting knocked over with a full tray (even though there are no customers, so who is the food for?).Hard to say if this is a horror film. Netflix seems to think so, and I guess the idea of a half-man, half-cat killing people is sort of horror. But it is really pretty tame. We could say it is an early serial killer film with a population getting terrorized, but whether or not it is horror is just a tough call.This warrants a second viewing.

djsonovox This is a middling to fair movie, gamely cashing in on the popular 1940s passion for Wolfman and Cat People creature films. Lame, but it limped along anyway.Spine-chilling horror and suspense it has little of, but be fair! When you stack this film up against other non-Val Lewton movies or non-Brit films, (think DEAD OF NIGHT) it's okay for what it attempts. The director was probably a studio hack given the task of making something cheap using standing sets and on-hand costumes to fill the double bill and not run much more than an hour, thus clearing the seats for the A picture.Workmanlike is he best that can be said about it. A good monster, wasted.Anticipation ran high for me in the pre-home taping/DVD days when indie TV stations surrounding the SF Bay put this in their late-night viewing logs in the papers. My appetite for it was whetted by a photo spread in Monster World or maybe FAmous Monsters, showing Bob Wilke down in a makeup chair with a week's whiskers, getting on the fingernails and greasepaint and hair and full catty dentures. He looked great as the monster. His eyes were always cat-like and a bright shiny green anyway. Recall him as the first mate to Captain Nemo (James Mason) in 20,000 LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA?Robert J. Wilke made his career primarily playing villains in Westerns and was always a solid on screen presence. More of the Catman and less palaver was called for. It would be a better film, but I liked it for what little it achieved in moments of unease and threatening shadows.And whomever id the makeup was an ace at greasepaint and direct work, without much in the way of prosthesis. DB Jones, Mountain View, CA

Michael_Elliott Catman of Paris, The (1947) * 1/2 (out of 4) Cat pee poor Republic horror film about a werewolf like creature stalking the streets of Paris. This is a pretty poor, extremely lame and overly talky horror film that goes no where in its short 65-minute runtime. Not for a single second does the film quite talking, which grows quite tiresome after the first five minutes. The "creature" is only on screen for three scene and probably a total of thirty seconds. Carl Esmond stars with Lenore Aubert of Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein fame.