Reviews & Ratings for
The Catman of Paris More at IMDbPro »

17 out of 18 people found the following review useful:
Intriguing period horror film, 11 February 2007

Author: stephander from United States

In late 19th Century a writer returns to Paris to learn that his acclaimed novel may be censored by the government since it seems to contain proceeds from a secret trial. At this time someone connected with that trial is killed by what seems to be a catman. The writer, who has memory lapses, is suspected, especially when his fiancée is also a victim, but his mentor and the daughter of his publisher with whom he is falling in love strive to protect him.

Although not a classic like Cat People, it is of the 1940's genre of horror films involving supernatural transformations, films that aspired to be atmospheric and subtle, avoiding the use of already worn-out clichés of the '30's horror films and generally not employing established horror-picture stars. Catman was slickly produced (for a B-minus film), but being done by Republic Studios it not surprisingly featured many elements of Western films (can-can girls, a saloon brawl, a carriage chase). --- The cast is excellent. It's a treat to see suave Austrian Carl Esmond in a leading role, while Slovenian actress Lenore Aubert, in perhaps her most engaging role, is well showcased here. Also, Adele Mara is a knockout, and always reliable Douglas Dumbrille is particularly good.

It is, of course, a minor film and will not please those, easily bored, who prefer their horror blood drenched with a thrill a second, or those who prefer only vintage films with major stars. But it a somewhat novel twist on the classic horror film and this reviewer has enjoyably viewed it several times.

4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Unseen for many years, but a thrill if you're right age, 3 March 2010

Author: djsonovox from United States

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

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Not Really Sure If This Is Horror..., 12 October 2011
Author: gavin6942 from United States

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.

3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
too much talk and not enough action, 22 January 2008

Author: dbborroughs from Glen Cove, New York

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Republic pictures comes late in the game to the "werewolf" er Werecat genre. The plot has a writer returning to Paris after a long trip abroad during which he developed jungle fear during which he had blackouts. He is arriving to great acclaim as his novel that parallels an infamous trial is a best seller. The French government wants to know if he had access to secret documents, something that seems more likely when an official is killed by a "catman". Suspicion really falls on the writer when his fiancé ends up dead. Complicating matters is the return of the blackouts so the writer doesn't know if he's the killer or not.

Okay thriller is much too leisurely to be fully enjoyed. There are too many musical numbers early on and too much dead time when things are all talk in the middle and later sections. The acting is fine and the sets quite good but there is a reason why most people I know only remember the top hatted killer, he's the most interesting thing in this film. despite its short running time (just over an hour) I think the reason that this film was rarely seen on TV was that after 20 minutes you begin to lose patience with it. As good as the talk is, I just wished someone would do something. When it finally did happen, in the closing minutes, it was too little too late..

Take a pass.

6 out of 14 people found the following review useful:
Poor Film, 28 February 2008
Author: Michael_Elliott from Louisville, KY

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.

7 out of 19 people found the following review useful:
Don't Forget Your Caffeine, 17 February 2001
Author: mord39 from New York

I came across a copy of this rarely-seen film and I can safely say it's better off never seen. Some films just are too damned dull and uneventful for their own good, and this is one of the best examples of an uninvolving movie where nothing occurs.

If you have ever seen bores like DEVIL BAT'S DAUGHTER, SCARED TO DEATH, THE UNDYING MONSTER, or SHE-WOLF OF LONDON (all from the 1940s) you'll know what to expect...or should I say what NOT to expect? The only worthy mention is Lenore Aubert (from ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN) on hand as the leading lady.

The monster isn't seen until the very end, and you'll have given up long before that anyway. At 60 minutes or so, this feels like 60 YEARS.

Add another review

Related Links