Nonureva Really Surprised!

Contentar Best movie of this year hands down!

Aubrey Hackett While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

Ezmae Chang This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

bensonmum2 Jungle Woman picks up shortly after the events in Captive Wild Woman. After the gorilla Cheela is shot, Dr Carl Fletcher (J Carrol Naish) takes the body and discovers a faint heartbeat. He's able to revive the animal. The gorilla escapes at about the same time that a strange woman named Paula (Acquanetta) is discovered wander Dr Fletcher's sanatorium grounds (coincidence?). Paula develops strong feelings for Dr Fletcher's daughter's fiancé. So strong, in fact, that she sets out to do harm to the Dr's daughter, Joan. Joan is in real danger. Paula may be more than she appears.I haven't seen Captive Wild Woman in at least 10 years so I don't remember much about it. I do, however, remember being disappointed. I felt the same way about Jungle Woman. It's just not very good and is often quite dull. There are way too many long stretches of the film where nothing much happens. I actually found myself getting bored. The film feels longer than its brief 61 minute runtime. On the positive side, the movie looks fantastic. Even in their cheaper productions, Universal movies always look remarkable. The cinematography is on par with what you'll find in the best of the Universal horror films. Had Jungle Woman been made by a studio like PRC, it wouldn't have looked half as good. Another positive is the acting. I was especially impressed with Naish. He's always proved to be a very capable actor. I don't, however, understand how Evelyn Ankers got top billing for Jungle Woman. I swear she was on screen for less than 10 minutes. Finally, another positive when compared with Captive Wild Woman is fewer lion taming scenes. Lion taming in Jungle Woman takes up about 5 minutes – compared with what seemed like half the movie in Captive Wild Woman.

snicewanger Jungle Woman is the follow up Captive Wild Woman.Acquanetta returns as Paula the Ape Girl. This time scientist De Carl Fletcher played by J Carroll Nash has revived her as Cheela the Gorilla at his sanatorium but she morphs back into Paula without any surgical assistance.The doctor has a lovely daughter Joan >Lois Collier< who is his secretary. She is engaged to a nice looking young fellow Bob Whitney >Richard David<. When Paula meets the young man she finds her voice. She also sees the doctors daughter as a romantic rival who must be eliminated.Paula finding her voice is when this film is really torpedoed. Acquanetta made it through the first film because all that was required of her was to flash a threatening glare and occasionally show anger. Delivering dialog was definitely not her strong suit.The fact the the script is laughably bad certainly doesn't help. SPOILER: The film is show in flashback as Dr Fletcher is on trial for murder. Much of the action is from Captive Wild Woman. At first Fletcher will not reveal why he injected Paula with a drug to kill he. However, his supporters which include Fred Mason >Milburn Stone< and Beth Mason >Evelyn Ankers along with his daughter Joan and Bob reveal to the court Paula's to animistic nature. The prosecutor >Douglass Dumbrille< is dubious but when the judge >Samuel S Hinds< orders a re examination Paula's body the court finds that Paula has reverted to her half ape/half girl state. Dr Fletcher is vindicated and goes free.One of the worst of Universals WWII horror flicks, Jungle Woman is only to be watched as part of the Paula the Ape Girl series.

mlraymond This film begins with a bang, as a man is attacked by a ferocious female something, shown in silhouette. We then see the distinguished Doctor Fletcher refusing to speak on his behalf at an inquest on the dead person, who he says was not human. This leads into flashbacks of his investigations into the strange history of Paula Dupree, the Ape Woman.Acquanetta outdoes her previous appearance as Paula in the first movie, with the addition of some dialogue and more screen time. Her unexpected, sultry introduction of herself to the hero, after everyone assumed she was mute or catatonic, is quite a surprise, and not welcomed by the fellow's fiancée, who happens to be Dr. Fletcher's daughter.The influence of Val Lewton's Cat People is quite apparent, as the jealous Paula begins stalking the couple, in some very effective sequences. Acquanetta may have been limited as an actress, but she is just right for the part of the beautiful but savage Paula. The scene of Doctor Fletcher finding her sobbing in her room, as she sees the happy couple through her window, is startling and memorable. Some genuine menace is built up, as Paula obsessively pursues the hero Bob, while fending off advances from the Doctor's slow-witted assistant, Willie.This may well be the best of the three Ape Woman features, and is definitely worth the time of any Forties horror movie fans.

FieCrier This is the second in a series of three ape woman movies Universal made; at the moment I've only seen the first two. This film does follow the events of the first, but it could probably be seen by people who hadn't seen the first, since it does recap things.It starts with a man walking towards a house, and he is attacked. We see him in silhouette struggle with his attacker, a woman. He sticks her with something, and she collapses. After a newspaper headline explaining a Doctor is faced with a Coroner's inquest, we meet Dr. Fletcher, the man on trial for the death of a woman named Paula. The inquest is a somewhat awkward framing device for the movie. Dr. Fletcher, Fred Mason and Beth Colman (these latter two character returning from the first movie) recall certain events surrounding Paula. Their recollections are, at least to start with, mostly clips from Captive Wild Woman (1943), although Dr. Fletcher's character has been edited into that footage. It grows somewhat awkward when Fred Mason testifies about a conversation he had with Dr. Fletcher about past events: we're watching a recollection of a recollection.It turns out Dr. Fletcher discovered that the ape Cheela, who had seemingly died from a gunshot wound near the end of the first film, still had some vital signs. Dr. Fletcher nursed Cheela back to health, and upon hearing something about Dr. Walter's experiments, also buys Dr. Walter's estate, including the sanitarium from the first film. The recollections about Cheela and Paula are complicated by something Fred Mason tells Dr. Fletcher, information that was not in the first film that I recall. Mason says that before he brought Cheela to the US from Africa, he'd heard stories of a Doctor in Africa who turned humans into animals. It was rumored that Cheela was one of those animals. If that was true, then it would mean that Paula was a woman who'd been turned into an ape, and then turned into a woman who sometimes reverted to being an ape.Cheela escapes, and Dr. Fletcher and his incredibly annoying (and poorly acted) helpmate Willie go searching. They find Paula instead. In the first film, once Paula had reverted to being an ape, she could only turn back after Dr. Walters gave her a series of treatments. In this film, she can turn back and forth; whether she can do so at will is not clear. Also unclear is whether she turns completely into an ape, or into an ape-woman: a halfway stage we'd seen her in in the first film. There is something much later in the film that definitely suggests the latter possibility is the correct one.Paula is uncommunicative until she meets Bob, the sweetheart of Dr. Fletcher's daughter. She is instantly smitten. While this copies an element from the first film (Paula is obsessed with a man, and her jealousy makes her dangerous and animalistic), in the first film her obsession was at least somewhat justified. Mason had been kind to her while she was an ape in Africa, and on the ship all the way to America. Her obsession with Bob seems to be only that he is the first reasonably attractive young man she's met since becoming human again.There's a scene in which Dr. Fletcher has someone compare Paula's fingerprints to those found on a lock which had been violently broken. He discovers that the patterns of the fingerprints are identical, except in size - one is at least twice the size of the other - and a somewhat "anthropoid" character of the larger one (or both?). Do apes have fingerprints? I don't know; I do think that scene could have been fleshed out a little more, and could have been interesting.There were a couple strange things about the inquest. Dr. Fletcher had accidentally killed Paula by giving her an overdose of a sedative; the overdose was because he injected her while they were struggling. It would seem that would have been a defense in itself. Thus, Dr. Fletcher, Fred and Beth would not have had to bring up the story of Paula being an ape- woman. However, the court is willing to believe the story of Paula being an ape-woman if it can be proved, which seems a bit incredible. What is strange in connection with that, is that the coroner says if Paula was not human, then the court would have no jurisdiction for murder charges. Certainly she was human enough! Again, the defense would logically be that the death was accidental (and arguably self-defense as well).