Jungle Woman (1944)

Excellent but underrated film

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

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.

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.

A sequel can sometimes be either a virtual remake of the original film, it can devote some of the running-time to re-telling the first film's plot in compressed form (via scenes lifted directly from that one) and, other times, the second entry could cheat by borrowing action scenes from the preceding effort and pass them off as its own. However, this is the only case I know of where a film is all three at once (though, technically, the animal footage here is part of the flashback framework, they were still ripped off from an earlier non-related picture)! Universal's three-movie "Ape Woman" franchise is surely among the most maligned to emerge during the vintage horror era (even by hardened buffs) but, maybe because I was in a receptive frame-of-mind, I recall enjoying CAPTIVE WILD WOMAN (1943; directed by, of all people, Edward Dmytryk!) back when I had watched it and certainly did not mind catching up with the two sequels now i.e. the film under review and THE JUNGLE CAPTIVE (1945), which followed on the very next day! To get to the matter at hand: this, then, follows the pattern of THE MUMMY'S TOMB (1942), Universal's third movie in the Egyptology stakes but actually the second 'episode' in their "Kharis" saga. Anyway, the film has a complex structure in that we begin with the titular figure's demise, of whose murder the 'mad doctor' (who is not really) of this one, J. Carroll Naish, is accused, then we go into a flashback to learn how we got there but, corroborating his evidence, as it were, are the hero and heroine of the first film who relate their own experiences by recounting the events of CAPTIVE WILD WOMAN! Amusingly, Universal 'scream queen' Evelyn Ankers receives top billing here but she only appears during these basically expository scenes and, of course, the 'stock footage' though not in JUNGLE WOMAN's narrative proper (that is to say, Naish's recollections)! Incidentally, I wonder what John Carradine, star of CAPTIVE WILD WOMAN (1943), made of the fact that, unofficially, he also had this on his resume'! When I said that this was more a remake than a sequel was due to its having the 'monster' (once again played by Acquanetta but, unwisely taking a leaf from BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN {1935}, she is made to speak – except that we are never told in this instance just who taught her – and, boy, is she wooden!) once more instantly fall for the doctor's daughter's fiancé and grows insanely jealous of the girl. By the way, in a reversal of "Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde", here the monster turns human without the use of drugs, so that the girl is found prowling the grounds of Naish's sanatorium by a simple-minded patient (who, subsequently doting excessively on Acquanetta, unsurprisingly becomes one of her victims). At one point, the Ape Woman swims underwater and capsizes the lovers' canoe, an act which is actually blamed on the oafish orderly who is currently missing – even if the former makes no secret of her impulsive affections for the impossibly bland leading man (unfortunately, a constant thorn in the side of the Golden Age of Horror!).Curiously, the film naively (since the original film had already established the transformation as a fact!) attempts to follow the psychological Val Lewton route by never showing the monster (except once amidst the flashback footage and again in the very last shot – even her death is played out in the shadows, though the images of a female figure leaping on the doctor only to be injected with an overdose belies the animal noises on the soundtrack!) but, for all that, the film remains mildly enjoyable – certainly eminently watchable – along its trim 60-minute duration, largely owing to Naish's grey-haired presence (though he is not quite running on full cylinders here, as in the same year's THE MONSTER MAKER) and the unmistakable Universal Studios atmosphere.

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).