Did they actually harm the kitten for the movie? I've looked into it and can't find anything definite.
sharei was worried about that too :( i really really hope they didn't. the rules for making movies was so much different back then.
shareSeems they did: that shot was cut from the UK print for violating the country's animal cruelty laws.
shareMonsters. This film is terrible even if they didn't hurt that kitten, but now that i know they did, I'm furious
shareTerrible? no, cat abuse or not, "Alice, Sweet Alice" is an absolute horror masterpiece. If you think this is "terrible" then you have no understanding of the genre. As far as the cat scene goes, it was very common during the 70's to show animal mutilation. It's not good, but it's a fact of the time, and these films should not be censored today, because then it means the animals suffered for nothing..
Fabio Testi is GOD
Horror masterpiece? This movie? lol Yeah...no.
American Horror Story Season 6: Donald Trump
I'm really curious; how did someone like you end up on this board?
Fabio Testi is GOD
What do you mean "someone like me"?
I'm a horror film fanatic. I study horror films. This was not a masterpiece...it's watchable but that's about it.
American Horror Story Season 6: Donald Trump
Maybe the problem is the the term "horror film." "Alice, Sweet Alice" is not really a horror film. It's actually an American version of the Italian 'gialli' genre. And within THAT genre; yes...this is a masterpiece. Also being a "horror film fanatic" as you call yourself, doesn't necessarily mean you can recognize good horror. I don't know you, but maybe you have poor taste. And judging from your opinion of this film, i would say that is a strong possibility..as this is absolutely one of the BEST films of it's kind.
Fabio Testi is GOD
exactly that guy northernlaid or whatever is horribly inept, stupid, mislead, misdirected, ill informed, and retarded, and ignorant. any person who knows anything about horror films or films will instantly know that this is one of the best horror films ever made once they finish watching it. it's this simple. it's actually better than some of Dario Argento's films. it's tighter and more self involved and interesting and intriguing and fascinating and it's spellbinding whereas some of Argento's films aren't.
this film is such a harrowing and devastating film. it has more integrity, nuance, artisticness, and originality than most horror films that have ever been made. and it is better than 90% of every other horror film ever made.
it's a supremely well made and highly intelligently made horror film. and unlike most '70s horror films it doesnt' ever bore you or move too slow or have too much dialogue. it's an epic and monumental achievement in horror and horror films.
how is this not a horror film? I mean people get horribly killed, maimed, sliced, and there is a psychotic woman killer and a psychotic girl killer and there is suspense, trauma, violent mayhem, and terror and horror. you can't call it a suspense thriller though because there is explicit and graphic violence shown.
exactly that guy northernlaid or whatever is horribly inept, stupid, mislead, misdirected, ill informed, and retarded, and ignorant. any person who knows anything about horror films or films will instantly know that this is one of the best horror films ever made once they finish
fuc# you.
sharefuc# you and your stupid, misguided, idiotic, retarded, ignorant, and totally inept way of thinking about this film. your opinion holds no meaning because it doesn't make any sense and doesn't hold true or correct or right. also fuc# you and your stupid and wrong rating on this film. you are all the other stupid and idiotic people who gave this masterpiece a low rating are one of the biggest problems that imdb has and the reason why it's rating is way, way too low, at just 6.5 right now. fuc# off pric#
Idiot.
Absolutely; this guy "northernlaid" obviously knows NOTHING about horror, if he's downplaying THIS film. but I'm assuming he's like 16 years old, and in that case he just might not be capable of appreciating a film like "Alice, Sweet Alice." This has been in my top 10 film list for as long as I can remember; it's a masterpiece, and yes, it is "horror." But it's also an American version of the Italian 'giallo,' and I thought if I presented it that way to "northernlaid" he might get it. But there is no arguing with stupid, so it's his loss. His favorite horror film is probably Rob Zombie's "Halloween..."
Fabio Testi is GOD
how can you say it's not really a horror movie if it's a Giallo movie? aren't Giallo movies horror movies? and with all it's vivid and explicit gory violence done in a terrifying, suspense laden way you have to categorize it as a horror film.
this is a masterpiece just like raging bull is a masterpiece. that is why I can't understand how it is so criminally and sinfully low on here at just 6.5??? it should be at, at least 8.5. the only thing I would have changed about it to make it better is leave out the unnecessary killing of the priest at the end. that was gratuitous and was only in there to shock the audience.
it was cheap and it was a shock just for the sake of the shock effect scene. they should have made the killing of the guy by the crazy old woman by her rolling him off the building be the last killing in this film. that scene had a lot of power and resonance. the killing of the priest was then overkill after that scene.
it's one of those unforgettable, unnerving, get under your skin horror films that stay with you forever. you can never shake the experience of watching it and you can never shake it's existence. it really affects you psychologically watching it. every person who watches it feels these psychologically affecting feelings while watching it and after watching it.
as much as I tried liking the Alice character because she was just so darn cute, adorable even and so beautiful she was a horrible and horrid character that I kept hating. the hatred of her character all started when she killed her sister. then this hate continued with me and got stronger when she sliced the poor sister of the mother's legs. that scene was so horribly unnerving and disturbing, scary, intense and suspenseful.
the only parts which made her seem likable or lovely were the scenes with that fat, weird, no eyebrows guy who lived with all those kittens in the apartment next to her apartment. she was so lovely and lovable in those scenes because he was so loathing and horrible and disgusting of a character. in those scenes I loved her because she was always so mean to him. she never showed any act of kindness or any nice or good quality in this whole film. she was always bad and never showed any redeeming qualities whatsoever.
exactly this is a masterpiece of the highest order. I hate all these people who are overly sensitive because a cat got killed or hurt while making this movie. who cares? we should care about people getting killed or hurt more than animals getting hurt or killed. and also, sometimes in film you can't shoot a scene of an animal getting hurt or killed without an animal getting hurt or killed. so they have to die or get hurt sometimes.
also, keep in mind that cats and dogs are often eaten without blinking an eye in Asian countries. they eat them like they are cattle. the only reason why people have a problem with cats being killed and eaten is because they are our pets in America.
people need to stop being so ignorant and feeling so bad when animals are hurt or killed for a movie. cats and dogs are not any more important than cattle or pigs.
the worse case of this happening in a movie as far as how horribly disturbing is the scene in Cannibal Holocaust with the turtle. but that is a different topic.
Do you actually think that people should be upset over the well-being of actors who are portraying fictional characters that are not actually being killed, but not be upset over the actual killing of an innocent animal? You do see the incongruity of this comparison, right?
Second, you do see a difference between farmers who raise cattle to be used as food and movie producers who mistreat and kill an innocent animal for the sake of 60 seconds of supposed entertainment, don't you? Cats and dogs have long been considered pets, part of a family and companions to many people. They are intelligent animals who can be trained as seeing eye dogs, search and rescue dogs, therapy cats. This past Christmas, two of my cats awoke me in the middle of the night, crying and panicked because my diabetic friend who was sleeping downstairs went into a coma. He was gasping for breath, and since cats are able to smell very high or low blood sugar levels in humans, they reacted with upset and alerted me and I called 911.They likely saved his life that night. There is absolutely no justification for mishandling or killing any animal for the sake of a movie. Third, if you admire China so much, feel free to live there. Then the government can dictate how many children you and your wife can have. You can witness first-hand how many parents will abandon a female newborn outside to possibly die from exposure because they want their only child to be a son. You can live in a communist regime that tolerates child slave labor. Seriously, you are justifying animals being killed for the sake of a movie because Asian countries eat cats and dogs? I think you are lacking a soul.
Get out of here, this movie is crap.
shareThey've put it back now for the newer UK version, even though they still have animal cruelty laws, so I'm guessing it turned out that it wasn't real.
share[deleted]
I hope not. The film would still be good either way. I still like Cannibal Holocaust even though they kill about 6 animals but it would be better if they didn't.
shareThis is the only movie I've shut off in my life due to being disturbed or offended or pissed off. Swinging a fvcking kitten around by its head? Jesus...
shareOMG....I was so worried about the kitten too.
I was so hoping that it was all a fake kitten death scene.
```
````
OMG. It was obviously a fake cat. You're upset it showed a kitten being killed, but it was OK that a child got strangled and burnt, a guy got pushed out a window, and a priest got his throat slashed?
shareObviously a fake stuffed animal she was strangling!
when she picked it up it was real. the one after was FAKE.
I am sure they enjoyed the people getting killed, but have to make a statement against animal abuse.
if they realize the killings were FAKE with the people. makes sense they would use a fake cat!
Of course it was a fake cat. What if they had to do 20 takes to get the scene right? Would they then kill 20 cats? Do you think they would have had a bunch of cats just lying around the set ready to be killed if necessary? Get real, folks.
shareThis movie was made in the mid 1970s and NO, the kitten being killed was not real.
shareTotally agree with you. You'd have to add in that the actress who played Alice would be capable of doing that in real life as well as all the other cast members.
shareExcept that that's exactly what they did in Koneko Monogatari (Milo and Otis).
Your argument would exclude the possibility of animals ever being killed in movies. Yet they have been, mainly in the past but even rather recently, for example Talk to Her and Manderlay.
OMG are people stupid? why is there always someone who comes up with this idiotic answer to these questions?. PEOPLE ARE WORRIED IT WAS A REAL CAT. The people obviously were not harmed ffs.
shareFirst of all, you (and anyone else who posted that the kitten was fake) appear to be wrong. I just watched that scene several times (after finding this thread) and the kitten is real, up to and including the final shot, when Alice throws it to the ground. As she is holding it by the neck, right before she throws it down, you can clearly see the kitten try to clear its throat a few times, the lower jaw moves at least twice. Fake kittens/props can't do that. That certainly appears to be a real kitten throughout the scene.
Second, are you unable to differentiate between posts discussing what happened to an animal while filming, and what happens to characters in a film? They are two very different things. No one was talking about the characters and how they died. We are fairly sure the actors portraying those characters went on to live beyond the making of this film. However that wasn't so obvious for the kitten. I am not sure how you are not able to differentiate between the two.
I watched it frame by frame. The kittens body is moving in every single shot, except the last one. It's a real kitten.
Even in the last shot where it's not moving, the kitten is most likely being supported and dropped on a cushion which is out of the camera view. The only dangerous segment is the first when she initially grabs the kitten and its body seems to be bent backwards.
The limbs can be seen flailing, and technology like that wasn't available too make a mechanical kitten in 76. Kittens don't have a lot of weight and are extremely flexible, so while looking quite horrifying, I doubt the kitten was hurt.
I watched this scene several times in regular motion and frame by frame. It's a real cat. When she grabbed it, I don't think she expected the kitten to twist the way it did in her hand.
Actually, there was a decent amount of that type of technology and camerawork available in the mid-70s, whether it was used in this film or not. Interesting you felt you needed to do a frame-by-frame analysis. The point is, a kitten was NOT killed. And the "death" scene is obviously a fake cat. Does it really matter if a real cat was used for the initial part of the scene?
shareThere was no death scene with the cat. She picked it up and dropped it to the ground and when it fell to the ground, it was out of the cameras view.
The reason I went frame at a time is because people were questioning whether it was a real kitten. I took industrial design. We did special effects, life casts, animatronics, cgi, stop motion, and NO, I've been around since before that film was made and they did NOT have the technology to make a cat look that real.
They couldn't even make people look real falling off buildings back then. You could always tell it was a flimsy lifeless dummy, even in higher end movies. I don't think a cheap film like this was going to pay for an elaborate cable controlled cat for 4 seconds of film time.
The reason people feel it matters is because the kitten could have been injured the way it was handled. When she grabbed it off the dresser, she rotated her wrist and the kitten was no longer being held by the nape, but rotated in such a manner that its neck could have snapped.
shareWow, that was a brilliant response. I'm glad geniuses like you frequent imdb with your fantastic insight.
shareIt was all the response needed. Your obsessiveness about a fake cat was beyond non-insightful...just dumb.
shareAre you a complete moron? I didn't even need to ask that, of course you are. Obsessive? Let's see, correct me if I'm wrong.
This IS a discussion forum, yes or no?
Do people come here to discuss movies?
Did someone ask a question about a particular scene in this film?
Did other people along with myself, participate in answering this question?
You just got your panties in a twist because your answer was stupid and you didn't even know what actually happened in the film. So, you get mad at me for providing accurate details because you suck and your answer was completely baseless and ignorant.
Let me ask, WhyTF did you bother answering when you had zero details as to what happened?
And you're upset about my answer when yours was for 5hit?
Then you follow up with nonsensical responses like a 5 year old because you're wrong. Go cry to mommy.
Actually, the fact that you took the time to do a frame-by-frame "analysis" of something already obvious to anyone with a functioning brain is the textbook definition of obsessiveness.
Your answer was far from informative -- it was opinion, based on what you thought you saw. That's fine, but don't state it as fact. Other claims you made were simply patently false.
Seems like you;'re the one getting upset because someone dared to say your opinion isn't gospel. That, little nama, makes you the ignorant one who sucks. Not to mention the fact you're an arrogant ass.
And you're wrong. It wasn't obvious, and you know why?
NO, YOU don't know why, because you have a lack of comprehensive skills.
SO, let me fill in the obvious that you can't seem to get.
SOMEONE ASKED A QUESTION ON THIS FORUM!
SEE, if it was SO obvious, you first of all wouldn't have had a question to answer, but someone asked. So what does that tell you?
IT WASN'T OBVIOUS!
Secondly, look at the various answers. You know what that means?
IT WASN'T OBVIOUS!
As to me analyzing the film, what's the issue? I've done stop motion photography. I animate stop motion puppets ONE FRAME AT A TIME! You know how long it took me to check out all 20 some frames, about 20 seconds. How is that ocd when I'm watching the film and take a moment to analyze it?
And NOW you're lying. First, you didn't even know what occurred in the scene, stating the cat was killed. Wow, very observant. She picked it up and dropped it, and you're telling me I'm false in my comments? Do you ever pay attention when you watch anything?
What was false about my comments?
Let's give an example of who's point might carry more weight.
The scene shows a REAL kitten being picked up and dropped from a height of 3' and is not shown being killed.
Viewer #1 says: That was a fake cat that was used in the part where they killed that cat. They had the technology back in 1976 to make a fake cat look as impressive as a cgi cat from a jurassic park style movie, but with practical effects for a cheap movie.
Viewer #2 says: This movie was done on a shoestring budget and couldn't afford much in the way of special effects considering not much of anything was shown as far as visual effects. After taking a minute to analyze the film, I've established it was a real kitten picked up and dropped.
So, in your opinion, number 1 is correct, since number 1 obviously doesn't even remember the scene at all, thinking it was a kitten being killed in the scene, when it was picked up and dropped?
I'm hardly upset, but I do have the ability to express my opinion, you know, because this is a forum about films, and unlike you, when commenting, I know what I'm talking about, and it's obvious you don't.
And it's obvious you only bothered to comment because you like to stir up crap when you don't have a clue what you're talking about. The arrogant ass is the one who didn't watch the film, know about the scene, and bothered to tell someone who just watched it that they are wrong. Dumb dick!
You are correct, it was not obvious. Obnoxious for anyone to say that. I just watched it again and it was live until the last second where it seems to be fake. But the point was the kitten was flailing wildly beforehand. btw I'm glad sane thinking posters outweigh the others:)
shareI appreciate your response. If I'm wrong about something, I'd at least admit it. I worked with a guy like this years ago. Someone would be commenting on a show (Madmen) they watched, and this guy would start telling them that's not the premise of the show, and then we look at each other like, wtf is he talking about? Then we find out he didn't even watch it.
You're left shaking your head as to why someone would comment if they didn't see it. Like what's his end game?
i'm guessing in this case there's a lot of misplaced anger;)
shareWell,you're obviously the kind of clueless, arrogant idiot who has to be right all the time, even when you're wrong, which you are. And again, you weren't expressing opinion, you were stating your opinion as fact.
And you have no idea why I commented; more incorrect assumption from an arrogant turd.
But you believe what you want. You're the type os asshat who would even when the truth is in front of you (not referring to this film).
BTW, learn basic English, genius. It's "years," not "year's". Third-grade level stuff
What is it that I'm wrong about? Someone else just watched it and backed up my conclusion.
Oh, sorry my swype did a word replacement and I didn't catch it. Damn, you've got me pegged over a spelling error.
And man, are you and angry upset little child.
COLDNAPS: "Waa waa! I was wrong and I can't admit it, so I'll keep making more crap up in an attempt to defend myself, because my parents were mean to me and never let me be right. Even though I'm clearly wrong, I'll fight tooth and nail with someone who corrected me about a scene in a movie I probably never saw since I didn't even describe it correctly."
THAT is arrogance. Your inability to see that you're wrong.
When was the last time you saw this film?
Why didn't you know that there was no kitten murdered in this scene?
What would make someone think a kitten being picked up and dropped 3' to the floor, could be concluded as a violent death scene of an animal?
What would make anyone think they needed an elaborate effect of a fake animal for 3 quick shots barely lasting 4 seconds in a cheap movie?
BTW, when correcting others about their spelling, check your own!
You're the type os asshat
"os" is a typo. "Year's" is a lack of knowledge of English grammar. But nice try.
And I never said a kitten was actually killed in making the film. As a far as the scene goes, the fact that you hear the fat guy screaming through the door, "You killed my cat!"
would seem to point to that. Guess you missed that in your careful scene-by-scene analysis, huh, Cecil B?
^^^
Doesn't know the difference between people complaining about a death scene being shown VISUALLY and one that isn't shown. What was shown was the girl picking up the cat and dropping the cat. At NO TIME was an actual death of a kitten shown. It was IMPLIED by the fat man after the door was closed.
Never said an actual death was visually depicted, did I? Reading comp problem, Cecil B?. However, in the scope, world, universe -- whatever term you choose -- of the film, the cat was killed. Didn't matter whether we actually see it or not; the fat guy confirms it.
And BTW, what, exactly, is "wad the fork?"
Some people are effing idiots, and could care less about animal abuse. Ain't worth arguing about, sadly. It's so obvious it was a real animal, and further: it's been verified. The kitten's neck could have easily been broken. The only movie I've ever returned without watching. Piece of garbage crew.
shareSeriously, you have NO idea what you are talking about. Animatronics existed in the 60s. Stunt people have been around for ages. The production probably cut costs by not hiring one, and had no need for an animatronic cat.
GOD, people, stop acting like a bunch of Facebook ninnies.
You don't know what you're talking about. I didn't say they didn't have animatronics. I said they didn't have cgi capable of making a cat look as real as it did in that movie, which it was a real kitten for the reasons I stated, it was a cheap film and no need to have an effects team create a fake animal.
shareYou didn't specify, but fixated on movement. Yes, I said it was a cheap film.
I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about. I worked on an early CGI film, and know the timeline.
Your original comment is all over the map.
You're wrong. A cheap 70s movie animatronic would not be able to move the way the kitten did.
sharenamaGemo is correct! The kitten was real all throughout the scene, I am an animal rescuer and find homes for cats and dogs and I am very aware of the way cats move. This does not mean the cat died do to the actions of the actress. Cats are very agile and I have seen them get themselves in similar positions and were just fine. Having said that the scene was disturbing to watch as an animal lover.
sharedo you really think that the actress who played Alice would be ok with killing a kitten? and if she did don't you think she would have talked about it after the film came out either out of guilt or because every person who watched it wondering if she killed it had asked her about it?
and also with all the takes they do for movies do you really think that they would have killed that many kittens? and just because it looked dead how can you know it's dead? I wasn't worried that it got killed I was just curious.
anyway take away all this uprising and sadness and who cares? kittens if there are too many are drowned you know. and stray cats are killed or die. why are kittens more important than cows or pigs or any animals?
roflmao...everyone's acting like they show a cat getting its head cut off. A character is holding a cat by the neck and throws it to the ground which is OFF camera. She could have dropped it on a pile of fluffy pillows for all anyone knows. Hell, do it in a carpeted area and the thing would have landed on its feet and walked away. Nothing to see here. Moving on.
shareTruly
shareThe way everyone made it sound is that it was killed like a scene from Cannibal Holocaust.
shareIt was most likely a kitten that was grabbed by the head, then twisted and held like that in the air. You don't know how many takes were done for this.
You can see and hear the cat meowing, before and after it is tossed on the floor (after being dropped you can no longer see it), but it's obvious that it was treated violently, after all, and that it could have been harmed, being a baby most likely.
It's disgusting, should I not care because they did not decapitate it? I truly believe people were and in part still are retards for harming and distressing animals in the making of movies. It's stupid and not worth it!
No matter what bunch of pillows it may have landed on (though I could bet they didn't care for something like that), what you see on camera is enough to realize you're actually witnessing animal cruelty. The fact that they even had a child actor do that is worse, that's the eduction that girl got about animals, they're just useless fluffs to be tossed around. No excuse.
I don't think she actually strangled the Cat. She held it in the air to make it look like that and dropped it. Before that it looks like a stuffed animal before dropping it. I doubt she actually crushed a Kitten's windpipe for 30 takes.
Also in the scene Alice places the Jar filled with Cockroaches on Alfonso that same Kitten she had grabbed earlier is sitting on the Couch with him. They made a point of showing him.
Despite that the Kitten looks scared. If it was done today it would've been done differently. No rough handling of the Kitten. Can't do anything about it now. Best to focus on today to try to stop animal abuse and neglect.
~Keep on Trucking!~
who cares? the only reason why people care is because it's a cat. if it was pig or cow people wouldn't care. but because cats and dogs are pets it somehow is worse. it doesn't matter at all. the cat healed up if it even was hurt at all and even it died who cares? cats and dogs are routinely killed in Asian countries.
shareexactly and what is really dumb and makes no sense is this is horror film, a horror film. so why are you watching it if you have a problem with something like a cat being possibly hurt???? that goes against the logic of being a R rated horror movie fan. R rated horror movie fans like to watch violence and are tough viewers. so, it doesn't make any sense strangely having a hard time watching a kitten getting roughly handled or possibly hurt or killed.
shareGo see a therapist.
shareWhat do you not get about the “Film” part of this. I’ve always loved Horror films & always will, but I can’t stand real violence. Hurting a real animal because they weren’t clever enough to fake the shots with quick cuts or do it off screen with fake sound fx is total bullshit. Everything in the movie is fake/acting except the poor kitten scene.
shareYou are what is known as a "gatekeeper." You make assumptions about how others feel, and what they should expect in horror. If they disagree with you, they MUST not be true horror fans.
Many people care about animal cruelty in films. And please do not assume that it's because we only care about cats or dogs. Many of us care about ANY animal being treated cruelly in films.
DO NOT SPEAK FOR US.
In addition, just because animals die in Asian countries has nothing to do with how we feel about animal cruelty. If a real person died on a movie set, would you say that no one should be upset because people die all over the world?
Do not assume that just because we care about animals, that it means that we don't care about humans. WE DO.
However, we also know that they would not dare kill a real person in film. We focus on the animals because they are the ones who need protecting from careless and cruel movie directors who think that art is more important than an animal's life. People like YOU are why animal cruelty laws in movies exist; people who blindly accept cruelty as a part of art. This is easy to say when you are not the one doing the dying.
Art is important, but life is more important. There is no excuse for harming animals, whether or not they truly die. If you have a problem with this, I do not care. If you hate me, I do not care.
No one here is intimidated by you. No one here is impressed by you.
With all my words, Stratego said it best in four. “Go see a therapist.”
It is very clear when she is holding the cat around the neck that it is a stuffed cat. For one, a real cat would be clawing and scratching (and the one in this scene just hangs) and two, there is no way the actress would be party to this. The movies with scenes of real animal kills (CH, MC, and the like) filmed (or found) those sequences in countries outside the US. Also, the kitten is seen on the pillow when Alphonso is sleeping and then later, lapping up Alphonso's blood. I believe it is a cat that is 'strangled' by Alice.
share