UNLIMITED STREAMING
WITH PRIME VIDEO
TRY 30-DAY TRIAL
Home > Thriller >

Kitten with a Whip

Kitten with a Whip (1964)

November. 04,1964
|
5.2
| Thriller

Straitlaced senatorial hopeful David Stratton has no idea what he's in for when he arrives home from a trip to find sexy teen Jody curled up asleep in his daughter's bed. Soon, delinquent Jody is holding David -- and his plush suburban home -- hostage while she hides out from the cops and throws wild parties with her beatnik pals. David, terrified of scandal, agrees to drive Jody and her friends to Mexico, a decision he regrets when the ride gets out of control.

...

Watch Trailer

Cast

Similar titles

Reviews

Rijndri
1964/11/04

Load of rubbish!!

More
Tayyab Torres
1964/11/05

Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

More
Matho
1964/11/06

The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

More
Logan
1964/11/07

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

More
samhill5215
1964/11/08

Having just seen this film for the second time in some years I felt I needed to come to its defense in view of the poor ratings it has received on IMDb. Moreover I can't help but compare it to "Rebel Without a Cause" which I also recently saw again. Released nine years apart they both deal with the same subject, disaffected youth. They also both reflect their times. Whereas "Rebel" dances around young angst, "Kitten" is more honest about it, although nowhere near as raw as it would have been done today. In "Rebel" the kids are troubled but still seek comfort from their parents, in "Kitten" they're nihilistic, rebellious, disdainful of their parents' values. "Kitten" is edgy, mean, gritty. Its poverty-row production probably helped in that respect. The limited sets added to the sense of claustrophobia, the fear of exposing a dangerous secret in the open. And the references to the finality of the atom bomb add to the general sense of despair.I found the acting competent if not outstanding. All protagonists had their highs and lows and overall they acquitted themselves rather well, even John Forsythe who does tend to be one-dimensional. I even think that may have worked in his favor playing a conflicted middle-aged man whose estranged wife is away, suddenly being confronted with a sexually charged dynamo. It seems such a man would be on the introverted side. And his suspicious attitude hinted at something sinister. After all, if he had nothing to hide, wouldn't he have reached out for help? He had plenty of opportunities but wasted them all, to the very end, when Ann-Margret walks back to the car and takes away his car keys.One final note: Audrey Dalton had the most thankless part. She had not even one single line, no screen time at all. We only get to see her in a photo soon to be vandalized. And when Forsythe goes to buy size seven clothes for Ann-Margret we are told that Dalton's character would never fit in them. That's rather unkind because I think she's actually smaller than Ann-Margret. So to top it all off she has to suffer the indignity of being called fat, or at least big, and she doesn't get the chance to show us otherwise. Then again maybe that's just it, she doesn't have any screen time because the whole clothes scene wouldn't fit in.

More
rajah524-3
1964/11/09

KWAW may be stuck in the ill-paced cage of a '60s TV melodrama, but the source material from pulp author Wade Miller is downright Diana Russell, Ellen Bass, Laura Davis, Andrew Vachss and Judith Lewis Herman in 1985. Which is to say, sexually abused hottie teener goes manipulative, man-hating borderline barracuda."Borderline" is the operative word here, yet it was almost unknown back in '64. And it wasn't until the dawn of the feminist movement in psychotherapy in the late '70s or so that =anybody= much connected the sort of character Ann's playing here to serial incest and/or molestation.At the time, in fact, most of the so-called "authorities" on juvenile delinquency thought runaway girls were just "evil." That most of them =were= what Jody claims to be was rarely given much credence in the '60s. And it was well into the '80s before most psychotherapists understood that "borderline personality disorder" was the expectable result.Miller has it down. Borderlines =are= little girls in adult bodies who fear... and rage... and need... and hate... and seduce... and abuse. And flip back and forth just as quickly as their emotional state of the moment demands. "Jody" may seem to be a little "cardboard" in her duplicity here, but hysteric borderlines often are. (Miller's "Jody" seems to be built on the most significant traits of the borderline personality described in the first Diagnostic and Statistical Manual back in 1952.) Too bad the film wasn't directed by Stanley Kubrick who did a better job with a better book about the same topic two years earlier. That one was called "Lolita."

More
moonspinner55
1964/11/10

Ann-Margret gets her first dramatic role, that of a delinquent sociopath named Jody who's all out for KICKS! The part stuck her with a 'bad girl' rep for a number of years, but the good news is A-M seems to relish this change of pace and gives an exceptionally strong performance. Unfortunately, the general handling of "Kitten With a Whip" is far too broad and quasi-colorful, and the film fails as a message picture, though its stale J-D clichés and overwrought dialogue ("You're so nothing painted blue!", "Where the hell is T-town?!") turns it into a dizzying dark comedy. John Forsythe plays a weakling politician who gets mixed up with the girl and her creepy post-teenage buddies, and the plot-developments become increasingly far-fetched. Still, the black-and-white cinematography is excellent, Ann-Margret is electric, and the pacing seldom flags. *** from ****

More
Eric-1226
1964/11/11

I can't fully explain it, but this movie really works for me on several levels. I recorded it off of late night American Movie Classics about a week ago, and after viewing it once, I absolutely could not resist the urge to watch it again, and have kept the tape for future viewing.There's just something about this movie. It has a surreal story premise that borders on the realm of ludicraciousness (that's not a real word, I just made it up. And I'm not really a film critic; I just play one on the Internet.) Anyway, where was I...Oh yes, the basic plot: it's about a quad of juvenile delinquents, the foremost of whom is Jody Dvorak (Ann-Margaret), who hold oh-so-square aspiring San Diego politician David Stratton (John Forsythe) hostage in his own house. His wife and daughter are conveniently out of town for a few days, allowing for the implausible story to take place primarily in the politician's own house. The JD's act with varying degrees of incomprehensibly strange behavior: they are edgy, neurotic, violent, confused, and... poetic. Poetic? Yes, really! They glibly drop lines of dialogue that could easily have been written by Beat poets of the late 50's/early 60's. The movie is filmed in glorious black and white, and should instantly appeal to all who are fans of the black and white medium. Plus, the very stylish B&W cinematography, with its vaguely gothic light and shadow effects, more than compensates for an otherwise cheapie studio set. Even if you are not a fan of black and white, or are at least "neutral" on the subject, I urge you to check out this film just to catch a glimpse of filming the way it used to be. The movie buzzes along at a fairly fast clip, and eventually they all end up in Tijuana, Mexico, further adding to the surreal quality of the story. It helps to listen attentively to the dialogue – much of it serves to tie together the scatter-shot plot elements. But it also has a surreal feel to it. Nobody talks or says things the way they do in this movie any more (or did they ever??). Yes, the dialogue and the B&W cinematography are two compelling reasons to watch the film. But perhaps the main reason to see it is: yeah, you guessed it...Ann-Margaret. I've never really followed A-M, only being aware of her from a few of her films such as Carnal Knowledge and 52 Pick-up. Well, she is utterly dazzling in this film (funny, but there are a few spots in the film where I saw an uncanny resemblance to a younger Christina Applegate (Kelly Bundy, from "Married, with Children") – of course I guess if you think about it, Kelly Bundy always was one step away from joining the ranks of JD's). If for nothing else, watch this movie to see some nice work done by A-M early in her career.Anyway, I heartily recommend this movie to all die-hard classic film buffs, to those who want to see something in film bearing the mark of an earlier time - before movies got some damnably slick and high-tech. You, as I, may smile (or groan) a few times during this movie, but it will be a forgiving smile, a warm smile born of nostalgia for a simpler time.

More