dougdoepke No need to waste time on this sequel mess. Apparently, Universal needed to meet product demand for wartime audiences. So they took a hunk of 1943's Captive Wild Woman and cobbled together some surrounding footage to make something of a story. The result comes across like Val Lewton on a really bad day. The supposedly scary scenes are done in Lewtonesque shadow, but come across as more clumsily cost-cutting than artful. Too bad so many distinguished players (Hinds, Dumbrille, Naish) are wasted in what must have been an embarrassment. I just hope Ankers & Carradine got compensated for the reuse of their earlier footage. But I doubt it given studio dominance of the period. No need to go on. Suffice that this is about the nadir of human-into-animals that were so popular at the time. As Lewton knew, horror needs more than shadow; it needs concept, dread, and mood, elements in short supply here.

kevin olzak 1944's "Jungle Woman" was the first of two sequels to "Captive Wild Woman," to be quickly followed by a second, "The Jungle Captive," which ended the trilogy (producer Ben Pivar went on to do The Creeper series with Rondo Hatton). Unlike the other two, this title was never included in the SON OF SHOCK television package, receiving relatively little airplay over the years (Pittsburgh's Chiller Theater showed it only once, following 1952's "Mesa of Lost Women" on Sept 24 1977). Acquanetta may be back, but saddled with dialogue this time, gives a lackluster performance not helped by her risible lines (nowhere near as good as Kathleen Burke's Panther Woman from "Island of Lost Souls"). The entire film consists of wall to wall talk, awkwardly structured as a courtroom drama featuring a pointless love triangle and a couple murders. The opening 20 minutes (out of 60) are just a recap of "Captive Wild Woman," made up of footage shot for three different films; by the time the story proper begins, we're saddled with a simpleton character (Edward M. Hyans Jr.) who doesn't get bumped off soon enough (expediency appears to have been the studio's only motivation). The few attack scenes take place off screen, and Paula Dupree's fate is depicted in shadows. J. Carrol Naish, between Oscar-nominated roles in 1943's "Sahara" and 1945's "A Medal for Benny," is clearly marking time, following a similar turn in PRC's "The Monster Maker" ("House of Frankenstein" was just around the corner). "The Jungle Captive" could only have been better, even without Acquanetta, whose career quickly petered out after leaving Universal (following "Dead Man's Eyes").

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.

jim riecken (youroldpaljim) Note this may contain a *SPOILER*Paula Dupree the ape woman was introduced in the film CAPTIVE WILD WOMAN. While CAPTIVE WILD WOMAN was an okay B horror film from Universal, its central character wasn't interesting enough to warrant two sequels. JUNGLE WOMAN confirms this. It's hard to believe that the top brass at Universal thought they had a potential new monster to ad to their ranks along with The Mummy, Dracula, Frankenstein Monster, etc. When this film was first released, it was part of the top half of a double bill with THE MUMMY'S GHOST, with JUNGLE WOMAN receiving the emphasis in the ads. Now, I don't think anyone would consider THE MUMMY'S GHOST an outstanding picture, but it provided the kind of escapist thrills war time matinee audiences expected from Universal. So those who sat through THE MUMMY'S GHOST, and then sat through JUNGLE WOMAN, must of felt a bit let down by this rather uneventful film.Also, many were probably mislead by the films ads that promised something more along the lines a female Tarzan type picture than a horror film.The film opens well, with a spooky nighttime sequence. Dr. Fletcher is searching the grounds of his sanatorium carry in a syringe. He is stalked and attacked (we see this as shadows on a wall) by a lithe female figure. Dr. Fletcher then plunges a syringe into the attacker. The film then cuts to a coroners hearing where we learn Dr. Fletcher is being questioned in the death of Paula Dupree. We learn Dr. Fletcher accidently injected too much of the sedative he hoped would only subdue her and she died as result of an overdose. Dr. Fletcher then recounts for the prosecutor the strange story of Paula Dupree.Universal pinched a lot of corners when making this film. A good ten mins. of footage from this film is repeated footage from the first film. During his testimony, Dr. Fletcher tells how he was able to revive the dying Cheela the ape and nurse it back to health. We see none of this. Then he tells us how Cheela the ape escaped one night. Once again we see none of this. Why? Because filming these scenes would mean calling back Ray Corrigan and his ape suit and they would have to pay him. The film really starts when searching for Cheela, Dr. Fletchers dumb witted house boy Willie discovers Paula wandering around the grounds. Willie regards finding Paula as like finding a lost puppy; he mutters things like "Doc! Look what I found!", "Isn't she beautiful" "Can I keep her?" "I found her first". Through out the rest of the film, the story meanders from one non-event to another. The director appears to be trying to ape (no pun intended) THE CAT PEOPLE by only showing Paula in her ape woman form either unseen or in shadows. Of course this makes no sense because the effect is ruined because early on we see flashbacks from CAPTIVE WILD WOMAN of in all her ape woman glory. He even blows a scene ripped from the CAT PEOPLE where Paula stalks Dr. Fletcher's daughter through the woods. Its atmospheric, but it is ruined by Paula walking with her head hunched in her shoulders, bug eyed, and walking stiffly like a wind up doll. The film even repeats the effective opening scene. I could go on and on but I have taken up to much space already. On the plus side; Acquanetta projects just the right animal sensuality for the role. J. Carrol Naish gives his customary professional performance. But as Willie says to Dr. Fletcher in a line often sighted by the films detractors: "Aw! Its a gyp!"