User reviews

It was a good movie.

A little bit experimental in its genre. When the synopsis suggested it was a horror film, they're using the term as loose as they possibly could, cause I did not see that.

But other wise it was an entertaining picture.

A boy meets girls scenario with a interesting twist due to the girls strange habit.

Weird and slow, but I was not bored.

'Are we not cats' is a low-budget feature. It's so low-budget that one could well assume that a fair deal of the budget went toward securing the admittedly excellent soundtrack, and not into aspects like sound design. The entire mix is so hushed - dialogue in particular - that one has to max out their volume to hear, well, pretty much anything; it doesn't help, either, that the cast's delivery is characterized by a lot of mumbling. It's the sort of low-budget feature that goes nowhere fast, and almost entirely declines any meaningful eventfulness - that character trait indicated in the premise doesn't even come into play in any way until the feature is already more than half over.

It's not just the overall narrative: character writing, dialogue, and scene writing feel so bereft as to be almost nonexistent. I suppose Michael Patrick Nicholson and Chelsea Lopez are to be commended for nuanced performances that realize their characters with more substance than the screenplay itself provides. At the same time, it's hard to assess acting in a movie this nonplussed about itself.

But there's one more thing: 'Are we not cats' has been described as fitting into the horror genre, and more specifically, playing with body horror. This is, actually, correct. However, the feature waits until we're within about 20 minutes of its conclusion before that element manifests. True, I think that scene is executed well, with all due cringe-worthiness. Does that alone justify the horror label?

As extremely understated and low-key as the picture is, I think I understand what writer-director Xander Robin intended here. And I appreciate that very underhanded, self-restrained approach. Why, to their credit, that one scene of horror is all it actually takes to tie the movie together - solidifying the narrative and conjuring the previously hidden value, like a reagent allowing invisible ink to appear. It's a neat trick, honestly, and in that regard, I'd be lying if I said I'm not impressed.

Still, I remain uncertain of the overall worth. I'll say this: 'Are we not cats' is not for a general audience. It's not for the average horror fan, nor even for the average connoisseur of body horror. This is for only the most open-minded and patient viewer who enjoys body horror, and who is receptive to the most emphatically quiet, subdued, modest, and minimalist of features. Even then, it's a stretch. But if everything I've written hasn't dissuaded you - well then, maybe this is the right picture for you, after all. I don't think it's bad - I actually kind of like it - but 'Are we not cats' is most assuredly a profoundly odd feature that cries for reevaluation of what "horror" can mean.

Weird habits indeed. its a dark roamantic movie. not horror. Good film.

I have watched many off-beat movies but this might just be the weirdest one I've ever seen. The movie might just be worth a watch on the basis of being able to describe it to others and in the process watch them be both entertained and disgusted for several minutes (I have). The movie is a bit slow at points and in my opinion not a horror. The movie is slightly above average all be it weird.

This is a slow burn, but I was never bored by any means. It's skimpy dialogue and nuanced performances set this piece up for a very atmospheric, original and almost experimental vibe. It felt very "indi" in a positive way... giving it a relatable quality to something maybe not so relatable... making you feel like you are on the ground, in the space of the movie.

I understood what was going on, and yet could barley even tell you what happened. I stop, and I almost think... what was the point of that? And yet, I was entertained and enjoyed it. A story of two lost souls, when their paths cross, and an odd quirk thrown in the mix.

I thought the lead guy did a great job. With what little script he had to work with I thought he relayed every emotion naturally and with tact. I'd love to see him in something else. Also the characters propensity to invite him self places and overstay his welcome was an interesting and cringy character quirk that stuck out to me. The girl was good as well. Some of the side characters were a little spotty as far as delivery went and were distracting at times.

As an indi actor, these are the kind of productions I enjoy being a part of. It doesn't have to cater to every demographic. I would recommend this movie, but only to my weird (cool) artsy friends. Well done guys.

This film is what independent film making is all about; going back to the original way films were made, be it in Europe or in the U.S., where some of the best roles are also played by people who have probably never acted before in their life. Michael Patrick Nicholson and Chelsea Lopez both have standout performances, nomination worthy among the heavy hitters. Though I'm sure Xander Robin (the director) and his fellow crew members had their obstacles in this his first feature film, it is an accomplishment of which they should all be immensely proud. I enjoyed a new (yet nostalgic) direction for film, in an exciting, artistic, playfully revolting masterpiece. If you haven't seen Are We Not Cats yet, go find a way to get it! It will sicken you how much you'll love it.

The last third of this film will absolutely destroy you.