exactly 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.

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.

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!~

It 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.

The way everyone made it sound is that it was killed like a scene from Cannibal Holocaust.

Truly

roflmaoeveryone'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.

do 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?

namaGemo 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.

You 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 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.