Cats
0.5/4
Starring: Francesca Hayward, Idris Elba, Taylor Swift, Judi Dench, Jennifer Hudson, James Corden, Ian McKellan, Rebel Wilson
Rated PG for Some Rude and Suggestive Humor
The buzz surrounding the big budget adaptation of "Cats" is decidedly negative. The film has tanked at the box office, the iMDb rating sits at 2.6/10 as of this review, and the trailer has been getting bad word of mouth ever since it was released. There are also complaints of creepy special effects and inappropriately sexualized characters. You'd think it was the second coming of "Gigli" or "Battlefield Earth." It can't really be that bad, can it?
No. It's worse.
This is a movie where asking what went wrong would be a waste of everyone's time. A better question would be what went right. The answer? Almost nothing. This is a movie that is so awful that it leaves the audience in stupified silence. Watching it is akin to watching a car crash between a Ferrari and a Maserati. There's obviously a lot of money and talent on screen, but the reality is that it's an epic disaster. There's no two ways about it. This is a one hundred million dollar hairball.
"Cats" has no plot whatsoever. Granted, complex storylines are rarely hallmarks of a musical, but this is all noise signifying nothing. This would be fine if there was anything worth listening to, but I couldn't understand a damn thing anyone was saying. That leads to complete and utter boredom. They all bleed together and almost none of it is worth listening to.
This is partly because of the blandness of the music and also because of who sings them. "Cats" boasts a top flight cast, but few of them are known for their singing. And for good reason, since listening to the likes of Ian McKellan trying to belt out a tune is enough to make the wallpaper peel. Idris Elba, Ray Winstone and Rebel Wilson are equally awful crooners. All are appealing actors, but hearing them try to sing makes you wish Simon Cowell would show up. The only ones who escape with any sort of dignity are James Corden (whose jolly personality shines through), Judi Dench (even though she looks like the Cowardly Lion from "The Wizard of Oz") and Jennifer Hudson (because no living actress has pipes like hers).
As for the notorious special effects? Well, I had little trouble adjusting to the concept of talking humanoid cats. When it comes to accepting a premise, my suspension of disbelief is high. That said, watching them drink milk or neck each other never stops being strange, and there are definitely moments when their herky jerky movements were creepy rather than graceful or emotive. And there are plenty of unnecessary crotch shots, too. And even though the actors are covered in fur, they still look nude. And it's as weird and unpleasant as you'd think.
How did a movie with this much talent turn out to be so awful? Did no one realize what a dog this was going to be during pre-production? Or during filming? And what the hell happened to Tom Hooper, who won an Oscar for "The King's Speech?" There is no sense of consistency in tone or cinematic language. It's all over the place visually. The cast leaps around like ballet dancers who have had too many cups of coffee, but it's filmed and edited at random. There's no cinematic strategy to convey any sort of emotion. It's just thrown together.
It isn't often that you see a big budget movie this atrocious. At least with "The Lighthouse" Robert Eggers was attempting something audacious. He failed miserably, but at least he could claim he tried. With "Cats," it was a bad idea right from the start and the people behind it continued to make mistakes at every turn. It's so bad that one could plausibly think that they were actively trying to make a terrible movie. It's a movie that moves but never seems to get anywhere. It's a movie that I won't soon forget, much as I want to,
Starring: Francesca Hayward, Idris Elba, Taylor Swift, Judi Dench, Jennifer Hudson, James Corden, Ian McKellan, Rebel Wilson
Rated PG for Some Rude and Suggestive Humor
The buzz surrounding the big budget adaptation of "Cats" is decidedly negative. The film has tanked at the box office, the iMDb rating sits at 2.6/10 as of this review, and the trailer has been getting bad word of mouth ever since it was released. There are also complaints of creepy special effects and inappropriately sexualized characters. You'd think it was the second coming of "Gigli" or "Battlefield Earth." It can't really be that bad, can it?
No. It's worse.
This is a movie where asking what went wrong would be a waste of everyone's time. A better question would be what went right. The answer? Almost nothing. This is a movie that is so awful that it leaves the audience in stupified silence. Watching it is akin to watching a car crash between a Ferrari and a Maserati. There's obviously a lot of money and talent on screen, but the reality is that it's an epic disaster. There's no two ways about it. This is a one hundred million dollar hairball.
"Cats" has no plot whatsoever. Granted, complex storylines are rarely hallmarks of a musical, but this is all noise signifying nothing. This would be fine if there was anything worth listening to, but I couldn't understand a damn thing anyone was saying. That leads to complete and utter boredom. They all bleed together and almost none of it is worth listening to.
This is partly because of the blandness of the music and also because of who sings them. "Cats" boasts a top flight cast, but few of them are known for their singing. And for good reason, since listening to the likes of Ian McKellan trying to belt out a tune is enough to make the wallpaper peel. Idris Elba, Ray Winstone and Rebel Wilson are equally awful crooners. All are appealing actors, but hearing them try to sing makes you wish Simon Cowell would show up. The only ones who escape with any sort of dignity are James Corden (whose jolly personality shines through), Judi Dench (even though she looks like the Cowardly Lion from "The Wizard of Oz") and Jennifer Hudson (because no living actress has pipes like hers).
As for the notorious special effects? Well, I had little trouble adjusting to the concept of talking humanoid cats. When it comes to accepting a premise, my suspension of disbelief is high. That said, watching them drink milk or neck each other never stops being strange, and there are definitely moments when their herky jerky movements were creepy rather than graceful or emotive. And there are plenty of unnecessary crotch shots, too. And even though the actors are covered in fur, they still look nude. And it's as weird and unpleasant as you'd think.
How did a movie with this much talent turn out to be so awful? Did no one realize what a dog this was going to be during pre-production? Or during filming? And what the hell happened to Tom Hooper, who won an Oscar for "The King's Speech?" There is no sense of consistency in tone or cinematic language. It's all over the place visually. The cast leaps around like ballet dancers who have had too many cups of coffee, but it's filmed and edited at random. There's no cinematic strategy to convey any sort of emotion. It's just thrown together.
It isn't often that you see a big budget movie this atrocious. At least with "The Lighthouse" Robert Eggers was attempting something audacious. He failed miserably, but at least he could claim he tried. With "Cats," it was a bad idea right from the start and the people behind it continued to make mistakes at every turn. It's so bad that one could plausibly think that they were actively trying to make a terrible movie. It's a movie that moves but never seems to get anywhere. It's a movie that I won't soon forget, much as I want to,
Comments
Post a Comment