Cats

The most entertaining part of this entire movie was reading these hilariously bad reviews. It was SO boring and hard to watch.

I have been a big fan of "Cats" over the years and I even have the stage soundtrack on my USB stick to play in the car. In 1998 they released a filmed a stage version, masterfully performed, but with cameras set up from various points to get both full, wide shots and very intimate close-up shots. There is no audience applause at all, so it was probably filmed only with the cast and crew present. To me that is the definitive film version, a real "10 of 10" for fans of the musical.

With that as a background I watched this new movie version last night on BluRay from my local library. While it is not nearly as bad as many are rating it (as of today it has 48% votes of "1") I found it to be a bit too cheesy I suppose in an attempt to appeal to a wider audience. Inclusion of such famous personalities as Rebel Wilson and James Corden to play overweight cats in attempts at humor didn't work at all. And Taylor Swift, bless her little heart, just isn't a good enough singer to do the solo number assigned to her character.

So, while much of it was entertaining, and I loved the extended tap-dancing scene along the rail tracks, overall it is just a shadow of the properly done stage musical. The attempts to scale it up to include a broader set of London locations just doesn't work very well.

Surprisingly, Ian McKellen, who isn't known for his singing, is actually very good as Gus the Theater Cat. I like Jennifer Hudson, a gifted singer, but in her attempt "to make it her own" just didn't come over well singing "Memory." Elaine Paige did it on stage so much better and once you have seen and heard that then the other versions just don't compare.

And finally Francesca Hayward, a ballerina, has the role of Victoria, a discarded cat new to the Jellicle Ball and who serves as narrator. She has a couple of songs and while she doesn't have a powerful stage singing voice she actually was better than some of the "personalities" that were added to the cast to help draw viewers.

So, I'm glad I watched it, as a fan of the "Cats" stage musical it was fun to see a somewhat different take on the story, and the extras on the disc are interesting, but overall this is probably a movie that should not have been made.

There is a wall in my house. The wall is a simple wall, eight feet tall, and fifteen feet wide, it sits in a corner in the basement. It has been painted beige, with a few coats to cover up the bumps and scratches from coats before. It's got it's idiosyncrasies, the way the light jumps off the paint, the not so even drywalling underneath. Stare at it long enough, and it begins to speak to you - or at least allow you to speak to it. Maybe there's something to the wall - or maybe it's just my romantic illusions of inspiration and contemplation that bring life to it. My point is this - staring at that blank wall for two hours is far more inspiring, interesting and enlightening than watching even just two minutes of the cinematic colonoscopy that is "Cats." A film so awful, so ridiculous and so void of substance its very existence is an affront to musicals, film and theatre. Unless you're a fan of 'so bad it's good' cinema, stay away. This is a watershed moment in bad movie history.

I'm not a praying man, but I was praying so hard for this movie to end. From the fist minute, I knew this movie was going to be a disaster. What a waste of talented actors.

I've got nothing against movie musicals, director Tom Hooper, or even anybody who's a part of making this film. But goodness me, Cats is an absolute monstrosity. Garish, non-sensical, boring and everything in between, it's a pompous and pointless musical that plays out with barely a redeeming feature, proving one of the most unbearable cinema experiences I've had in a very long time.

While I haven't been a big fan of Hooper's work in the past, particularly Les Misérables, Cats pales in comparison to anything the director has made before, failing on all levels in its pathetic attempts to provide even a semblance of fun, magical theatre, and instead staggering along through its repetitive and frankly tedious story on its way to a terrible ending that can't come soon enough.

There's nothing positive I have to say about this movie. Les Misérables, for all its faults, at least had a degree of spectacle, emotion and drama, whereas Cats is little more than an experiment gone wrong: a horrifying Frankenstein's monster that attempts to blend modern cinematic techniques with classic West End storytelling.

First, the visual effects are extremely offputting. Whether it's the uncanny CGI human/cat-like figures, the inconsistent and distracting scaling and sizing issues, or even the plasticky, garish look of the whole film, Cats is a really unpleasant spectacle. And for all of the technical expertise that clearly went into pulling it off, it all feels squandered on a misguided and painfully showy movie.

Next, Hooper's directing is jagged and meandering throughout. While the screenplay is hardly a work of art, Cats lacks even the slightest bit of show-stopping stage energy, symptomatic of direction that leaves the film wandering aimlessly right the way through.

Hooper's visual style is uninspiring and unimaginative, the musical and dance numbers are repetitive and dull, and even the biggest, best dramatic set-pieces are completely missing any sort of real presence, instead just fading into the movie's jarringly inconsistent structure.

The pacing is a massive problem throughout, as the film shirks the need for even a basic three-act structure in exchange for a horribly repetitive yet still inconsistent layout. Basically, for two hours, it goes like this: Dialogue, mini song, big musical number. Dialogue, mini song, big musical number. And repeat. Again and again and again.

In that, Cats proves so boring, so predictable, and clearly so without life that it's happy to just sit and move you from one musical number to the next. A great movie musical should organically blend song and dialogue, with each complementing the other with the goal of developing the story wherever possible.

Cats is so aimless and repetitive, that the pathetic excuse for a story barely seems to move at any point. Instead, it's just a vehicle for big West End musical numbers on the big screen, all built up to in jarring fashion that makes each song more awkward than the last.

That story, too, is almost unbearable throughout. I won't pass judgment on the original stage show, but in the case of this film, the plot is non-sensical, the characters uninteresting, the screenplay unfocused, and the emotion painfully superficial.

A little bit of fantasy is fine by me, but when a film is constantly repeating its fantasy mumbo-jumbo about cats being sent to heaven or something or other, it gives no incentive to keep watching, worsened by a total lack of character focus or even a consistent main lead.

Francesca Hayward plays the young, new cat to join the tribe, so you'd think that she would be the main focus for the story. However, the movie is so distracted by trying to cram in as many A-listers and side characters as possible that the whole thing feels like an endless meet-and-greet, still introducing new characters deep into the latter stages, and not even giving a second to let Hayward's cat take centre stage.

There's no story because it barely gets going. For what feels like an hour and a half, the film jumps between random characters' introductory musical numbers, and then, remembering it has to wrap things up in a two-hour window, abruptly shifts to tying up loose ends that were never really established in the first place.

As a result, despite the immense acting talent on display, none of the characters are memorable, and none play even a leading role for you to connect with at any point. Alongside Hayward, there's Robbie Fairchild and Laurie Davidson, both of whom seem to be on screen enough to warrant a leading role, but neither even gets the slightest bit of attention from the screenplay.

So, whenever their characters take any sort of role in the main plot, it comes across as sudden and out of left-field, a problem only caused because the movie spends so much time trying to entertain you with A-listers dressed as CGI cats. But even for all the Taylor Swift cameos in the world, it's surely not worth steamrolling simple character and narrative development.

In short, Cats is an absolute atrocity. From a director with an already wobbly track record in the musical genre, this film is an utter disaster, failing to capture any sense of spectacle or fun, and instead meandering and wandering through a non-sensical, boring and predictable story that's seemingly used mostly as a platform for some big West End musical numbers and A-list cameos.

There's nothing good to say about Cats, and unless you really want two hours of pain at the cinema, I suggest you stay as clear as possible.