Page 1 of 1

My Formal Review of Cats (2019)

Posted: Thu Jan 23, 2020 4:54 pm
by Apollo the Just
You might have thought that my other thread ranking the Cats songs from best to worst qualified as my review. Oh, no. That was based on the songs individually; now I must express my overall thoughts and frustrations regarding this movie as a whole.

I will start off by saying it is by far the most interesting movie I have seen in theaters this year, and I will be buying it as soon as it comes out on DVD. I will also say that it is equally the worst movie I have seen in theaters this year. That said, of all sins this movie commits, being boring is not one of them. Absolutely not. And in a climate where so many movies feel painfully safe and squarely "fine, but no one will remember it in 5 years," I guarantee that this movie is NOT fine, but EVERYONE will remember it in 5 years. Unless they have blocked it out as a trauma response, I suppose. Anyway, that sets it apart.

The most fascinating thing about Cats is that it is abysmal both as an adaptation of the source material and as a stand-alone cinematic experience. This movie is neither for diehard fans of Cats, nor is it for your average movie-going crowd. Fans of Cats (1998) will be put off by the incomprehensible decision to try and give this musical a plot that would appeal to people who are used to watching movies that actually have plots, and fans of cinema who may not be familiar with the source material will be put off by... virtually everything else. The target audience of the movie seems to consist solely of people who like the Cats soundtrack and also like watching incredibly weird **** and will forgive awful writing if it is paired with great set design and cool lighting; of people who think choreography is interesting to watch but will also sit through a lot of people just kind of standing around. (Considering Victoria was cast based on the actress's status as a world-class ballerina, one can't help but notice that she spends about 99% of her screentime standing there and singing long songs that are out of her range. She tried. Bless her.)

This movie is an example of what you get when you have a cast of insanely rich and famous and hot all-star celebrities with varying levels of talent, and somehow squander almost all of that potential by miscasting folks and having such a wildly horrible vision that even the people who might be able to kill it look like they're dying inside. I bring up Victoria again. Now, she has a different and more prominent role in this interpretation than in the source material. That is fine; it's an adaptation and I guess every protagonist needs to have a tragic backstory and outsider perspective so the audience can project on them now. Whatever. The reason I'm talking about this isn't because it's DIFFERENT that Victoria sings now instead of just flexing on everyone with sick ballerina moves; it's that, they still. cast a ballerina. with no background in professional singing. Which would have been a PERFECT casting choice for the role in the stage play... and then proceeded to delegate an entire boring original song that is slightly out of her range, AND a hugely important harmony part to Memory that is DEFINITELY out of her range. RIP Jemima, you didn't get to sing that gorgeous intro to the Memory reprise because Victoria is more important than you. Sorry.

Changing things to suit the new narrative structure is fine. However, I beg of you, the least you can do is ALSO at least TRY to cater to the strengths of your cast....? Alas. That segment physically hurts to listen to because SHE IS TRYING SO HARD BUT IT IS NOT HER FAULT THAT HER VOCAL CHORDS DON'T DO THAT. Tom Hooper was like "lol, tough". Every single painfully short dance solo Victoria gets is a beautiful, fleeting glimpse as to what could have been if her talents were fully embraced, and then she goes back to standing there and trying her best to sing. I'm so sorry, darling. You're doing great.

Shout-out to Grizabella, by the way, I don't know why they forced her to have snot dripping down her face the entire time but her voice is incredible.

Now, I have to admit. Giving Victoria a bunch of solos she didn't have before even though her actress can't sing them was a bad decision, but - in my opinion - not nearly as bad as going the other direction, and taking a different prominent dance-only character and just removing the dancing entirely in favor of having him just be a really uninteresting and overdone bumbling Hollywood archetype. At least Victoria still HAS the dance. This other example doesn't even have that.

I am talking, of course, about the magical, the magnificent, the horribly, horribly butchered in this adaptation, Mister Mistoffelees.

Again, I understand that maybe having a sparkling chad-energy twink descend from the ceiling and do a 3 minute long incredibly impressive ballet solo while his boyfriend sings about how cool he is and he just ZAPs the plot back with 90's special effects is... maybe not going to translate to a ~modern big screen vision~. So I suppose it's natural that we go with the only-character-type-Tom-Holland-is-allowed-to-play-now soft and shy boy who gains Self Confidence TM by the end of it. Like, alright, whatever. At least he can sing. But in THIS case, they didn't even GIVE him any dance solos. This is probably because his actor isn't suited to them, in which case I ask why on earth giving Victoria singing solos is a-ok but giving Mistoffelees dance numbers is out of the question. I suppose it goes against the framing of "awkward and bumbling" they were going for, but considering this is a damn musical with full choreography, why on earth is that the framing you were going to go for. It's a musical and one of your primary protagonists can't even dance? Made worse by the fact that his dancing is straight up the bombest **** ever in the source material? What the ****, Tom Hooper. What the ****.

....You know what DOES work? Those rare, rare, EXCEEDINGLY rare, fleeting moments when the cast is singing and dancing, and doing it well, and having a grand old time.

That is why Skimbleshanks the Railway Cat is the single only valid moment in this godforsaken film and brings such revitalizing energy that I have seen it in theaters 3 times. Skimbleshanks the Railway Cat is a singer, Skimbleshanks the Railway Cat is a dancer, Skimbleshanks the Railway Cat is an ensemble number where everyone looks like they want to be there and is having fun and there is humor in the framing and the choreography and the performances and you think, for a few short minutes, that maybe this movie is actually fun. It doesn't last, but the impression does. You will leave the theater wondering why the entire movie couldn't have been Skimbleshanks the Railway Cat taking you on an adventure to the Northern part of the Northern hemisphere and leaving the rest of this godawful mess behind.

I think I could go on for another 9000 words rambling about my nitpicks and frustrations with virtually every number, but in an effort to try and back it up and be more big-picture: the problem with this adaptation is that Cats is a success because of its insanely good soundtrack and choreography and the cast fully buying into the ridiculous premise. No one gives a flying **** about the plot when watching Cats. Cats is about the characters and the music and the fun experience of watching a cast who is also having fun. Cats is an excuse to put T.S. Eliot poems to bangers and have furries dance around to them. This adaptation chooses at almost every turn to sacrifice song and dance for a Normal Narrative Structure, which is in every circumstance a horrible idea. Jellicle Songs for Jellicle Cats, one of the biggest certified bops in the soundtrack, cuts itself off for a dramatic introduction to Le Villain TM. Mistoffelees doesn't have a sickass ballet solo because he needs to have Character Development TM. Jennyanydots doesn't have harmony to die or kill for because it needs to have horrible slapstick comic relief at all times. Every time this movie decides to actually go all-in on itself it is temporarily a fun experience, but then it keeps interrupting itself to apologize for itself and turns into a mess.

Things I WILL say in favor of the movie:

- Thank you Idris Elba. He is giving off what my friend aptly described as "the vibes of a talented dad who was asked to be in a bad community theater production along with his third-grader kid and indulged them because they needed someone". Every second with him is a treasure.

- SKIIIMBLLEESHAAANKSS THEEEEEE RAIILWAY CAAAT!!!!! Not only was it just a fun high-energy and clever performance but the introduction of tap dance actually made the sound design really damn impressive. The clips and claps of the tap shoes on different surfaces was honestly brilliant. This number is phenomenal and this is a rare case of the cover being on par and maybe even slightly more interesting than the original.

- Victoria's dance solos are awesome when she actually gets them

- Set design is great. A lot of the shots in this movie would actually be amazing if the actors in them didn't Look Like That.

- I actually really like the decision to use the older version of Mungojerrie and Rumpelteazer. It's jazzy and really good, it's one of the best sequences in the film. It's not as high energy as Skimbleshanks but honestly it's way up there, the sets are fantastic and the actors have pretty great chemistry.

As a final parting thought - if the movie had more failures like Beautiful Ghosts (where it's trying to be Deep TM and failing), and fewer failures like Gumbie Cat and Bustopher Jones (where it's interrupting itself to be like "haha isn't this ridiculous" with awful slapstick), if the movie had the balls to just fully buy into its own ********, it would instantly have been a better movie. The thing that makes this go from "wild but enjoyable" to "wild but enjoyable when it isnt being terrible" is the fact that even the movie itself doesn't think it's good, and it keeps reminding you that.

Also Rum Tum Tugger was not sexy enough. The end

Re: My Formal Review of Cats (2019)

Posted: Thu Jan 23, 2020 7:20 pm
by Calamity Panfan
I just want to thank you once again for being one of the only people I know that actually went to see Cats, because all my friends who I tried to get to watch Cats with me are cowards and would not see Cats with me.

Despite growing up in a household that loved musical theater, I never had much of a fondness for Cats. My parents didn't like the show so we didn't have the soundtrack in rotation like Phantom or Les Mis or countless others. The closest we came was "Memory" being on a "Best of Broadway" compilation they had. So my knowledge of the musical was always very little. I knew "Memory" was a banger. I knew Rum Tum Tugger was a David Bowie Cat. I'd eventually heard "Jellicle Songs for Jellicle Cats" and "Mr. Mistofelees" through my lifetime of being friends with theater kids. I knew it really didn't have a plot.

So when this movie was announced I really had no interest. Aside from my Tom Hooper is the most boring director in the world. He's seemed to exist to make the most boring kind of Oscar bait, and I didn't love his Les Mis, even though Russell Crowe as Javert is one of the funniest casting decisions of all time. So even though I knew this had a weird-ass cast and they were trying to make a major Hollywood film, I kind of ignored its trainwreck potential. I thought it was going to be boring.

But of course, I am a huge fan of trainwreck garabge, so this movie and I were destined to be together. People started buzzing about it when the trailer dropped and I was still like "nah," but then they dropped screenshots of it and it became my obsession. The fact that CGI looked that bad for such a big Hollywood movie with goals to win awards (because again, Hooper only exists to try to win awards) combined with the realization of "oh yeah, they put Sir Ian McKellen AND Taylor Swift AND Rebel Wilson AND Jason Derulo in the same damn movie" was impossible to ignore.

So as I've said before, I got really sloshed (I was originally going for just a good buzz but I thought my movie started earlier than it did so I killed time by sitting at the movie theater bar for an hour) and saw it opening night. It's definitely one of the most memorable moviegoing experiences of my life, even though some of those memories are... a tad blurry.

What an experience. The entire time I was just baffled trying to figure out who this thing was for. Like maybe it is trying to find this "just right" middle ground between Cats fans and the general moviegoing public and just failing. Everything is just this weird mess of poor decision making where you're trying to figure out when you're laughing at the movie or with the movie because it occasionally does stumble into something resembling brilliance (mostly in the form of "Skimbleshanks").

I want to see it again in theaters, but I think I missed my shot. As of last week, it was only playing at the budget theater that's like 30 minutes away by car (and as somebody who takes the bus, probably twice to thrice as long a trek for me) and has probably been replaced by now.

Plus since I saw it opening night, I saw the original cut with not just bad CGI, but unfinished CGI. Since then the movie was f***ing patched so that the human limbs that were still showing were removed. It's not going to be the same transcendent experience, so I'm accepting that repeat viewings probably aren't going to elicit the same feelings (still getting this on BluRay).

It has to be one of the most baffling Hollywood blockbusters released in forever. Hollywood is so stale and safe with Disney controlling 90% of the movies that have wide releases. Most of the worst stuff released is bad in boring ways rather than baffling, so it's so refreshing to see this $100 million movie take some weird-ass chances and fall on its face in its own badness. This is what I live for.

The most interesting movie I saw in 2019 was actually The Fanatic, directed by Fred Durst of Limp Bizkit fame and starring John Travolta in one of the most honestly offensive performances I've ever seen in a modern film. But that's something that hardly played on any screens and was on Amazon Prime Video like a month later. This is such a different monster. This was a movie that had a big budget and big distribution and wide release and hopes for critical acclaim and it failed in every conceivable way.

God I love this movie.

Re: My Formal Review of Cats (2019)

Posted: Thu Jan 23, 2020 9:22 pm
by Apollo the Just
It has to be one of the most baffling Hollywood blockbusters released in forever. Hollywood is so stale and safe with Disney controlling 90% of the movies that have wide releases. Most of the worst stuff released is bad in boring ways rather than baffling, so it's so refreshing to see this $100 million movie take some weird-ass chances and fall on its face in its own badness. This is what I live for.

The most interesting movie I saw in 2019 was actually The Fanatic, directed by Fred Durst of Limp Bizkit fame and starring John Travolta in one of the most honestly offensive performances I've ever seen in a modern film. But that's something that hardly played on any screens and was on Amazon Prime Video like a month later. This is such a different monster. This was a movie that had a big budget and big distribution and wide release and hopes for critical acclaim and it failed in every conceivable way.
This is exactly how I feel as well. It's not bad in a safe way, and it's not trainwreck bad but in some tiny corner of the cinema world that most people won't be aware of. It's trainwreck bad in an enormous budget hollywood production way. Just incredible.

Re: My Formal Review of Cats (2019)

Posted: Fri Jan 24, 2020 2:34 am
by I REALLY HATE POKEMON!
I thought I liked Dragon Ball Z but I now see that I must go even further beyond.