CATS: THE MOVIE because - well - we all need a laugh? 0

[Bosco685]

Quote

I’m trying to summon a description of the cats in Cats that does justice to even a fraction of their unholy, dredged-from-the-uncanny-valley horror. They look like designs for the villains of one of the live-action Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movies that got rejected for being too unsettling. They look like someone took an enormous amount of psychedelic drugs and then tried to craft a gritty reboot of the Cats Broadway show. They look like what I imagine the characters in all Hollywood blockbusters looked like if a furry was put in charge of the film industry.

 

However you want to describe their fuzzy tummies, large foreheads, unnatural human faces, and smooth doll-like nether regions, these cats are weird — and very much of a piece with the rest of Tom Hooper’s Cats, which has finally made the leap to the big screen about 35 years after the heights of its popularity on the Great White Way. On stage, Cats was wildly successful, and became the longest-running show in Broadway history for a time. For all I know, Cats will be equally well-received in movie theaters. That will not change the fact that it is one of the strangest motion pictures from a major studio I have ever seen.

 

Give the movie Cats this much: Everyone here is 100 percent committed to the bit. No one looks embarrassed to be in their ridiculous CGI cat costumes. On the contrary, everyone seems like a pig (cat?) in s— slinking around the alleys and apartments of the film’s oversized London set, whimsically lapping at bowls of milk or, in one particularly wacky moment, using a hairball as a projectile weapon. No one can be accused of phoning it in.

 

As he did in his movie version of Les Miserables, Hooper loves to shove the camera right up in his actors’ faces, which makes the cat faces’ cursed Photoshop qualities even harder to ignore. Cats still has some lovely songs; it will surprise no one that Jennifer Hudson can belt the hell out of the show-stopping “Memory.” Still, what a surreal way to deliver a soaring ballad about loneliness and times past! It is apt, I guess. This Cats will live on in every viewer’s memory, all alone in the moonlight, now and forever. Its weirdness is unforgettable.

 

[Bosco685]

Poor cats worldwide.

 

[valiantman]

My 10-year-old niece wants to see this Cats movie, so I thought --- OH, that's who the movie is for... because I honestly couldn't think of anyone who would ever want to see this movie.  Then I noticed it was PG-13, so evidently the target audience is 10-year-old girls whose parents will let them see PG-13 movies at the theater.

It should do great.

[Bosco685]

'Brace yourself!' 

[Transplant]

Waterworld is breathing a sigh of relief. 

[Bosco685]

[Bosco685]

[valiantman]

I will not see Cats, but I feel like I know all about it thanks to Titus Andromedon.

[Bosco685]

 

[Bosco685]

 

[Bosco685]

Well, there goes that theater trip. 

[Bosco685]

We're all saved now, folks. It was just a few scene adjustments that needed to be made.

[Bosco685]

 

[media_junkie]

12 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

We're all saved now, folks. It was just a few scene adjustments that needed to be made.

Isn't it a bit late for that?  I don't imagine more people going the second weekend then the first just to see a better looking whisker.

[Buzzetta]

I am guessing that the eventual SNL spoof will be better than the CATS movie. 

[drotto]

10 hours ago, media_junkie said:

Isn't it a bit late for that?  I don't imagine more people going the second weekend then the first just to see a better looking whisker.

Could we be looking at the largest loss in movie history?

[revat]

17 hours ago, drotto said:

On ‎12‎/‎22‎/‎2019 at 4:43 AM, media_junkie said:

Isn't it a bit late for that?  I don't imagine more people going the second weekend then the first just to see a better looking whisker.

Could we be looking at the largest loss in movie history?

Initially I thought that doesn't seem right, but the numbers are pretty freaking bad.  But I don't think it cost enough to lose enough to be the largest loss.  Its no "Lone Ranger" or "John Carter"

[Bosco685]

Just now, revat said:

Initially I thought that doesn't seem right, but the numbers are pretty freaking bad.  But I don't think it cost enough to lose enough to be the largest loss.  Its no "Lone Ranger" or "John Carter"

John Carter was purposely sabotaged marketing-wise by the incoming Disney executive team to spite the outgoing team, leading to the book 'John Carter and Gods of Hollywood'. It was a good movie otherwise.

[revat]

4 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

6 minutes ago, revat said:

Initially I thought that doesn't seem right, but the numbers are pretty freaking bad.  But I don't think it cost enough to lose enough to be the largest loss.  Its no "Lone Ranger" or "John Carter"

John Carter was purposely sabotaged marketing-wise by the incoming Disney executive team to spite the outgoing team, leading to the book 'John Carter and Gods of Hollywood'. It was a good movie otherwise.

John Carter, not a bad movie.  I gave it a 'B'.  I have no desire to rewatch it, but it was entertaining and gave me pretty much what I was looking for. 

[evilskip]

Saw CATS this morning, having no clue about it. My wife saw the play from nosebleed seats.

I've seen many worse movies than this.