Logan Sork Film Reviews
Cats
Despite my love of our feline companions, I never really understood why the musical “Cats” has been so popular. Since making its debut in 1980, the musical has been one of the most performed shows on Broadway and other major musical locations. It always looked strange and surreal to me and I never really saw it as something that should become a movie. But since it was a smash hit elsewhere, Hollywood decided that it should be one and now we have Cats, a film that tries it’s best but isn’t memorable for the reasons it’s hoping for.
Cats is directed by Tom Hooper and is based on the musical of the same name by Andrew Lloyd Webber. The film stars James Corden, Judi Dench, Jason Derulo, Idris Elba, Jennifer Hudson, Ian McKellen, Taylor Swift, Rebel Wilson, and Francesca Hayward. The story centers around Victoria (Hayward), a young cat who was recently abandoned by her owner and is taken in by the Jellicles, a group of mysterious and mystical cats. The night she arrives is that of the Jellicle Ball, in which the cats will compete for a chance to enter the Heaviside Layer and be granted a new and better life. As the night continues, Victoria meets cats of all shapes and sizes as they compete for the chance to be chosen for this great prize.
Before diving into the film’s many problems, I’d first like to take a few words to praise some aspects of this film, because there are indeed some. The film has a great energy of fun about it and this can be attributed to the cast and performers on screen. Despite the somewhat dodgy stuff around them, each cast member gives it their all and manages to somewhat keep you engaged in the film. There were, in fact, some particularly great performances from newcomers Francesca Hayward, Robbie Fairchild, and Laurie Davidson, who manage to perfectly capture the musical theater experience in their performances with just enough camp and seriousness to make their respective characters the most engaging of the bunch. The big names in the film do a nice job, as do the incredible dance performers whose physical performances bring a lot of fun energy to the film.
Despite these fantastic performances and musical numbers, however, they are ultimately let down by director Tom Hooper and his own ambition. While I respect him for trying something new and different with the visual effects, this was just something he could not handle well. The effects used to make the performers into cat versions of themselves are a little jarring at the start but by the thirty-minute mark you’ll probably get used to them as I did. However, what you won’t get used to is the jarring proportional changes and editing mistakes that occur constantly throughout the film. To create the true feeling of being a cat, the filmmakers manipulate the size proportions of our stars to make them seem smaller. While this is a great idea, the execution is as sloppy as can be. There are several scenes in which our characters change sizes to the objects around them from shot to shot, making for a jarring viewing experience. There are also several scenes in which the flow of the film is very inconsistent, with certain characters magically changing props, clothing and even colors from one shot to the next. From a directing standpoint, this is very messy work and knowing that it’s the same guy who directed The King’s Speech makes it even more disappointing.
The film is also a very sloppy adaptation of the musical, preferring to recreate the musical as is without making any necessary changes to adapt it to the new medium. I say this as someone who did some preliminary research before seeing the film as I wanted to know what I was getting myself into. Had I not done the research, I can’t say I’d be able to follow the plot as the movie follows the musical beat for beat story-wise and that’s the reason, I say this is a bad adaptation. When you adapt something meant for the stage to film, you need to add things to appeal to that audience and the medium. While the stage play can get by on theatrical tricks and a sense of awe that live stage shows can offer, the film cannot recreate the same experience, resulting in the faults of the production, such as weak plot structure, no expositional dialogue, and lack of character development shining bright. Had the film changed things up by adding these elements, I think the experience would’ve been a little nicer rather than having to watch what is essentially a filmed stage production, which lacks the engagement and energy of a live performance.
The strange thing though, is that despite the many problems from both a technical and story point of view, I will say that this film has something…entrancing about it. Despite its clunky story, I was still engaged the majority of the runtime and even found myself enjoying most of the characters. Even some of the strange artistic choices, while baffling, were amazing to watch on screen. This film evokes so many surreal images and insane choices that have you questioning how this even got made. There’s almost a sort of “Alice in Wonderland” feeling to the whole thing, which relies more on its insane strangeness than engaging narrative to keep you engaged, and it pulls it off well, whether intentional or not. The film also has a lot of the same qualities of a “so bad it’s good” film. While you’ll be constantly dazed and confused while watching this movie, you’ll at least be entertained by it.
Despite this transfixing quality that the film provokes, that isn’t enough to save it from being a bad movie. While the cast and performers give it their all, they just aren’t enough to compensate for the weak direction, strange visuals, choppy editing, and confusing story. However, if you’re in the search of one of the most confusing and strange cinematic experiences in recent years, Cats will certainly satisfy that itch.
4.5/10