651 posts
|
Post by greeny11 on Dec 20, 2019 14:58:13 GMT
Just got back from seeing this - it was showing in a mid-size screen (about 120 seats) and was about 90% full.
I have never seen the stage show, but I personally think the reviews have been very harsh - I found a lot to enjoy about it.
Starting with my criticisms - the plot is a nonsense - it's very thin, and mostly just an excuse to stage song and dance numbers. I did have a few issues with the CGI in that it wasn't entirely consistent across the cats. Some were done well, others much less so (Rebel Wilson was probably the most notable). Also, they made no effort to make the human hands into paws in some cases, and only a small effort to do so in other cases. Speaking of Rebel Wilson, I do feel she was miscast as Jennyanydots. She was one of the weaker singers and some of her lines and comedy fell a bit flat (other bits got laughs though) - some of the scratching was rather inappropriate for a U rated film too. Also, while James Corden sang his song well, his comedy also fell flat.
On the other hand, I thought there were some very strong performances among the cast. Robbie Fairchild as Munkustrap was excellent - he's a really terrific dancer and has a lovely singing voice. I was very pleased to see he had such a big part in this. Francesca Hayward was very good as Victoria, and sang her big number, Beautiful Ghosts, really well - I prefer her version to Taylor Swift's. I also liked Laurie Davidson as Mr Mistoffelees - he did a fair bit of dancing and had a nice singing voice - though I understand his Mistoffelees is somewhat different to the stage Mistoffelees. Steven McRae makes a good Shimbleshanks, and like Francesca Hayward, has a decent voice for someone who has never sung before. Jennifer Hudson was, in my opinion, a great Grizabella, and both versions of Memory gave me goosebumps. Some of the orchestrations were really impressive and stood out in a cinematic setting - especially the crescendo towards the end of Memory.
Overall, while I do have quite a few reservations about the film, I found a lot to like about it as well, and think some of the reviews have been incredibly harsh. I think fans of the music would enjoy it just for that, as the vast majority of it is sang very well and orchestrations are great.
|
|
544 posts
|
Post by amp09 on Dec 20, 2019 15:18:57 GMT
Not a single complaint about it from my customers at the first sold out screening at the cinema I run. They loved it! Lots of ‘I don’t know what film the critics were watching because that was brilliant.’
I doubt this is going to flop.
|
|
651 posts
|
Post by greeny11 on Dec 20, 2019 15:20:02 GMT
Lots of positive comments from people around me at the screening I was at too.
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by BoOverall on Dec 20, 2019 17:27:15 GMT
Full cinema here, and a lot of positive chat after. A shame about that child eating a bag of Doritos loudly throughout: I would ban them from the cinema - children and crisps! 😀
I love the stage show and I enjoyed the film for what it was. There were some great turns by many, and the songs and orchestrations were glorious for the most part.
I rather enjoyed James Cordon camping it up but for me Rebel Wilson stood out for the wrong reasons (I would have made her walk that plank!) and the whole Jennanydots number fell flat for me: with a stronger performer it might have worked well. (And those mice were freaky!)
Loved Memory, esp when it got to “that bit”: that was glorious. I felt the Heavyside Layer ascension was a bit naff: too much cutting away from it so that it lost any impact that for me that bit has in spades in the stage show.
|
|
182 posts
|
Post by tom on Dec 20, 2019 17:27:38 GMT
It wasn’t awful but it wasn’t good either. Some parts were good like skimbleshanks, some were just plain boring and overall I just feel it didn’t work. Such a shame as I love the show.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by crabtree on Dec 20, 2019 18:21:31 GMT
OK, so I am an animator and in the course of that have seen many strange characters and creations and bizarre worlds that I have happily accepted, so the 'cats' in Cats and their environment did not worry me, but I wish there had been some coherence about who wore clothes and shoes and wedding rings, and who did not, rendering them effectively naked, and who had bumps and lumps and who did not, and what the convention about being on two legs or four was. And the feet - many feet just didn't seem to have contact with the floor. Some of the CG faces reminded me of the notorious dog/man in the invasion of the body snatchers. The infamous lack of a plot did not worry me, and come on, there is a plot. There were some surprisingly effective sequences and some truly ghastly ones - mostly involving Rebel Wilson and James Cordon (when you have the beauty of TSEliot their adlibs are simply crass), and yes I was enormously moved by McKellen's Gus and Dench's Deuteronomy, but what I can't forgive is the absurd editing chopping up the dancing with little rhyme nor reason, and the frantic camerawork - we simply were not allowed to see what was going on clearly. That's possibly why the McKellen scene works as the camera sits and watches. Elsewhere the camera is so hyper., interrupting the movement of the dancers, so that any shape or structure of the dance was lost. Nor can I forgive the mice or the beetles. what the effing heck were they. And the literalness of the direction - leaves gathering at grizabella's feet, and so we have a shot of the leaves clumsily gathering at her feet. So what to make of it - not sure. some imaginative touches, but i'm not sure the 'world' and its' rules were thought through clearly. But heck I was moved on a couple of occasions, but never exhilarated by the dance as I should have been, thanks to the awful editing.
look at this film...
Note from admin, this video is scary. Proceed with caution.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Dec 20, 2019 22:45:32 GMT
I've just seen a series of tweets by one KevinTPorter and the audience look like they're having a whale of a time, rocky horror or what have you style.
|
|
134 posts
|
Post by Joseph Buquet on Dec 20, 2019 23:43:58 GMT
Just seen this in Bristol. A few thoughts: - I felt the reviews were on the whole unfair. Although not always for the right reasons, it was very enjoyable. Yes, some of the cats are clothed and some aren’t. One wears a wedding ring. One has nail varnish. Sometimes they disappear into thin air. But this isn’t the real world - the cats are singing and dancing, so if we can accept that, we can surely accept these other factors. - The worlds they’ve created - primarily London at night - are impressive, varied and atmospheric. - Like the stage show, it’s lacking a narrative (although they’re tried to create a bit more of one). People seemed to be able to get past this fact in the stage show, but can see it wouldn’t be for everyone. - Jennifer Hudson’s snot is as distracting as the reviews suggest. Highly unnecessary. - An audience member burped during the closing notes of Memory. This added a certain something to proceedings. - A LOT of missed opportunities when it comes to dancing. Cats is essentially a dance show, and it was extremely lacking in thrilling dance sequences. Before Cats, we had a trailer for In the Heights, and it looks like they’ve done a much better job in terms of set pieces. There were some things I really missed from the stage show from a dance perspective - like the acrobatics from MungojerrIe & Rumpleteazer - they were totally absent. - The orchestrations are excellent. Quite up-to-date. But I really didn’t enjoy the vocal arrangements. The mix seemed off. Sometimes there would be a harmony line which was really amplified for no apparent reason. And (presumably because of the way that Tom Hooper seems to favour ‘natural’ vocals), it wasn’t always on pitch. Some poor decisions from a vocal arrangement perspective - like giving Rebel Wilson practically all of the female vocal lines in the Gumbie Cat: I really missed the 1930s close harmony. - It was a bit grotesque at times - the cats often seemed to be rolling around in old food or milk. It’s a little revolting. - The cats are pretty horny in early scenes, which makes for uncomfortable viewing. The young couple next to us lost interest half way through and spent the second half practically having sex with each other (perhaps inspired by earlier scenes). - Judi Dench was enjoyable, but looked like the sun from the Teletubbies. And her Mr Tumnus legs were highly disturbing. - But nothing was as disturbing as Idris Elba’s cat body. Needs to be seen to be believed. - James Cordon was just as annoying as you would expect. Actually much more so. - The script is banal trite, with a constant stream of poor jokes. - Ian McKellan drinking water from a plate should never have been allowed to happen. - Race is a bit of an issue - the black actors play a criminal, a pimp and an ex-sex worker. - Victoria has been made into a central character, but not sure it works - she’s not very interesting. - Mr Mistoffeles - one of the few openly gay cats on the West End stage - is now a straight love interest. We weren’t sure how we felt about that! If you’re hesitating, GO! It’s fantastic, and its misgivings make it even more so  |
|
1,210 posts
|
Post by musicalmarge on Dec 21, 2019 4:07:40 GMT
The stage production of Cats the musical worked in the early 1980’s despite it being a dance ballet without a solid plot or real storyline. The new idea of “concept musical” and theatre based on production values alone (with a strong musical score yet a very thin narrative) won millions of fans around the world and as a piece of live theatre on the West End stage, it became a global success. THAT SAID...... almost 40 years later, the creative objective and idea behind this piece DOESN’T work on film and the theatrical suspension of disbelief needed by the audience in real life is smashed into a million pieces. It’s mainy due to the anthropomorphism (the way cats are imbued with human traits, emotions, or intentions). It really doesn’t work and is just plain arkward and weird; human hands, human noses and teeth? Eek... It looks like a creepy horror film and in short, what worked on stage sadly DOESN’T always carry over to the larger silver screen. Are the actors meant to be feline creatures or a strange alien hybrid of humans or not? I also thought the biggest cat-astrophy was the confusing situation of scaling; sometimes the cats looked small and other times large in comparison to everyday objects. I despise the continuous casting of James bloody Cordon, I hated the odd race cards being played (the black man is a crook and there were no asian cats), I disliked the Woke-tastic Old Deuteronomy being turned into a female I can’t sing Judi Dench (like the recent Poppa to Mama casting female controversy in Starlight Express the musical) and I hated that the average “speak singing” that according to Director Tom Hooper is better than professional musical talent. I also didn’t like Jennifer Hudson as Grizabella (I laughed out loud at her constant snotty nose), I thought the Gumbie Cat routine eating the cockroaches was horrible and the new song Beautiful Ghosts was just naff.. A wonderful and tragic attempt at a theatrical dance Andrew Lloyd Webber institution that fails at many levels and really, should never have been produced as a film in the first place. I DID like the use of poetry (which of course the show is based from), the delightful dancing (though shoot the person who decided NOT to use the original Gillian Lynne choreography) and thought some of the cinematography and colour palette scheme used looked affective at times.... BUT the claws are out from most with this attempt of a dizzying pussy show, and it’s a far from purrfect 4/10 from me. Tom Hooper needs to be whipped with a cat-o-nine tails and then put down and banned from doing movie musicals ever again. 😂 Meoww 🐾
|
|
5,820 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Dec 21, 2019 6:44:35 GMT
Don’t worry , he may not even get to make another film at all after this.
|
|
|
|
Post by anthem on Dec 21, 2019 9:42:55 GMT
I saw this last night. The cinema screen was probably 60% full. There was a group at the back who’d obviously booked to watch it for ironic reasons who chatted and howled most of the way through until they were told to shut up.
Overall, I thought it was quite enjoyable and parts of it were really good. Other parts were ludicrous and just bad.
The Good: Most of the leads were strong. The Jellicle Ball was great. The choreography, when we could see it, was excellent.
It sounds fantastic. I thought it was pretty to look at for the most part in terms of background and setting.
I really enjoyed Francesca Hayward, Jennifer Hudson, Ian McKellen, Steven McRae as Skimbleshanks, Laurie Davidson as Mistoffelees. I thought Judi Dench did a good job, though she’s obviously not the best singer.
Taylor Swift was surprisingly good.
The Bad: Rebel Wilson was not funny or entertaining. The CGI was too much. There were some bizarre moments like mewing and supposed cat behaviour which was hard to stomach. The mice and beetles were ridiculous.
Idris Elba’s eyes and body were distracting.
The narrative arc of a story isn’t really there and it’s hard to invest in it because it’s not clear what’s at stake.
Despite the above, I would happily still give it a three star rating. The twitter and negative review pile on is unseemly and in my view, unfair. As far as I’m concerned, if you know and love the show, you have a reasonable idea what you’re going to get. For some people, the idea of watching humans play cats for two hours is never going to be a runner.
The constant attempts to criticise it using bad cat puns are wearing thin fast. There’s enough merit in it for it to find an audience and I hope it does.
If you’re a musical theatre fan you’ll likely get something from it.
Go see it- it’s not quite the catastrophe you might be expecting.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Dec 21, 2019 10:29:33 GMT
DOESN’T work on film and the theatrical suspension of disbelief needed by the audience in real life is smashed into a million pieces. It’s mainy due to the anthropomorphism (the way cats are imbued with human traits, emotions, or intentions). It really doesn’t work and is just plain arkward and weird; human hands, human noses and teeth? Eek... It looks like a creepy horror film and in short, what worked on stage sadly DOESN’T always carry over to the larger silver screen. Are the actors meant to be feline creatures or a strange alien hybrid of humans or not? ...and I hated that the average “speak singing” that according to Director Tom Hooper is better than professional musical talent... I find it bizarre that any studio can accept Tom Hoopers butchering of the material and art form. His vision is "let's make everything as close to realistic humans in daily life" because only then audiences will understand it. Let's not use natural singing anymore, but instead let's speak/bleat in eachother's face because only then audiences will understand. Let's not embrace the fantasy element of soaring sung thoughts which is the definition of this art form, and let's switch all the time if a performer doesn't have the talent. Let's not embrace the fantasy element of cats having thoughts and stories, but instead make them look like people, because only then audiences can understand it and it's nicely raw and real. Real people that is. Wrong. The raw and realness in this material lies in the opposite. In embracing the fantasy. In not trying to make the sung dialoge try to sound spoken, because that makes it cringeworthy, and in not trying to make animals humans in suits. Stay away from realistic norms in musicals. Therefore live singing in musicals on screen is the worst thing you can do. There needs to be a separation between the real speaking world and the world of sung thoughts. Pre recorded tracks create that bridge, that essential separation in language versus sung thoughts, a non literal language. This art form on screen is per definition non literal. |
|
|
|
Post by crabtree on Dec 21, 2019 11:28:55 GMT
And isn't Bustopher jones meant to be dapper, the Brummell of cats. Cordon is many things but dapper he is not. In this film, he's just a slob.
|
|
|
|
Post by craig on Dec 21, 2019 11:45:49 GMT
DOESN’T work on film and the theatrical suspension of disbelief needed by the audience in real life is smashed into a million pieces. It’s mainy due to the anthropomorphism (the way cats are imbued with human traits, emotions, or intentions). It really doesn’t work and is just plain arkward and weird; human hands, human noses and teeth? Eek... It looks like a creepy horror film and in short, what worked on stage sadly DOESN’T always carry over to the larger silver screen. Are the actors meant to be feline creatures or a strange alien hybrid of humans or not? ...and I hated that the average “speak singing” that according to Director Tom Hooper is better than professional musical talent... I find it bizarre that any studio can accept Tom Hoopers butchering of the material and art form. His vision is "let's make everything as close to realistic humans in daily life" because only then audiences will understand it. Let's not use natural singing anymore, but instead let's speak/bleat in eachother's face because only then audiences will understand. Let's not embrace the fantasy element of soaring sung thoughts which is the definition of this art form, and let's switch all the time if a performer doesn't have the talent. Let's not embrace the fantasy element of cats having thoughts and stories, but instead make them look like people, because only then audiences can understand it and it's nicely raw and real. Real people that is. Wrong. The raw and realness in this material lies in the opposite. In embracing the fantasy. In not trying to make the sung dialoge try to sound spoken, because that makes it cringeworthy, and in not trying to make animals humans in suits. Stay away from realistic norms in musicals. Therefore live singing in musicals on screen is the worst thing you can do. There needs to be a separation between the real speaking world and the world of sung thoughts. Pre recorded tracks create that bridge, that essential separation in language versus sung thoughts, a non literal language. This art form on screen is per definition non literal. Couldn’t agree more. I do think Hooper got away with it in Les Mis, and Hathaway’s “I Dreamed A Dream” was very affecting. More often than not though, the live singing just seemed pedestrian and often unpleasant. People don’t just burst into song, so I don’t understand the desire to normalise it and bring it into the moment. The fantasy, the separation from the spoken word is the entire point of a musical. |
|
|
|
Post by crabtree on Dec 21, 2019 12:58:59 GMT
I wonder if they toyed with the idea of altering the pupils/irises of the characters. I'm looking at my own 'Bustopher jones' (actually Lord Marcus) here and he has no whites of the eyes at all and a very distinct iris. He's also looking at me wondering why I am looking at him somewhat differently today. Did some of the cats have a vague suggestion of a snub pink nose?
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Dec 21, 2019 12:59:29 GMT
It only seems to work in crying scenes. It was more like, ok she can't sing anymore because she's crying so hard, poor girl. Which still is a disconnect and even though she acted well in spite of song, the singing didn't really make sense anymore. In all other emotions the live bleating makes even less sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by crabtree on Dec 21, 2019 14:20:17 GMT
In view of Dame Judi's impossible high kick and her costume, the phrase 'all fur coat and no knickers' comes to mind. That could sum up the whole film really.
|
|
19,677 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Dec 21, 2019 17:35:31 GMT
Poll open
|
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Dec 21, 2019 17:47:54 GMT
In Hoopers defence...
I've never seen the stage show but wasn't Les Mis always performed with a huge pile of junk on the stage and people performing around/on said rotating pile of junk? So if someone was doing a solo it is just a person standing in front of a pile of junk singing?
The close-ups were done to bring the audience into the faces and emotions of the performers that people usually only see from varying distances with a lot of them not even able to see facial features. I don't get why it was a such a crime to do it that way when you are normally just watching someone stand in front of a pile of junk.
He also seemed to ditch that style halfway through when the revolution started. When 'the world' opened up, so did the shooting style. I honestly don't get why everyone got so butthurt about it. Is it very 'cinematic' way of doing it, maybe not, but during those moments there's nothing else going on in the scene anyways so what's the problem?
From 'memory' Cats is pretty much the same apart from the big dance numbers. So what is the big deal about the closeups when the only thing that's going on in the background is a heaps of cats laying on the ground in a junkyard? Ok the snot sounds gross, but I actually thought it worked well in Les Mis, apart from the horrendous singing by pretty much everyone involved.
Cats is very similar to Les Mis in the fact that a lot of the time (actually its ALL Cats is) it is single characters pleading their cases/telling their stories, so I don't see how that shooting style wouldn't work in the same way.
Film and theatre are two very different mediums. You may not like his style of doing it, but it certainly isn't 'wrong' in anyway and I completely understand why he does it.
Plus when it works it works very well.
|
|
1,481 posts
|
Post by steve10086 on Dec 21, 2019 18:01:17 GMT
Well I loved it!
No there isn’t a plot, there never was. There are plenty of movies with good stories, but also lots of Fast & Furious films! I can’t stand watching a 15 minute car chase, but I love watching a song & dance. I don’t care if the character singing the song has no further role in the film - it’s more entertaining to me than endless explosions in an action movie. I can’t be the only one.
Yes the cats have boobs, they have human hands, feet and teeth, some cats are just in their own fur while others wear fur coats on top. It’s just an upgraded version of the leotards and leg warmers from the stage show. They aren’t meant to be accurate cats - it’s actors stylised as cats! To me it’s just the extension of the original vision for the show. Valerie Eliot told Andrew Lloyd Webber that they were street cats, not cute Disney cats. ALW saw them as being in the style of Hot Gossip. I think that’s what they’ve done. Personally I’m not into cat boobs, but Idras Elba as a muscular cat.... woof!!! (probably should be purr!). And for some reason I’ve always found the character of Munkustrap very attractive.
I thought the music sounded great, although some of the singing wasn’t as good. I liked the ad-libs (usually something I hate). I had a tear in my eye during memory, a song I generally skip on most CDs.
Where else are you ever gonna see Sir Ian McKellen with cat ears, while Dame Judi Dench looks on, curled up in a cat basket?! Nowhere!!! Go see Cats!
|
|
4,962 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Dec 21, 2019 20:04:01 GMT
The dancing, is it actual actors filmed or animated? Ta!
|
|
651 posts
|
Post by greeny11 on Dec 21, 2019 20:13:06 GMT
Actual dancers - quite a lot of West End actors and ballet dancers were cast for the ensemble.
|
|
4,962 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Dec 21, 2019 20:19:00 GMT
Actual dancers - quite a lot of West End actors and ballet dancers were cast for the ensemble. Thanks |
|
86 posts
|
Post by woobl on Dec 21, 2019 22:59:57 GMT
Having heard how difficult Hooper was on Les Miserables with Camack, it’s not surprising this is not good - can you imagine him sparring with ALW every step of the way?!
|
|
