There are a lot of movies I could have done for this special effects movie marathon. However, these first three films I was set on talking about. King Kong was the film that pioneered a lot of special effect techniques, so I felt obligated to start with that one. Avatar was one of the biggest movies of the time, and it is getting a sequel, and Cats was one of the first times I've been privy to the discussion of Special Effects Films versus Fully Animated Films. I've probably heard the argument that movies like this should be completely animated pop up before, I mean this came out the same year as that awful Lion King remake, but my only reaction to takes like that was always to just shrug it off. I'm of the opinion that not everything that works in live-action will work in animation, especially a show that is as acrobatic and reliant on the performers as Cats is. If you've seen the 1998 version of Cats, you would know that Cats is a show that is very reliant on spectacle, lots of complicated dancing, tight choreography and high energy. You aren't watching Cats for the same reason you'd watch Les Misérables or Hamilton, you're watching Cats because it is a show, not just a performance.
I'll admit, I really liked the 1998 version of Cats, I like the music and I love the performances. So I was curious to go back to the 2019 version, as this was my introduction to the musical. I've seen references to the musical here and there, but until the movie came out I never actually watched any version of Cats. So, I decided to take this chance to watch this movie again and see if my initial impressions hold up. If I knew I was gonna write a review for this movie back when I first saw it, I would have done a first impressions. Actually, note to self, plan a review for Wonder Park in the future.
For any fans of the musical, or haters for that matter, this is unmistakably the story of Cats, sort of. The original musical does not really have much of a story, so the movie makes a few changes. They make Victoria the central focus character, which is both odd, but also makes some sense. Victoria is a minor character in the musical, I don’t think she is even named directly in the show, so it’s odd but it does give the filmmakers something of a clear slate to work with. We watch as Victoria gets introduced the the Jellicle Cats as they begin their Jellicle Ball, where Old Deuteronomy selects a Jellicle to be reborn. However, one Cat named Macavity is determined to be chosen and kidnaps the other contestants and eventually Old Deuteronomy, in this version played by Judi Dench, not a bad choice considering she is Cats alumni, but I do admit I like Ken Page in the '98 version better. The plot is weird because it is at its core, still the musical, but with some changes. Firstly, wasn't the idea that the audience was meant to be the focal point character? The one who was experiencing all of the action and being told about the different cats? I feel like they could have had some fun with this concept in the movie, like a Wayne's World or Deadpool kind of thing where they are always breaking the fourth wall and addressing the audience. They also add a bit of meat to the bones by giving each cat a reason they'd want to be chosen to start a new life, sort of, it's not really all that detailed and isn't even present in some cases, and they also try to make Macavity more of a threat by having him be more active in the story. They also add in a plot point where it is Victoria who convinces Grizabella to sing at the Jellicle Ball, which is an interesting interpretation of the original scene. Overall, I can't be too hard on the plot because the original musical is fairly bare in terms of plot. The plot of Cats is vague enough to really be open to interpretation, I've heard takes about it as a fable of sorts, about it being metaphorical and allegorical of human society, and about it just being a showy musical. They tried to add more meat to these bones, but the end result is... mixed.
A part of me really thinks, and I know I'm not alone on this, that the writers did not really understand the characters all that well. They made Jennyanydots, who in the musical seemed good natured and sort of motherly into a cat pun spewing fat joke. Bustopher Jones seemed more regal and respected in the musical where in this movie we just get another clownish fat joke. I'll give Jason DeRulo credit, he tried with Rum Tum Tugger, but this character in the musical is just effortlessly cool and Jason DeRulo just does not emit that kind of coolness, and I don't believe that Bombalurina was meant to be a part of Macavity's posse. However, all of them got off lightly, unlike my favourite character Mr. Mistoffelees. Who was hands down the coolest character in the musical just became a nervous and shy mess. The Cat that was so cool, Rum Tum Tugger, the Cat that breathes, oozes and gyrates coolness had respect for him, is barely recognizable here. On top of all of that, it was actually kind of hard to tell which cat was which, they all kind of looked the same. Yes, they had different coloured fur, but they all had similar patterns, similar levels of fluffiness, no real discernable features on any of them. I could barely tell that Munkustrap was supposed to be Munkustrap. Seriously, look at the 1998 version, you can see that there is variety to their coats and accessories, where in this movie, you can really only tell them apart because of the clothes they wear. It also doesn't help that the movie is dark, muddy and grungy, but to be fair, the '98 version was also somewhat dirty too, it's just they didn't have brown gels over the lights.
But again, plot and characters are not why you're seeing Cats, you are seeing Cats because it is a show, it is full of amazingly tight choreography and high energy music. Something I really admire of the musical is that they incorporated some rock elements into the musical score, which perfectly captured the mood of the songs. In this movie, they add a lot of Techno elements to some of the songs, which I don't actually think work. On top of that I feel like some of the performances are off, and part of this is because there is a noticeable difference between the way one performs on stage and the way one performs on screen, so getting a bunch of screen actors and record singers rather than stage performers just won't deliver the same kind of performance. Then again, it is possible that the timing of their delivery is just off, listening to "Mungojerrie and Rumpleteazer" in this movie just did not sound right to me, and I don't know how to explain it since I am not music savvy at all. I will give credit that there were some things about the music I liked, like in "Jellicle Songs for Jellicle Cats" towards the end where they start listing all the kinds of cats, they only have like one to two or so cats sing each part and I thought that was a cool idea, and there were some lyric changes I was fine with. "I might mention, Mungojerrie, Rumpleteazer, and Grittlebone."
As for the animation and choreography, well my impression of Cats was that it was always uncanny valley looking, so I kind of brushed that criticism off. Looking at this movie again, yeah the CG can be a bit weird looking. It is mostly noticeable with the mice and cockroaches, but sometimes the cats also look really fake, which kind of diminishes the value to the choreography. Because the cats are literally coated in CG I can't really tell if these moves were done by real people or done in CG, which begs the question why this wasn't entirely animated, like one incarnation of the film was meant to be, but then all the moves would be animated, which may actually take away from the experience, as part of the spectacle of Cats is the choreography, and because these actors already look completely animated, and probably were in some shots, I can't really be impressed by the movement. It also doesn't help that some of the more complicated moves, like in Mr. Mistoffelees' number, aren't present, so most of the song numbers are the Cats running around rather than doing any of the synchronized moves like in the musical. I really should try to let this movie stand on its own merits, but what does it really offer?
It offers subpar music, an attempt at a more fleshed out plot with mixed results, not very good visuals or choreography and all in all just a lot to be desired. So, this movie really sucks, eh? Like, worst picture of 2019 Razzie award winning sucks? In 2019? The year of The Lion King remake? The movie that took a beautiful and visually large movie, set in a beautiful and visually large part of the world and made it look muddy and unimpressive? The movie that actually took away things from the original but actually made the run time longer? You're seriously going to sit there and tell me that a mediocre at worst adaptation of a musical that not everybody even likes is worse than a movie that actively slapped the faces of animation fans and the people who worked on it? I hate The Lion King remake so much, but Cats 2019? Honestly, it doesn't make me as mad. I feel like they tried something, what they tried I have no idea, but they tried something. Sure, the CG is a bit uncanny, but I'll take awful CG in a mediocre movie than mediocre CG in an awful movie, and looking at the entire package, I wouldn't say this movie is awful. I will grant Cats this, when I first saw it, it did make me want to check out the original musical, so forgive me if I think the Razzies are about as full of trash as the Oscars. No, this is not a good movie, but I would be lying if I said it was one of the worst movies I've seen, really it's biggest crime is being a mediocre adaptation. It's not the Plan 9 From Outer Space kind of entertainingly bad, and it's not the Lion King 2019 kind of infuriatingly bad, it's just a mediocre kind of bad. I guess it also hurts a little that this was directed by Tom Hooper, who directed The King's Speech, which is my favourite movie of all time. So, while I don't recommend this, I can't say it's as bad as its reputation says. Take that for what it's worth.
No comments:
Post a Comment