Sexiest man alive Idris Elba disapparating in a poof of sparkles while yelling his own name like a pokemon is something only the medium of film could give us.
As a huge CATS fan, you got everything about the show. I wouldn't say the show itself is dumb, just weird. It's going to look weird to anyone. When I first watched CATS, I was overtaken by the spectacle of it, the adaptation from the poems, and how the whole thing got tied together, albeit loosely. It's just a strange play that has an even stranger framing device, and you really have to hunt down the plot. I like the comparison to Company, because it is kind of like these little windows into the lives of these cats during one event. On stage, the strangeness of them just talking about a cat in every song kind of works. You can't go to a fantastical location on the stage, and just have to listen to what they describe and imagine it. So, in the show, they build out Skimbleshanks' train, they wear mouse masks and cockroach costumes for Jennyanydots, and they have the benefit of seeing everything, but shifting your focus elsewhere. One of my favorite changes from the original run that I loved was having Jemima standing high up in the air singing to Grizabella in Memory. You get so focused on Grizabella that when Jemima starts singing, the stage (and vocal range) opens up. One thing I'm worried about with this movie is that I don't hear anyone talking about Jemima/Silibub, and she's such an important role in the show. Finally, with Old Deuteronomy's song "The Naming of Cats," you forgive it on stage because it's breaking the fourth wall, which is a very theater thing to do. When done in movies, it's often done for humor, so you can't really have a serious fourth wall break. Man, I love CATS a lot, so I was looking for a real theater perspective. Most people reviewing it start out saying "I haven't seen the show, never looked into it, and let's laugh at how weird this movie is!" It's nice to see someone saying "CATS is just weird, get over it, let's talk about why it's not working on screen."
@@lilacpenguin5329 Thanks for the rec. If y'all haven't had the chance, the poems that it's based on are fantastic. When I was little I had the book that included Gorey's drawings with each poem, and it's a masterpiece.
Tom Hooper was absolutely the wrong director to adapt CATS. They should've gotten someone like Julie Taymor, Paul Verhoeven, or Baz Luhrman, someone who can really lean into the absurdity inherent in the premise. In a perfect world, Ken Russell would've done an adaptation in the 80s. Can you imagine Oliver Reed, Vanessa Redgrave, Glenda Jackson, Richard Chamberlain, Ann-Margret and Judi Dench as oversexed cats rolling around in fur and makeup, high on catnip while breaking the R-rating?
Adapting Andrew Lloyd Webber is like adapting Stephen King. Sticking to the source material is great, until it’s not. And then it’s really, really not!
The decision to have Jason and Taylor sing in British accents... I just want everyone to apologize to Keanu and Wynona for criticizing their accents in Dracula.
@Stephen Murphy Um I wasn't talking about the stage version second I never claimed to know everything so you need to chill out. I didn't need to be called a jackass whatever monkey is up your ass pull it out please.
So Cats is one of my favorite musical and this review hits the nail on the head. The problem with this movie is it does a bad job of adapting the musical. Like I do think this could have worked had they not done the CGI. They look uncanny and odd. It's hard to enjoy the movie when they look so creepy. The movie lost it's magical and spark thanks to this bad choice to have the actors CGIed. And the changes they made didn't make sense either.
It's the same fucking thing, one just uses DIGITAL Makeup instead. Maybe I'm just more susceptible to CGI then the average person. I can stay in VR for hours and Horror games in VR are just NOPE cause my mind just believes that shit. Full confession I had no problem with Jar Jar Binks. My mind just accepts CGI. The Cats in this movie just don't look creepy to me. Seen the movie three times not and I'm going again on New Years Day. I like the movie. Plan to buy it on HD Blu-Ray if it reaches that format. It's a movie about Second chances when you break it down, who can't get behind that.
I love cats. What bothered me the most about the movie was that it added a lot of really dumb comedy into it, but then also still had super serious moments?? They should have stuck with the mystical weirdness and kept out the jokes for children. It felt like two movies together. The music was updated with these ugly disco feeling beats, when they should have kept it orchestral like it was. The dancing wasn't as good, or focused on. And when they danced and their tails moved I felt grossed out. I HATED that most of the cats were unnamed background cats, in the production every design has a name and some personality. They cut all the names out of the naming of cats, which is stupid as hell cause they could have used that to have some of the background cats actually named to Victoria instead of just her to them. A lot of reviews were like who the hell are all these cats?? And its like yeah I know them by costume but most of the designs in the movie were so plain to the point where I couldn't tell any of them apart. Anyway, I originally started this comment to tell you they say "Grizabella went with macavity" was why they shunned her. She went with him, and came back all sad and presumably abused, and wanted to be loved again. It turns implied reasons in the musical to direct reasons, which I liked. Overall?? It had promise but the delivery was subpar and confusing.
Oh, and I HATE that victoria touched Grizabella before she sings memory to them all. She is literally belting out "TOUCH MEEEE" when she was just touched like a minute ago. Yeah Victoria technically isn't the whole group of cats, I get that, but in the stage show they make it so clear that once one of them touches her she is accepted back. So it was bizarre for them to lessen that like they did. In my opinion, don't know if I was the only one.
For a 95 million dollar budget, it felt rushed and nearly every character felt 'off'. One of the biggest things I feel was missing was the inherent 'Englishness' of the initial concept. The characters were originally created from a very British perspective, and then adapted for the stage, by an Englishman. When you take that cultural background, and try and make it 'hip, modern and flashy-American', everything is off kilter.(For Simpsons fans, think 'Poochie') Characters like Jenny, and Skimbleshanks, for example, have a very loving nod to English adoration of a giant tabby who adorably teaches 'tatting' to mice, and the long-standing love of the British railway. There is simply no context exactly the same with Americans, which would match the source material, without changing even more details. Also, I hated the design work of the fur-suits. The musical design work had this width of fur across the cheeks, which really mimicked a cat's general head shape. The film version gave everyone such a skinny looking head, and that looked very same-y and ill-conceived. I grew up watching my Mom being a giant super-fan, hearing the album repeatedly, and well, this ain't it, sis. I myself, am not a super-fan, but I have always liked the overall feel of the production. I think this version is full of some talented people, being placed in a terrible screen musical, which focuses on all the wrong things-including aggressive quick-cut edits, losing all appreciation for the dance-work as well. It feels immature and contrived as hell.
I'm a theater kid turned old lady and I'll back you on the "'Cats' has always been dumb" thing. I'm sure I'd like "Memory" if it wasn't done to death when I was a kid. I remember loving the song "McCavity the Mystery Cat" when I was little, and it looks like that's the one Taylor Swift does. The poems the musical was based on are _wonderful._ The movie has cats with human boobs, and I just don't get it. Great review - thanks!
You seem to know a lot and you’ve definitely done your homework. But just to fill in the blanks of the Mungojerrie & Rumpleteazer song: The movie version uses it’s original London version before it got changed for Broadway and subsequent productions. I don’t know why they particularly chose this version over the later version. I could imagine that the original-London/movie version has more of a jazzy burglar/criminal feel to it, where the later version (also used in the filmed production) musically accentuates the fact that they are kids much more. It has a lighter tone to it. Both songs are practically the same length.
14:50 -- At the end they should have given her the Jellicle name "Sillabub", since Victoria is basically taking the place of that character in the movie.
hell yeah finally a review from someone like me who actually already knows the musical. to enjoy cats you already have to sort of accept the weirdness and with that, the movie isn’t horrible it just sucks as an adaptation.
The things that made the stage musical special were the costumes/makeup and the dancing, creating a whimsical world that you know isn't real but you buy into it....because, as you said, it's live theatre. (Notwithstanding the problematic plotlessness of it). In the movie, the cool costumes and makeup is replaced by CG fur. And because the fur is CG'd, the movement now appears CG'd. All the dancing looks fake! What is the point of hiring world class dancers if the human element of the dancing is completely stripped away. Perhaps this is my bias, being a dancer, but that ruined all the dancing for me which is a main feature of Cats after the singing and music.
It's good that you know theater, because you make very good points about how movies are a very different medium than theater, and how some powerful decision-makers in Hollywood obviously don't recognize that. It's the same issue I have with live action or CGI remakes of classic animated films, like The Grinch or Dumbo: There are some things -- like flying elephants or Dr Seuss' totally surreal universe -- that you can accept in traditional-style 2D animation that you just can't in the big-screen realism of live-action and CGI. Same, I think, with CATS.
I really, really wish they'd gone with animation like they'd planned in the 90s, even if Spielberg was no longer involved in the project. Not only would it have eliminated that weird hybrid look (and the concept art you can find online is gorgeous), there's just so much more you could DO with animation. Imagine the lead-in to "Memory" where Grizabella is trying to dance as she once did. Imagine, as she tries to do the old steps with her frail, injured body, seeing the ghostly figure of her old, glamorous, vigorous self, doing the dance steps perfectly. (Sort of like Sondheim's Follies with animated cats.) Imagine Griz singing "Memory" with impressionistic, semi-transparent animation of her better days overlaid over her dreary, grimy life of the present...
I haven't seen the 2019 film version yet, but it looks like most material was kept in with the exception of one of the versions of The Ballad of Billy McCaw (the opera or the bar song from the original London show. And I think it was a good cut, since no one wants to hear an opera song in this jazzy pop opera. The other version of Ballad of Billy McCaw would be enough to up the rating to PG 13 since it's a song about a cat's friendship and comraderie with his drinking buddies, which would be even more cognitively estranging. Even during the 1980's, the whole section with Growltiger with the Ballad if Billy McCaw went under some changes. In London, the ballad had the drinking version of The Ballad of Billy McCaw. When it came to Broadway after London, the producers thought that an aria would be more acceptable. Instead of renaming it accordingly, they just left the old name in. In either the London or Broadway, there are some altered lyrics after the ballad in Growltigers story "Abandoning their Sampans, their pullaways, their junks, They battened down the hatches on their crew within their bunks " I have both versions on CD but I don't have the CD on me to tell you if this came from London or Broadway, but I do know that after the ballad, the London lyric says "then Gilbert gave the signal, " rather than "then Genghis gave the signal to his fierce Mongolian horde." All I remember was that the narrator/singer during this section sounded very racist talking with his over the top high voice that really doesn't sound like an Asian person but a person making fun of am Asian person. Besides that, the message of Growltiger is negative as the lyric clearly states that his "But most to cats of foreign race his hatred had been vowed To cats of foreign name and race, no quarter was allowed The Persian and the Siamese regarded him with fear Because it was a Siamese had mauled his missing ear" As you can see Growltiger is clearly racist against Siamese cats and both London and Broadway lyrics state this. And since having a racist cat would serve no purpose in a G or even PG 13 film without historical context, it would negate positive messages about race and differences. Additionally, T.S Elliot, the original poet, clearly held strong urges against Asians. In the original Growltiger poem (not the musical), it uses the word "chink." Even though Sir Lloyd Webber cut this bad word, the song still has a strong racist undertone. And that's why it doesn't belong the film. I haven't seen the 2018 film yet, but I'm thinking they CUT all the stiff about the Siamese, benching leaving no context to why Growltiger was forced to walk the plank. No, it was not McCavity that pushed him off. It was the Siamese leader in the stage version. The film made that part up about McCavity pushing him off the plank. Should we all now go with pitchforks to protest the negative message? It's not necessary. If you just see it as one of Gus' roles in his cat life and it's just a bunch of pirates fighting each other. Besides, changing poems without an authors consent is kind of illegal. And if you saw the Broadway Version or a national tour in the 1990s, you would clap during the Aria (inappropriately titled The Ballad of Billy McCaw). Some time after the late 1990s, both versions of Ballad of Billy McCaw were cut in favor for Growltiger's last Stand Including The Awful Battle of the Peeks and the Pollicles. If you haven't figured who they are, they are dogs in the world of Cats. In this song, it includes the introduction of The Great Rumpus Cat who is TRUE NIGHTMARE FUEL on STAGE. He wears a latex or leather body outfit with RED EYES and black wings. That cat is scary. Hence, the whole Growltiger section has had gone through some minor changes. But even of they put in The Awful Battle of the peeks and The Pollicles, it we old just make the whole audience "bark bark bark bark, until you heard them all over the park (theatre)." Although the Peeks and the Pollicles would tell more about the world of cats. But its lyrics are even cringey for me, and I love Starlight Express.
Elliot's Widow said he turned down WALT DISNEY cause he didn't want the characters to be cutey animated critters. Webber got the rights when he told her he wanted to do something like Hot Gossip and she Agreed. This is all from the Behind the scenes docs on the DVD release of the stage film. ruclips.net/video/CwIDbOqvoCA/видео.html
34:15 -- Originally there are two verses to "Old Deuteronomy" and no endless repetition of "Well of all things..." -- That version can be heard only on the Original London Cast recording, which in general preserves more of the original words from Eliot's poems, and has less of the repetitive choruses... One reason why I prefer it by and large to subsequent versions of CATS.
Such a perceptive, in depth review. Other reviews seem to just cut it to shreds without much thought or support of the opinion. You really know your stuff.
Yes, this is one of the best reviews on RUclips for this movie. Most RUclips reviews start off with "I have never seen the stage musical, I know nothing about the show, and I don't know what the (bleep) I am talking about." You go through the history of the show and how to convert a stage musical to film. This is what I expect, at a minimum, for a review. I learned something, even though I am a Cats fan who first saw the show on Broadway many years ago. Two songs were basically left out: "The Battle of the Peeks and the Pollicles," and "Growtiger's Last Stand" Somebody probably felt these songs were politically incorrect because they had negative Stereotypes about Siamese and Pekineses. First, the poems were written in 1939, so people were not as politically correct. Second, we are talking about Cats. They also truncated a number of the dance numbers, or left out the dance altogether. Taylor really did not dance and swing her hips like in the stage show. Mr. Mistophilles has the most challenging dance in the stage show, but in the movie -- no dancing. Mongo Jerry and Rumpleteezer has one of the best dances in the stage musical, but not so much in the film. I agree, that the celebrities should have been in the choir. This is particularly true for Bombalurina, who has a role in many of the songs. Taylor pops in and pops out, but really is not a part of the show. I don't think Cats is either dumb or weird. It's a children's story. T.S. Elliot wrote the poems for his godchildren to teach them lessons about death and life. I think we have to approach it much like we would approach the Wizard of Oz, the Nutcracker, Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, and other children's fare.
This review is a fair opinion. It is really a DANCE show! I think they did show it in magical place! I loved it being in London! Loved live actors. The CGI being realistic is a new bold choice SAD it didn't go over! I loved it!!!! Your best line is "If you have seen Cats then you know yep This is what Cats is!!!! But so Where are all the people who get itand LOVED it! The opening parallels the opening of the play! her real cat name CAN NOT BE SAID!!!!!!!
17:25 -- As a CATS fan, I concede you raise a good point here -- With a few exceptions like Gus, I think a problem with the show is that often T.S. Eliot's whimsical verses get lost in all the dancing and theatrics. Which maybe is why I generally prefer to just LISTEN to the cast recordings rather than watching the show or video. (Fun fact: Webber originally conceived CATS as an unstaged concert piece for children -- Maybe it was better off that way.)
Excellent analysis Emily! I love the poems, played some of the music for my daycare kids (and they loved it), but I’m a little apprehensive about the movie despite the good singing.
14:44 Actually what's weird is apparently these cats think Victoria is too normal a name for a cat but Gus is a-okay 20:36 That was my problem with Jennifer Hudson's casting. She tried her damndest, don't get me wrong, but the character is supposed to be old and, even as a CGI scary looking cat, Jennifer Hudson still looks young and glamorous. I never get the sense she's "old" at all, especially when Ian McKellen and Judi Dench are in the same movie. Couldn't they have gotten someone whose actually old and can sing just as well as Jennifer? 34:37 I don't know about that. My theater was practically empty, except for a couple other people. Granted I saw it at 10:15 in the morning but, looking up twitter, I wasn't alone.
MrAspiringactor: Thank You! I said the same about Jennifer Hudson and I think the same of Judi Dench's look. Ellen Paige who played "Grizabella" in the London production and Ken Page who played "Old Deuteronomy" on Broadway, both looked like haggard , battle weary old cats! Jennifer looks very young and Judi looks like she's ready for a night on the town in a new fur coat!
@@2004mojo I will say, though, that Betty Buckley and Leona Lewis also looked way too young to be Grizabella so it is a bit normal to have a young person playing the character
They should go back to using mostly the Broadway and West End actors like they use to back in the 60s and go back to making them less than 10 years out from the original stage premiere.
Critics: This is the most ungodly, plotless, weird yet somehow successful musical that could ever exist! Me: Clearly you've never seen Starlight Express.....
Hence my whole discussion about the ability to adapt for the screen. They most creative thing they could come up with was changing a junkyard into an abandoned theatre.
I'm sure someone mentioned it by now, but Mungojerrie and Rumpleteazer's song is apparently the original London version or something, but I hate it hahah I feel like the 1998 movie version does hold notes longer [or whatever] but it feels faster cause in this version they're kinda sneakily whispering it, and that to me- while fitting the "we're sneaking" motif- makes the song d r a g o n. I feel like the 1998 stage play movie version was fun and energetic because the characters are fun and energetic, they sing it passionately and proudly, like they're proud to be so good at stealing and stuff.
I think you are right about everything. Everything you pointed coincide with my perspective of the movie . I dont think they had freedom to make a good movie either. Good honest review.
Loved your "Cats" review! That's all right on not getting the historical dates right on the Broadway versions! Maybe you had "Cats In Your Belfrey" when you did that! If the cats were waiting for one cat to lead them in their next life,does that mean there could be 8 sequels to "Cats"! That premise sounds scarier than Steven King's "Pet Cemetery"! I will leave you with this... Your review was: "The Cat's Meow"! And "It Was Picture Purrfect"!
Here's the thing, all the actors weren't even wearing mocap. They were just wearing regular ass clothes that were easy to CG over. They couldn't even be bothered to wear mocap suits. Also, this movie is currently TANKING in the box office. No one is bothered to watch this movie.
Nothing about Cats was easy for the animators/effects team. Mocap suits on everyone, or at the very least a couple of tracking marks on the actor's clothes, would have been a great help. As it was shot, it is an impossible amount of work, hence the unfinished nature of some elements.
the question to ask is which type of musical Cats is, as you discussed > one that can be transitioned unchanged > one that requires revision to work the 1998 film version basically used the single stage set and members of a couple productions the 2019 film uses an expansion of Victoria's role to give it what little plot it has. as you put it, she is the audience's surrogate within the film. I know the actors in the 2019 Cats are actors -- they are just in better, more seamless, costumes than the stage version .. being able to see the actor's body inside the 'digital fur' ( one of the criticisms ) actually helps me suspend disbelief Victoria expresses her sadness and regrets about her short life in "Beautiful Ghosts" .. "you at least have memories to look back in" the shunning of Grizabella seems about the same as in the musical -- from what I've read .. I just finished another RUclipsr review of the 1998 film, pointing out some of the sexual moments from dance routines, background actions and the actors acting 'catty" -- so don't tell me it wasn't there already. e,g, Rum Tum Tigger is practically nothing but sex .. is seeing human toes. hands, faces within the digital effects really that different from seeing similar in stage shows? unitards and leg warmers? actually the reverse is one thing that threw me in the film .. tennis shoes on Le Twins, Macavity's coat, Meffistofeles' hat, vest and wand .. human things on "cats" .. they built complete sets to cat scale .. the junkyard, the square, lion statue, Jennyanydots' kitchen, the theater, the house Rumpleteazer and Mungojerry rifle through
Honestly, I did not want to see this film, but now I want to see it purely to see Idris Elba say "Macavity!" and disappear. That alone makes it worth it.
I definitely like Idris Elba's treatment better than "Canon" -- Macavity is supposed to be "The Napoleon of Crime" (a reference to Sherlock Holmes' description of Moriarty), so it makes sense that he looks like a gangster rather than some sort of feline Lord Voldemort.
one of the strangest changes in my opinion was... everything they did with mistoffelees??? ik you liked it and thats fine but to me it's a really weird change, they basically made him a spineless nice guy to throw in as a love interest for victoria, when in the original stage play he has a sassy personality and is definitely more sure of himself. They also completely removed any connection of him with rum tum tugger which was also weird to me but,,, w/e i guess. the whole movie is kind of. just odd.
i've heard this complaint a lot from folks who know the show better than I. It didn't bother me, but I've come to learn why it bothers folks a lot. And I get it.
The film's version of "Mungojerrie and Rumpleteazer" is actually the melody they used in the original London production, before it came to Broadway. I'm not sure WHY they changed it.
If they adapt Hamilton, they can add in Ben Franklin. He was in an early draft, but he was cut because Miranda didn't want to cross the sea for both the King AND for Franklin/Jefferson/Adams. It pulled too much focus. In the US, they mostly just interacted at the Constitutional Convention. If they adapt it to the screen, they can add a whole section from the line "I was chosen for the Constitutional Convention" The story of Hamilton before, during, and after the Convention is actually fascinating and almost none of it is in the play (except a quick part about how many Federalist papers he writes). But it involves a lot of characters with too little screen time to warrant being cast for 8 shows a week.
It's five Andrew Lloyd Weber film adaptions; there's also Love Never Dies. I don't blame you for pretending it never existed. That's probably the best way to treat it. :-)
@@StealingFocus seen it know, i just love it, you where all right, its a train wreck, and it was so fun. Going to get the bluray, all my friends going to suffer.
I mean...this movie's plot makes about as much sense as Rocky Horror Picture Show...and that's a cult classic, so...EH. I think it's supposed to be more about the existential meanings hidden behind the whole thing than being invested in any kind of story. It's a psychedelic fantasy piece. Just leave it at that.
No she is not. She is a background cat who was chosen to do a solo and pas de deux because she is one of the hardcore dancers in the musical. She does not speak. She just happens to appear front and center in a lot of the dances. And I think her job was dance captain for many years. I don't know if she still does that.
The translation to cinema has been pursued along visual lines by refining what stage costumes aspire to but only CGI can achieve and by sequencing sets beyond the reach of even the most deeply bankrolled Broadway theater. Yet, the overall piece is confined, as Cats always has been in the theater, to a recitation in music of T.S. Eliot's whimsical book. The talent summoned for this production have all the attributes needed to make their characters come alive. This is particularly true for Victoria whose closeups are as telling as her ballet. The audio is muddy, but that might be something that future releases would clean up. The film adaptation does have a midnight cult classic feel to it. Stay tuned.
I think honestly Sunset Boulevard is a musical that could work as a movie. You'd have to adapt it to fit, but it has a solid plot and some really could theme that a capable director could explore! They'd better get on that before Glenn Close can't do it anymore ;-) But I feel like Cats was doomed from the start, I don't see any version where this would have worked, other than maybe as an animated fantasy thing.
The film Sunset Boulevard (1950) starred William Holden & Gloria Swanson. No, a remake will never do the original film justice but lord knows with the awful remakes we've had in the last 20 yrs it wouldn't shock me to hear it's next. But it would scare me!
It’s not really bad it’s Cats. Movie people don’t get theater. But the movie producers and director made weird choices and confused the two mediums. The musical is better, still weird but better.
Sooooo about Mungojerrie and Rumpleteazer song. I’m pretty sure that that’s how the song went in the original London show. Andrew Lloyd Webber may have wanted it back to the way he originally composed it. Or maybe your right in them using it to speed up. Time. I don’t know if anyone pointed that
Bustopher and Jenny aren't really in the chorus in the stage show either. Jenny sings Bustopher's song but that's pretty much it. They were using that plot point to explain why they're gone in the other numbers. In the show, Bustopher runs offstage because Macavity shows up. They were just trying to build a plot around the things that happen, which I thought was pretty clever.
Just a quick FYI regarding mungojerrie and rumpleteazer, the quick tempo version that they used in the movie is actually the original song from the 1981 london cast recording. Don't know why they switched to that one, since whatever time it gains in tempo it loses in the extra verse, so....
@@StealingFocus Also a filmed version of the stage show Cats was done in 1998 with performers from the British cast and Ken Page from the Broadway cast. . So there was no reason for this!
@@StealingFocus The 1999 Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat with Donny Osmond and Maria Friedman wasn't just a someone recording the stage musical. There are some special effects --- for example, as part of the framing device, the children's choir in are the audience at a school assembly, and then at several points, they run into the action and their colors become super saturated, a bit like how Wizard of Oz transitions from b/w into color. So what might be considered a "proper film" is a bit of a grey area. For example, the film of phantom is pretty close to the musical; sure, there are some film-like shots, such as dive through the crack into the Phantom's scalp (yelch), but there are similar film-like shots in the 1999 Dreamcoat movie (for example, when Joseph is falling into the prison). The 1998 Cats movie is also borderline; is it a "proper film", or is it just a filmed stage musical put on a screen? Both didn't have much adaptation from the Musical version to the filmed version, sure.
FWIW, I love CATS, but otherwise I'm not partial to AL Webber. I like Norma's three big songs in "Sunset Blvd", but I think that's only because Elaine Paige is so brilliant at "selling" them.
They used the original version of Mungojerry and Rumpleteazer which IMO is much better because it has more a Macavity sound to it, which makes sense bc when they first appear in the play, everyone thinks Macavity is coming and it's just them fooling everyone. But I heard their performance was bad, I couldn't see it yet but that would be a shame.. =( (You can listen to it for free on Amazon Prime, it is not a changed or messed up version, it is the first version)
The journey you went on girl. Damn. Funny I discovered this channel because of your review of the great TICK TICK BOOM. To say TTB is better than Cats...... understatement of the century.
I think it's funny that theater people, real CATS fans (like me) and non fans don't know what the hell is going on in this movie. We are all equally confused. I've loved CATS since the '80's and I thought this show was a nightmare. - On a completely different note, I've never seen your videos before but you remind me of Reese Witherspoon. Don't know if anyone has ever told you that but, yea the whole time I was listening to this and laughing that's what I was thinking.
Cats are not dumb and I love them ;) But the theatre musical I didn't like it... bunch of people dressed as cats dancing... it was so disappointing. I've seen some musicals and loved it. Lion King on stage, for instance, is brilliant. Thank you for the review.
Very insightful and entertaining! I love Cats, however dumb it is -I mean the stage show, not the movie. I haven't even seen the movie. I guess I'm a year late with that too, not just with this comment. :D
I for one think that the movie is a masterpiece, it's unique and entertaining. The artists did a really great job portraying as CATS and everything on the set is related to CATS.... well this movie is about CATS after all. Don't listen to critics to blow up your plans about watching the movie. Critics will always be critics and will keep on seeing the bad thing about something. So just give it a chance you guys. You'll love it.
I understand that some of musicals are hradly trasforminf into movies. But I'll give you an example. HAIR stage musical. It's in some way similar to Cats. It has no plot as well. It's just a chain of songs. Milos Forman transfomed it into a movie with a plot. In time odf a premiere it was strange for critics even people. Nowdays everybody love it.
I have a feeling this will be the new "Rocky Horror", in that it becomes a cult classic that everyone loves to play along with while screaming hilarious callback lines during the ridiculous plot.
Mongojery song - It's not different from stage version. It's different from movie verson 1998. I's original melody.. And related to cats scale - they are not cats. There are jellicle cats - Jellicle cats are small - the song before a ball.
I went to see it and I liked it. I liked the adaptation for film, did not think the CGI was out of whack. Enjoyed the performances of the actors. I would see it again. I'm not saying it's a world mover, but, it was entertaining and I can think of many other films more worthy of the disdain that this film has received.
I need to know. How many people became apoplectic when you said "Andrew Lloyd Webber" and "Les Misérables" in the same sentence? Because I think I know you weren't making a mistake but categorizing.
I always thought in the show that Tugger had an unrequited crush on Mister Mistoffeles. This movie making Victoria a romantic conquest is... kinda icky? Like it shows me that Tom Hooper not only missed the subtle misogyny of the poems/ the musical but decided that the movie needed more of it
Did you see the concept art that Luc Desmarchelier (who did visual development for Shrek, Hotel Transylvania, and some Tim Burton movies) did for an animated Cats movie? Theres concept art for Macavity, Old Deuteronomy (who, in one of the photos, is seen with Victoria and Jemima who ACTUALLY look like kittens!!), Mr. Mistoffelees, and Grizabella. The movie would've been directed by Steven Spielberg. STEVEN SPIELBERG!!! Imagine Cats- an animated movie directed by Steven Spielberg (who directed the upcoming West Side Story movie!!!). It would've been so good and would have been a great adaptation for Cats. I bet he'd find a really great plot and some really great stars to cast in it. But no. We got shitty CGI Tom Hooper Cats. Im pissed.
As a hardcore fan, this should never have been adapted to the screen. The movie adds unnecessary stupid plot and changes characters. Unless...what do you think of filming it like a rehearsal ? There was a brilliant film called "Vanya on 42nd St." People coming out of the subway go into a coffee shop or restaurant. They then proceed to read the parts of "Uncle Vanya"... Having said that, "Cats" still does not belong on the screen; it needs to be experienced first hand.
I wish it were entirely animation without live-action body involvement. Not enough quirky, arty, adult stuff is done in mainstream animation and it would incorporate everything done before, while still being able to be its own thing and innovating. Cats is really a romp through the imaginative theme of how cats would express themselve of they were at least as smart as people, so it's a shame not to go all animated and let the freak flag fly in a world where exaggerated and aestheticized movement and overblown story are so free to flow. There was a lack of courage to start with a blank visual slate and draw influences in, rather than cut-and-paste the stage onto the screen. Meanwhile, the only big attempt to involve animation, the digital fur, feels like an attempt to be fancy in a way too-often repeated with 3D animation for no truly good reason except that it can be done. This is even worse, given that the result are so obviously not working visually.
Did they have free drink at the showing, Emily? ;) 29:52 - More like a Razzie from the sound of it. This whole movie sounds like a shoe-in for the Razzies.
what is so cool about cats? Should've heard the bird screaming it's head off as a cat pulled it out of a tree and dragged it down the way. PS cool the beer well and it wont froth everywhere
Sexiest man alive Idris Elba disapparating in a poof of sparkles while yelling his own name like a pokemon is something only the medium of film could give us.
It's. A. GIFT.
Which is why the film industry must be razed.
As a huge CATS fan, you got everything about the show. I wouldn't say the show itself is dumb, just weird. It's going to look weird to anyone. When I first watched CATS, I was overtaken by the spectacle of it, the adaptation from the poems, and how the whole thing got tied together, albeit loosely. It's just a strange play that has an even stranger framing device, and you really have to hunt down the plot. I like the comparison to Company, because it is kind of like these little windows into the lives of these cats during one event. On stage, the strangeness of them just talking about a cat in every song kind of works. You can't go to a fantastical location on the stage, and just have to listen to what they describe and imagine it. So, in the show, they build out Skimbleshanks' train, they wear mouse masks and cockroach costumes for Jennyanydots, and they have the benefit of seeing everything, but shifting your focus elsewhere. One of my favorite changes from the original run that I loved was having Jemima standing high up in the air singing to Grizabella in Memory. You get so focused on Grizabella that when Jemima starts singing, the stage (and vocal range) opens up. One thing I'm worried about with this movie is that I don't hear anyone talking about Jemima/Silibub, and she's such an important role in the show. Finally, with Old Deuteronomy's song "The Naming of Cats," you forgive it on stage because it's breaking the fourth wall, which is a very theater thing to do. When done in movies, it's often done for humor, so you can't really have a serious fourth wall break. Man, I love CATS a lot, so I was looking for a real theater perspective. Most people reviewing it start out saying "I haven't seen the show, never looked into it, and let's laugh at how weird this movie is!" It's nice to see someone saying "CATS is just weird, get over it, let's talk about why it's not working on screen."
@@lilacpenguin5329 Thanks for the rec. If y'all haven't had the chance, the poems that it's based on are fantastic. When I was little I had the book that included Gorey's drawings with each poem, and it's a masterpiece.
Tom Hooper was absolutely the wrong director to adapt CATS. They should've gotten someone like Julie Taymor, Paul Verhoeven, or Baz Luhrman, someone who can really lean into the absurdity inherent in the premise. In a perfect world, Ken Russell would've done an adaptation in the 80s. Can you imagine Oliver Reed, Vanessa Redgrave, Glenda Jackson, Richard Chamberlain, Ann-Margret and Judi Dench as oversexed cats rolling around in fur and makeup, high on catnip while breaking the R-rating?
Adapting Andrew Lloyd Webber is like adapting Stephen King. Sticking to the source material is great, until it’s not. And then it’s really, really not!
Good point.
The decision to have Jason and Taylor sing in British accents... I just want everyone to apologize to Keanu and Wynona for criticizing their accents in Dracula.
I'm confused. Most British singers I know of have a totally English accent when they sing!
@Stephen Murphy yes! but they weren't the best so critics dragged them
@Stephen Murphy Yeah, you didn't see the movie? If you didn't check it out Keanu's British accent is so 👎
@Stephen Murphy Um I wasn't talking about the stage version second I never claimed to know everything so you need to chill out. I didn't need to be called a jackass whatever monkey is up your ass pull it out please.
Oh my God, I was just saying this yesterday lol. I would argue her accent is about as inconsistent as Kevin Costner's in Robin Hood.
So Cats is one of my favorite musical and this review hits the nail on the head. The problem with this movie is it does a bad job of adapting the musical. Like I do think this could have worked had they not done the CGI. They look uncanny and odd. It's hard to enjoy the movie when they look so creepy. The movie lost it's magical and spark thanks to this bad choice to have the actors CGIed. And the changes they made didn't make sense either.
It's the same fucking thing, one just uses DIGITAL Makeup instead. Maybe I'm just more susceptible to CGI then the average person. I can stay in VR for hours and Horror games in VR are just NOPE cause my mind just believes that shit. Full confession I had no problem with Jar Jar Binks. My mind just accepts CGI. The Cats in this movie just don't look creepy to me. Seen the movie three times not and I'm going again on New Years Day. I like the movie. Plan to buy it on HD Blu-Ray if it reaches that format. It's a movie about Second chances when you break it down, who can't get behind that.
I love cats. What bothered me the most about the movie was that it added a lot of really dumb comedy into it, but then also still had super serious moments?? They should have stuck with the mystical weirdness and kept out the jokes for children. It felt like two movies together. The music was updated with these ugly disco feeling beats, when they should have kept it orchestral like it was. The dancing wasn't as good, or focused on. And when they danced and their tails moved I felt grossed out.
I HATED that most of the cats were unnamed background cats, in the production every design has a name and some personality. They cut all the names out of the naming of cats, which is stupid as hell cause they could have used that to have some of the background cats actually named to Victoria instead of just her to them. A lot of reviews were like who the hell are all these cats?? And its like yeah I know them by costume but most of the designs in the movie were so plain to the point where I couldn't tell any of them apart.
Anyway, I originally started this comment to tell you they say "Grizabella went with macavity" was why they shunned her. She went with him, and came back all sad and presumably abused, and wanted to be loved again. It turns implied reasons in the musical to direct reasons, which I liked.
Overall?? It had promise but the delivery was subpar and confusing.
Oh, and I HATE that victoria touched Grizabella before she sings memory to them all. She is literally belting out "TOUCH MEEEE" when she was just touched like a minute ago. Yeah Victoria technically isn't the whole group of cats, I get that, but in the stage show they make it so clear that once one of them touches her she is accepted back. So it was bizarre for them to lessen that like they did. In my opinion, don't know if I was the only one.
For a 95 million dollar budget, it felt rushed and nearly every character felt 'off'. One of the biggest things I feel was missing was the inherent 'Englishness' of the initial concept. The characters were originally created from a very British perspective, and then adapted for the stage, by an Englishman. When you take that cultural background, and try and make it 'hip, modern and flashy-American', everything is off kilter.(For Simpsons fans, think 'Poochie') Characters like Jenny, and Skimbleshanks, for example, have a very loving nod to English adoration of a giant tabby who adorably teaches 'tatting' to mice, and the long-standing love of the British railway. There is simply no context exactly the same with Americans, which would match the source material, without changing even more details.
Also, I hated the design work of the fur-suits. The musical design work had this width of fur across the cheeks, which really mimicked a cat's general head shape. The film version gave everyone such a skinny looking head, and that looked very same-y and ill-conceived.
I grew up watching my Mom being a giant super-fan, hearing the album repeatedly, and well, this ain't it, sis.
I myself, am not a super-fan, but I have always liked the overall feel of the production. I think this version is full of some talented people, being placed in a terrible screen musical, which focuses on all the wrong things-including aggressive quick-cut edits, losing all appreciation for the dance-work as well. It feels immature and contrived as hell.
I'm a theater kid turned old lady and I'll back you on the "'Cats' has always been dumb" thing. I'm sure I'd like "Memory" if it wasn't done to death when I was a kid. I remember loving the song "McCavity the Mystery Cat" when I was little, and it looks like that's the one Taylor Swift does. The poems the musical was based on are _wonderful._ The movie has cats with human boobs, and I just don't get it. Great review - thanks!
You seem to know a lot and you’ve definitely done your homework. But just to fill in the blanks of the Mungojerrie & Rumpleteazer song: The movie version uses it’s original London version before it got changed for Broadway and subsequent productions. I don’t know why they particularly chose this version over the later version. I could imagine that the original-London/movie version has more of a jazzy burglar/criminal feel to it, where the later version (also used in the filmed production) musically accentuates the fact that they are kids much more. It has a lighter tone to it. Both songs are practically the same length.
then meh, i have no explanation.
What do Cat fans call themselves?
Jellicles.
pinkfeiry Obviously.
14:50 -- At the end they should have given her the Jellicle name "Sillabub", since Victoria is basically taking the place of that character in the movie.
There's actually already a character named "Sillabub"/"Syllabub" in the film, so Jemima would probably work better for Victoria.
hell yeah finally a review from someone like me who actually already knows the musical. to enjoy cats you already have to sort of accept the weirdness and with that, the movie isn’t horrible it just sucks as an adaptation.
The things that made the stage musical special were the costumes/makeup and the dancing, creating a whimsical world that you know isn't real but you buy into it....because, as you said, it's live theatre. (Notwithstanding the problematic plotlessness of it).
In the movie, the cool costumes and makeup is replaced by CG fur. And because the fur is CG'd, the movement now appears CG'd. All the dancing looks fake! What is the point of hiring world class dancers if the human element of the dancing is completely stripped away. Perhaps this is my bias, being a dancer, but that ruined all the dancing for me which is a main feature of Cats after the singing and music.
Victrizzlebizzle. This is now a thing I’ve heard.
It's good that you know theater, because you make very good points about how movies are a very different medium than theater, and how some powerful decision-makers in Hollywood obviously don't recognize that. It's the same issue I have with live action or CGI remakes of classic animated films, like The Grinch or Dumbo: There are some things -- like flying elephants or Dr Seuss' totally surreal universe -- that you can accept in traditional-style 2D animation that you just can't in the big-screen realism of live-action and CGI. Same, I think, with CATS.
I really, really wish they'd gone with animation like they'd planned in the 90s, even if Spielberg was no longer involved in the project. Not only would it have eliminated that weird hybrid look (and the concept art you can find online is gorgeous), there's just so much more you could DO with animation. Imagine the lead-in to "Memory" where Grizabella is trying to dance as she once did. Imagine, as she tries to do the old steps with her frail, injured body, seeing the ghostly figure of her old, glamorous, vigorous self, doing the dance steps perfectly. (Sort of like Sondheim's Follies with animated cats.) Imagine Griz singing "Memory" with impressionistic, semi-transparent animation of her better days overlaid over her dreary, grimy life of the present...
9:38 -- Cat: "Go away! I'm contemplating my Third Name!"
Macavity's song- "Macavity's a ginger cat, he's very tall and thin". Wait... "ginger cat..."? Hmmmm....
I haven't seen the 2019 film version yet, but it looks like most material was kept in with the exception of one of the versions of The Ballad of Billy McCaw (the opera or the bar song from the original London show. And I think it was a good cut, since no one wants to hear an opera song in this jazzy pop opera. The other version of Ballad of Billy McCaw would be enough to up the rating to PG 13 since it's a song about a cat's friendship and comraderie with his drinking buddies, which would be even more cognitively estranging.
Even during the 1980's, the whole section with Growltiger with the Ballad if Billy McCaw went under some changes. In London, the ballad had the drinking version of The Ballad of Billy McCaw. When it came to Broadway after London, the producers thought that an aria would be more acceptable. Instead of renaming it accordingly, they just left the old name in. In either the London or Broadway, there are some altered lyrics after the ballad in Growltigers story
"Abandoning their Sampans, their pullaways, their junks,
They battened down the hatches on their crew within their bunks "
I have both versions on CD but I don't have the CD on me to tell you if this came from London or Broadway, but I do know that after the ballad, the London lyric says "then Gilbert gave the signal, " rather than "then Genghis gave the signal to his fierce Mongolian horde." All I remember was that the narrator/singer during this section sounded very racist talking with his over the top high voice that really doesn't sound like an Asian person but a person making fun of am Asian person.
Besides that, the message of Growltiger is negative as the lyric clearly states that his "But most to cats of foreign race his hatred had been vowed
To cats of foreign name and race, no quarter was allowed
The Persian and the Siamese regarded him with fear
Because it was a Siamese had mauled his missing ear"
As you can see Growltiger is clearly racist against Siamese cats and both London and Broadway lyrics state this. And since having a racist cat would serve no purpose in a G or even PG 13 film without historical context, it would negate positive messages about race and differences. Additionally, T.S Elliot, the original poet, clearly held strong urges against Asians. In the original Growltiger poem (not the musical), it uses the word "chink." Even though Sir Lloyd Webber cut this bad word, the song still has a strong racist undertone. And that's why it doesn't belong the film. I haven't seen the 2018 film yet, but I'm thinking they CUT all the stiff about the Siamese, benching leaving no context to why Growltiger was forced to walk the plank. No, it was not McCavity that pushed him off. It was the Siamese leader in the stage version. The film made that part up about McCavity pushing him off the plank.
Should we all now go with pitchforks to protest the negative message? It's not necessary. If you just see it as one of Gus' roles in his cat life and it's just a bunch of pirates fighting each other. Besides, changing poems without an authors consent is kind of illegal. And if you saw the Broadway Version or a national tour in the 1990s, you would clap during the Aria (inappropriately titled The Ballad of Billy McCaw).
Some time after the late 1990s, both versions of Ballad of Billy McCaw were cut in favor for Growltiger's last Stand Including The Awful Battle of the Peeks and the Pollicles. If you haven't figured who they are, they are dogs in the world of Cats. In this song, it includes the introduction of The Great Rumpus Cat who is TRUE NIGHTMARE FUEL on STAGE. He wears a latex or leather body outfit with RED EYES and black wings. That cat is scary.
Hence, the whole Growltiger section has had gone through some minor changes. But even of they put in The Awful Battle of the peeks and The Pollicles, it we old just make the whole audience "bark bark bark bark, until you heard them all over the park (theatre)."
Although the Peeks and the Pollicles would tell more about the world of cats. But its lyrics are even cringey for me, and I love Starlight Express.
Apparently Steven Spielberg initially had the idea the make a completely animated CATS film adaption.
The concept art is online and it's gorgeous
That would have worked so much better!
Elliot's Widow said he turned down WALT DISNEY cause he didn't want the characters to be cutey animated critters. Webber got the rights when he told her he wanted to do something like Hot Gossip and she Agreed. This is all from the Behind the scenes docs on the DVD release of the stage film. ruclips.net/video/CwIDbOqvoCA/видео.html
34:15 -- Originally there are two verses to "Old Deuteronomy" and no endless repetition of "Well of all things..." -- That version can be heard only on the Original London Cast recording, which in general preserves more of the original words from Eliot's poems, and has less of the repetitive choruses... One reason why I prefer it by and large to subsequent versions of CATS.
Such a perceptive, in depth review. Other reviews seem to just cut it to shreds without much thought or support of the opinion. You really know your stuff.
I genuinely think this is what the people in birdbox saw
Best review of Cats I’ve seen yet. Great constructive criticism, and wonderful suggestions.
Yes, this is one of the best reviews on RUclips for this movie. Most RUclips reviews start off with "I have never seen the stage musical, I know nothing about the show, and I don't know what the (bleep) I am talking about." You go through the history of the show and how to convert a stage musical to film. This is what I expect, at a minimum, for a review. I learned something, even though I am a Cats fan who first saw the show on Broadway many years ago.
Two songs were basically left out: "The Battle of the Peeks and the Pollicles," and "Growtiger's Last Stand" Somebody probably felt these songs were politically incorrect because they had negative Stereotypes about Siamese and Pekineses. First, the poems were written in 1939, so people were not as politically correct. Second, we are talking about Cats.
They also truncated a number of the dance numbers, or left out the dance altogether. Taylor really did not dance and swing her hips like in the stage show. Mr. Mistophilles has the most challenging dance in the stage show, but in the movie -- no dancing. Mongo Jerry and Rumpleteezer has one of the best dances in the stage musical, but not so much in the film.
I agree, that the celebrities should have been in the choir. This is particularly true for Bombalurina, who has a role in many of the songs. Taylor pops in and pops out, but really is not a part of the show.
I don't think Cats is either dumb or weird. It's a children's story. T.S. Elliot wrote the poems for his godchildren to teach them lessons about death and life. I think we have to approach it much like we would approach the Wizard of Oz, the Nutcracker, Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, and other children's fare.
This review is a fair opinion. It is really a DANCE show! I think they did show it in magical place! I loved it being in London! Loved live actors. The CGI being realistic is a new bold choice SAD it didn't go over! I loved it!!!! Your best line is "If you have seen Cats then you know yep This is what Cats is!!!! But so Where are all the people who get itand LOVED it! The opening parallels the opening of the play! her real cat name CAN NOT BE SAID!!!!!!!
17:25 -- As a CATS fan, I concede you raise a good point here -- With a few exceptions like Gus, I think a problem with the show is that often T.S. Eliot's whimsical verses get lost in all the dancing and theatrics. Which maybe is why I generally prefer to just LISTEN to the cast recordings rather than watching the show or video. (Fun fact: Webber originally conceived CATS as an unstaged concert piece for children -- Maybe it was better off that way.)
Excellent analysis Emily! I love the poems, played some of the music for my daycare kids (and they loved it), but I’m a little apprehensive about the movie despite the good singing.
14:44 Actually what's weird is apparently these cats think Victoria is too normal a name for a cat but Gus is a-okay
20:36 That was my problem with Jennifer Hudson's casting. She tried her damndest, don't get me wrong, but the character is supposed to be old and, even as a CGI scary looking cat, Jennifer Hudson still looks young and glamorous. I never get the sense she's "old" at all, especially when Ian McKellen and Judi Dench are in the same movie. Couldn't they have gotten someone whose actually old and can sing just as well as Jennifer?
34:37 I don't know about that. My theater was practically empty, except for a couple other people. Granted I saw it at 10:15 in the morning but, looking up twitter, I wasn't alone.
Gus is short for Asparagus. ;)
I think more what they find odd is that Victoria has only one name rather than three, as a Jellicle Cat is supposed to.
MrAspiringactor: Thank You! I said the same about Jennifer Hudson and I think the same of Judi Dench's look. Ellen Paige who played "Grizabella" in the London production and Ken Page who played "Old Deuteronomy" on Broadway, both looked like haggard , battle weary old cats! Jennifer looks very young and Judi looks like she's ready for a night on the town in a new fur coat!
@@2004mojo I will say, though, that Betty Buckley and Leona Lewis also looked way too young to be Grizabella so it is a bit normal to have a young person playing the character
@@MrAspiringactor I never saw their performances but I wish I had. I have mad love for Ellen Page.
Rodgers & Hammerstein’s Cinderella 1997 is the only Cinderella I acknowledge
And I reviewed it!
K D - I have lived and I will die saying this. My coworkers are super annoyed but idgaf bc BRANDY, I mean...
sister antigone brandy was soooooo good. And Whitney Houston as fairy godmother cannot be topped I’m sorry 🤷🏽♀️ Whoopi as the queen!! Come on🙌🏽🙌🏽🙌🏽
They should go back to using mostly the Broadway and West End actors like they use to back in the 60s and go back to making them less than 10 years out from the original stage premiere.
Anyone else binge watching cats reviews- yet has no intention of going to watch it? Anyone?
The Lion King was one of 2 play I've seen where the best part was the costumes and that was a good thing. The other was the Scarlet Pimpernel.
Critics: This is the most ungodly, plotless, weird yet somehow successful musical that could ever exist!
Me: Clearly you've never seen Starlight Express.....
It's so funny, Starlight Express was SUCH a British thing, it doesn't really have the cultural impact over here. But I know about it, and hoo boy...
Very good explanation about the theatrical adaptations, my compliments Miss Emily! You sure have a lot of knowledge. Good review too!
"They couldn't be bothered to come up with any cool locations or interesting scenarios."
Well, yeah. Neither could ALW. After all, it's about cats.
Hence my whole discussion about the ability to adapt for the screen. They most creative thing they could come up with was changing a junkyard into an abandoned theatre.
This was certainly the kindest review of Cats without being a paid shill.
I'm sure someone mentioned it by now, but Mungojerrie and Rumpleteazer's song is apparently the original London version or something, but I hate it hahah
I feel like the 1998 movie version does hold notes longer [or whatever] but it feels faster cause in this version they're kinda sneakily whispering it, and that to me- while fitting the "we're sneaking" motif- makes the song d r a g o n. I feel like the 1998 stage play movie version was fun and energetic because the characters are fun and energetic, they sing it passionately and proudly, like they're proud to be so good at stealing and stuff.
I think you are right about everything. Everything you pointed coincide with my perspective of the movie . I dont think they had freedom to make a good movie either. Good honest review.
Loved your "Cats" review! That's all right on not getting the historical dates right on the Broadway versions! Maybe you had "Cats In
Your Belfrey" when you did that!
If the cats were waiting for one cat to lead them in their next life,does
that mean there could be 8 sequels to "Cats"! That premise sounds scarier than Steven King's
"Pet Cemetery"!
I will leave you with this...
Your review was:
"The Cat's Meow"!
And
"It Was Picture Purrfect"!
Here's the thing, all the actors weren't even wearing mocap. They were just wearing regular ass clothes that were easy to CG over. They couldn't even be bothered to wear mocap suits. Also, this movie is currently TANKING in the box office. No one is bothered to watch this movie.
yup. literally the first time in this musical's 40 year history that it has ever flopped. regular ass clothes be damned.
They obviously used mocap suits. Anyone saying otherwise is lying
Nothing about Cats was easy for the animators/effects team. Mocap suits on everyone, or at the very least a couple of tracking marks on the actor's clothes, would have been a great help. As it was shot, it is an impossible amount of work, hence the unfinished nature of some elements.
the question to ask is which type of musical Cats is, as you discussed
> one that can be transitioned unchanged
> one that requires revision to work
the 1998 film version basically used the single stage set and members of a couple productions
the 2019 film uses an expansion of Victoria's role to give it what little plot it has. as you put it, she is the audience's surrogate within the film.
I know the actors in the 2019 Cats are actors -- they are just in better, more seamless, costumes than the stage version
.. being able to see the actor's body inside the 'digital fur' ( one of the criticisms ) actually helps me suspend disbelief
Victoria expresses her sadness and regrets about her short life in "Beautiful Ghosts" .. "you at least have memories to look back in"
the shunning of Grizabella seems about the same as in the musical -- from what I've read
.. I just finished another RUclipsr review of the 1998 film, pointing out some of the sexual moments from dance routines, background actions and the actors acting 'catty" -- so don't tell me it wasn't there already. e,g, Rum Tum Tigger is practically nothing but sex
.. is seeing human toes. hands, faces within the digital effects really that different from seeing similar in stage shows? unitards and leg warmers? actually the reverse is one thing that threw me in the film .. tennis shoes on Le Twins, Macavity's coat, Meffistofeles' hat, vest and wand .. human things on "cats"
.. they built complete sets to cat scale .. the junkyard, the square, lion statue, Jennyanydots' kitchen, the theater, the house Rumpleteazer and Mungojerry rifle through
Honestly, I did not want to see this film, but now I want to see it purely to see Idris Elba say "Macavity!" and disappear. That alone makes it worth it.
It is SO worth it, I promise. But go with friends!
I definitely like Idris Elba's treatment better than "Canon" -- Macavity is supposed to be "The Napoleon of Crime" (a reference to Sherlock Holmes' description of Moriarty), so it makes sense that he looks like a gangster rather than some sort of feline Lord Voldemort.
one of the strangest changes in my opinion was... everything they did with mistoffelees??? ik you liked it and thats fine but to me it's a really weird change, they basically made him a spineless nice guy to throw in as a love interest for victoria, when in the original stage play he has a sassy personality and is definitely more sure of himself. They also completely removed any connection of him with rum tum tugger which was also weird to me but,,, w/e i guess. the whole movie is kind of. just odd.
i've heard this complaint a lot from folks who know the show better than I. It didn't bother me, but I've come to learn why it bothers folks a lot. And I get it.
The film's version of "Mungojerrie and Rumpleteazer" is actually the melody they used in the original London production, before it came to Broadway. I'm not sure WHY they changed it.
I thought the same thing about company it would be an interesting play for a movie
If they adapt Hamilton, they can add in Ben Franklin. He was in an early draft, but he was cut because Miranda didn't want to cross the sea for both the King AND for Franklin/Jefferson/Adams. It pulled too much focus. In the US, they mostly just interacted at the Constitutional Convention.
If they adapt it to the screen, they can add a whole section from the line "I was chosen for the Constitutional Convention"
The story of Hamilton before, during, and after the Convention is actually fascinating and almost none of it is in the play (except a quick part about how many Federalist papers he writes). But it involves a lot of characters with too little screen time to warrant being cast for 8 shows a week.
It's five Andrew Lloyd Weber film adaptions; there's also Love Never Dies. I don't blame you for pretending it never existed. That's probably the best way to treat it. :-)
also beautiful ghosts was really jarring to me because it's written like a pop song instead of a ts eliot poem about cats, lol
It was clearly an attempt to get a Best Original Song nomination. It would work in another movie, but not here.
Your delivery of pussywillows made me laugh! Merry Christmas, Emily!
sometimes a dumb idea in the moment just works! merry merry!!
After all the bad reviews a seen about cats, i rly starting to whant to see the film, but thats just me, im wierd.
it's a once in a lifetime train wreck. it's not weird at all. it MUST be seen!
@@StealingFocus seen it know, i just love it, you where all right, its a train wreck, and it was so fun. Going to get the bluray, all my friends going to suffer.
They used the original version if Mungojerrie and Rumpleteazer's song.
You're eyebrows are AMAZING!...Just thought I'd put that out there
I mean...this movie's plot makes about as much sense as Rocky Horror Picture Show...and that's a cult classic, so...EH. I think it's supposed to be more about the existential meanings hidden behind the whole thing than being invested in any kind of story. It's a psychedelic fantasy piece. Just leave it at that.
they make Victoria the avatar on stage too
No she is not. She is a background cat who was chosen to do a solo and pas de deux because she
is one of the hardcore dancers in the musical. She does not speak. She just happens to appear front and center
in a lot of the dances. And I think her job was dance captain for many years. I don't know if she still does that.
@@limesquared "she is a background cat..." "She just happens to appear front and center"
ok..?
Also, what is a 'hardcore' dancer?
@@Official-OpenAI *very* professional dancer. I think she, Plato/Macavity, and Mistoffelees have the hardest dance roles.
The translation to cinema has been pursued along visual lines by refining what stage costumes aspire to but only CGI can achieve and by sequencing sets beyond the reach of even the most deeply bankrolled Broadway theater. Yet, the overall piece is confined, as Cats always has been in the theater, to a recitation in music of T.S. Eliot's whimsical book. The talent summoned for this production have all the attributes needed to make their characters come alive. This is particularly true for Victoria whose closeups are as telling as her ballet.
The audio is muddy, but that might be something that future releases would clean up. The film adaptation does have a midnight cult classic feel to it. Stay tuned.
Finally! A review from someone who actually knows the Cats musicale... it was a bit tiring to listen to reviewers recap the entire screenplay 🙄
This sounds like the worst movie ever ... a must see!! ;)
I think honestly Sunset Boulevard is a musical that could work as a movie. You'd have to adapt it to fit, but it has a solid plot and some really could theme that a capable director could explore! They'd better get on that before Glenn Close can't do it anymore ;-) But I feel like Cats was doomed from the start, I don't see any version where this would have worked, other than maybe as an animated fantasy thing.
You know the musical is based on a movie, yes?
The film Sunset Boulevard (1950) starred William Holden & Gloria Swanson. No, a remake will never do the original film justice but lord knows with the awful remakes we've had in the last 20 yrs it wouldn't shock me to hear it's next. But it would scare me!
@@fabrisseterbrugghe8567 of course I know that but I am talking about a movie version of the musical here, maybe I didn't make that clear enough.
Andrew Lloyd Weber and Stephen Sondheim and MY MOM share the same birthday. (Also, Chico Marx)
March 22 is a blessed day!!!
Great video. I really enjoyed your review
I'd like to note that Bombalurina is wearing kitten heels. I think the pun was intended. 😅
It’s not really bad it’s Cats. Movie people don’t get theater. But the movie producers and director made weird choices and confused the two mediums. The musical is better, still weird but better.
Sooooo about Mungojerrie and Rumpleteazer song. I’m pretty sure that that’s how the song went in the original London show. Andrew Lloyd Webber may have wanted it back to the way he originally composed it. Or maybe your right in them using it to speed up. Time. I don’t know if anyone pointed that
Bustopher and Jenny aren't really in the chorus in the stage show either. Jenny sings Bustopher's song but that's pretty much it. They were using that plot point to explain why they're gone in the other numbers. In the show, Bustopher runs offstage because Macavity shows up. They were just trying to build a plot around the things that happen, which I thought was pretty clever.
Just a quick FYI regarding mungojerrie and rumpleteazer, the quick tempo version that they used in the movie is actually the original song from the 1981 london cast recording. Don't know why they switched to that one, since whatever time it gains in tempo it loses in the extra verse, so....
I've heard that recently!! Another baffling change!
Your cat is adorable!
He's my housemate's cat that she found on the mean streets of NYC! He's the size of a freakin' bobcat and very chatty. ;)
"when the dancing happens" ...sounds like when someone got violated
They also made Joseph and the Technicolor Dreamcoat into a pretty decent movie with Donny Osmond
proscenium filmed stage musical put on a screen. not a proper film. also it's Joseph...
But I love Joseph 😰
@@StealingFocus Also a filmed version of the stage show Cats was done in 1998 with performers from the British cast and Ken Page from the Broadway cast. . So there was no reason for this!
@@StealingFocus The 1999 Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat with Donny Osmond and Maria Friedman wasn't just a someone recording the stage musical. There are some special effects --- for example, as part of the framing device, the children's choir in are the audience at a school assembly, and then at several points, they run into the action and their colors become super saturated, a bit like how Wizard of Oz transitions from b/w into color.
So what might be considered a "proper film" is a bit of a grey area. For example, the film of phantom is pretty close to the musical; sure, there are some film-like shots, such as dive through the crack into the Phantom's scalp (yelch), but there are similar film-like shots in the 1999 Dreamcoat movie (for example, when Joseph is falling into the prison).
The 1998 Cats movie is also borderline; is it a "proper film", or is it just a filmed stage musical put on a screen? Both didn't have much adaptation from the Musical version to the filmed version, sure.
FWIW, I love CATS, but otherwise I'm not partial to AL Webber. I like Norma's three big songs in "Sunset Blvd", but I think that's only because Elaine Paige is so brilliant at "selling" them.
They used the original version of Mungojerry and Rumpleteazer which IMO is much better because it has more a Macavity sound to it, which makes sense bc when they first appear in the play, everyone thinks Macavity is coming and it's just them fooling everyone. But I heard their performance was bad, I couldn't see it yet but that would be a shame.. =( (You can listen to it for free on Amazon Prime, it is not a changed or messed up version, it is the first version)
Anyone want to be "that guy" and mention that Les Miserables was not by Andrew Lloyd Webber?
The journey you went on girl. Damn. Funny I discovered this channel because of your review of the great TICK TICK BOOM. To say TTB is better than Cats...... understatement of the century.
I think it's funny that theater people, real CATS fans (like me) and non fans don't know what the hell is going on in this movie. We are all equally confused. I've loved CATS since the '80's and I thought this show was a nightmare. - On a completely different note, I've never seen your videos before but you remind me of Reese Witherspoon. Don't know if anyone has ever told you that but, yea the whole time I was listening to this and laughing that's what I was thinking.
I was in college when Legally Blonde came out. People made me do the Bend and Snap at auditions.
Best video I’ve seen about the movie yet. I felt your agony. Can’t wait to see this film high as a kite with my friends
The only way to watch it! ;)
Cats are not dumb and I love them ;) But the theatre musical I didn't like it... bunch of people dressed as cats dancing... it was so disappointing. I've seen some musicals and loved it. Lion King on stage, for instance, is brilliant. Thank you for the review.
The best Andrew Lloyd Webber stage to film adaptation is Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat and my mind cannot be changed
Very insightful and entertaining!
I love Cats, however dumb it is -I mean the stage show, not the movie. I haven't even seen the movie. I guess I'm a year late with that too, not just with this comment. :D
i dont know who you are but i like ya and your views im now subbed :)
My favorite is Phantom I forgot the actor who plays The Phantom but he’s hot hot & one more hot but so is Jason DerRulio . Please excuse spelling
I for one think that the movie is a masterpiece, it's unique and entertaining. The artists did a really great job portraying as CATS and everything on the set is related to CATS.... well this movie is about CATS after all. Don't listen to critics to blow up your plans about watching the movie. Critics will always be critics and will keep on seeing the bad thing about something. So just give it a chance you guys. You'll love it.
I understand that some of musicals are hradly trasforminf into movies. But I'll give you an example. HAIR stage musical. It's in some way similar to Cats. It has no plot as well. It's just a chain of songs. Milos Forman transfomed it into a movie with a plot. In time odf a premiere it was strange for critics even people. Nowdays everybody love it.
John Partridge, The Rum Tum Tugger 1998.
@@2004mojo They did do a good Job, on that Video, which is why I gave it such a High Rating.
@@LittleJoeTheMoonlightCat They really did.
I have a feeling this will be the new "Rocky Horror", in that it becomes a cult classic that everyone loves to play along with while screaming hilarious callback lines during the ridiculous plot.
Me too! ;)
13:04
Mongojery song - It's not different from stage version. It's different from movie verson 1998. I's original melody.. And related to cats scale - they are not cats. There are jellicle cats - Jellicle cats are small - the song before a ball.
I went to see it and I liked it. I liked the adaptation for film, did not think the CGI was out of whack. Enjoyed the performances of the actors. I would see it again. I'm not saying it's a world mover, but, it was entertaining and I can think of many other films more worthy of the disdain that this film has received.
Are you the one? The one person who unironically enjoyed CATS?!?
@@StealingFocus Not the ONLY one, I saw it with 3 others and the results were 3+ and 1 "meh"
Fascinating and entertaining review!
I need to know.
How many people became apoplectic when you said "Andrew Lloyd Webber" and "Les Misérables" in the same sentence? Because I think I know you weren't making a mistake but categorizing.
FINDING HER NAME! You gave purpose to the whole (crappy) film in three words!!!
Hairspray and Dreamgirls were great musicals turned movies but that’s just my opinion lol
I always thought in the show that Tugger had an unrequited crush on Mister Mistoffeles. This movie making Victoria a romantic conquest is... kinda icky? Like it shows me that Tom Hooper not only missed the subtle misogyny of the poems/ the musical but decided that the movie needed more of it
Did you see the concept art that Luc Desmarchelier (who did visual development for Shrek, Hotel Transylvania, and some Tim Burton movies) did for an animated Cats movie? Theres concept art for Macavity, Old Deuteronomy (who, in one of the photos, is seen with Victoria and Jemima who ACTUALLY look like kittens!!), Mr. Mistoffelees, and Grizabella. The movie would've been directed by Steven Spielberg. STEVEN SPIELBERG!!! Imagine Cats- an animated movie directed by Steven Spielberg (who directed the upcoming West Side Story movie!!!). It would've been so good and would have been a great adaptation for Cats. I bet he'd find a really great plot and some really great stars to cast in it. But no. We got shitty CGI Tom Hooper Cats. Im pissed.
Victrizzle Bizzle is Victoria’s Jellicle Name
As a hardcore fan, this should never have been adapted to the screen. The movie adds unnecessary stupid plot and changes
characters. Unless...what do you think of filming it like a rehearsal ? There was a brilliant film called "Vanya on 42nd St." People coming out of the subway go into a coffee shop or restaurant. They then proceed to read the parts of "Uncle Vanya"... Having said that, "Cats" still does
not belong on the screen; it needs to be experienced first hand.
the revenue of the first weekend was 6 millions, that means 2 millions a day in a 100 million budget movie- that was a real flop.
They do say Grizabella went with Macavity, if I'm remembering correctly. It's one of Munkustrap's line.
Yes.. this is why they shun her. At least in part.
I wish it were entirely animation without live-action body involvement. Not enough quirky, arty, adult stuff is done in mainstream animation and it would incorporate everything done before, while still being able to be its own thing and innovating. Cats is really a romp through the imaginative theme of how cats would express themselve of they were at least as smart as people, so it's a shame not to go all animated and let the freak flag fly in a world where exaggerated and aestheticized movement and overblown story are so free to flow. There was a lack of courage to start with a blank visual slate and draw influences in, rather than cut-and-paste the stage onto the screen. Meanwhile, the only big attempt to involve animation, the digital fur, feels like an attempt to be fancy in a way too-often repeated with 3D animation for no truly good reason except that it can be done. This is even worse, given that the result are so obviously not working visually.
Did they have free drink at the showing, Emily? ;)
29:52 - More like a Razzie from the sound of it. This whole movie sounds like a shoe-in for the Razzies.
Free?? Oh no, I had to pay for my beers!
@@StealingFocus I had heard some theaters were handing out free glasses of spirits at some of the openings; that's why I asked. :)
@@tscream80 GAH! Why didn't I find that theatre?!?! ;)
Do they have worst FX and worst direction?
what is so cool about cats? Should've heard the bird screaming it's head off as a cat pulled it out of a tree and dragged it down the way. PS cool the beer well and it wont froth everywhere