If there is a film that has been torn apart this year by everyone, it is this film adaptation of the 1981 Broadway musical. Ever since the first trailer has been revealed, many either shrieked in terror or turn it into a mocking stock, resulting in the film becoming yet another box office bomb before the end of 2019. With all of the scathing reviews that have been said, could the outrage be just a huge over-exaggeration? Well, one thing that people are not exaggerating of is the story, or should I say, the lack of one. To sum it all up, it's about a cat named Victoria who stumbles upon a cast of one-note archetypes as she experiences the "Jellicle Ball", a ceremony where one lucky cat can be reincarnated (killed) for a better life. The story is not technically bad, but it's the musical formula that blends up the story into a far background element. Musicals can be done extremely well on film as well as on stage, but the issue is how this film is constructed with the genre. Unlike the majority of musicals, where there is a few scenes of dialogue between a song, around 95% of the film is composed of musical numbers. It doesn't give the audience to breath, relax or take in a quiet moment whatsoever. It doesn't help that the tone of the film is kind of bizarre. It's not dark or explicit, but the cats all act like they're uncomfortably horny and the ending makes the ceremony feel cult-like and the result being rather depressing.
Well, if the story is poorly constructed, then the characters are most likely to share the same result, which they do to some degree. I'm not even going to list the characters off, since they are just an archetype of something. You got the fat cats who eat a lot, the ones who like to get in trouble, the flirtatious one, the old wise one, the one who wants to believe in his magic, the depressed one rejected by the masses due to past mistakes, etc. If there was one character that is worth mentioning, it's Idris Elba's Macavity, mostly because Elba is having so much fun and charisma in the role. The actors are either acting like themselves (but as a cat) or try to play the character with so much awkwardness you don't know whether to laugh or cringe. I will at least give credit that the actors can sing well though. The last thing to mention are the design of the cats, which is of course very puzzling. I always kept saying that animation was more fitted for the musical, but the filmmakers wanted to use motion-capture on the actors to make them look cat-like. The issue is that not only do their faces and hands not match the animal, but it just doesn't look great. When the camera is afar, it almost looks as if they are in costume, but up close clearly reveals the baffling CGI design. The other issue is that while some actors look fine with their transformation, others just look very weird. Many of the cats don't wear clothes, but if they aren't, the fur doesn't match the skin of the actors. When Elba comes in during his musical number, it just looks like Elba going commando due to Macavity having the same fur colour as Elba's skin, resulting in an uncomfortable look. So, the actors are either having a ball or trying to put out a performance while doing a great job singing, yet the CGI around them is only hurting them and the audience.
Tom Hopper is known for his acclaimed work on "The King's Speech" and "Les Miserables", which proves that he is a pretty good director. Hopper clearly had some passion for this project and there are elements that can be considered good on its own merits. The set design for one is pretty creative, such as the town hub and the oversized props to match the perspective of the cats. At times, the sets make the characters much smaller than they are, but I would say that it's still well-crafted. The visuals (if you ignore the cats and awkwardness of the effects) are actually nice as it mixes a lot of warm and cold colour, shadows, and lighting to make the world of the film pleasant to look at. The musical numbers are also for the most part well-done with the choreography and singers being great at their jobs as well as having the background and foreground elements working to its advantage. Despite all of this praise, there is still so much that Hooper did wrong. While majority of the musical numbers are well-done, the songs sung by the lead, Ian McKellen, Judi Dench, and Jennifer Hudson are so goddamn boring. Not because the songs themselves are bad, but it's the lack of direction and flatness of the number. These numbers, Hudson's scenes in general, mainly compose of the actor just staying still and singing their heart out. In a stage production, this is impressive, since one person has to memorize and masterfully sing the song in front of a live audience for a few straight minutes. The issue with these numbers though is that there is editing to show reaction shots while the singing is still occurring, which gives the impression that the number is not one-take at all. Speaking of which, the editing at times feels choppy and amateur. Not only can there be plenty of unnecessary reaction shots, but there are quick cuts thrown in as well as scenes or moments that just end out of nowhere with no context or lead-up. The cinematography is also like this, where is some scenes you have some pretty good camerawork, others feel very flat or wants to make the audience squirm with the close-ups of the character's face. So, I can't just say that Hopper is a bad filmmaker as there is some evidence in this film that confirms otherwise, but he does give off the impression that he slept halfway through production, much like I did when watching the same play as a kid.
"Cats" at times can reflect the abomination the public makes it out to be, with the story lacking structure, the musical formula being so aggressive to the point of the lack of scenes with pure dialogue, the questionable tone, the characters being one-note, the designs of the cats being bizarre, the few musical numbers that are just boring with no visual language to appease you senses, and the rather inconsistent quality of the editing and camerawork. However, I did manage find a few positives out of the film. Some actors are enjoyable to watch onscreen, the musical numbers are well-crafted in general, the set design is unique and creative, and at the very least, Hooper's flawed direction at least has a character and personality to it, which is something more than a film like "The Kitchen" or "Captain Marvel". So, does this mean I recommend for you to watch it? I think not. It's not a so bad it's good film, since there are quite a few good elements as well as only a few WTF moments than one would expect. It's not a good film in general though, since there are plenty of anger-inducing issues that many have talked about. All I would say is that it's surprisingly not the worst film I've seen this year, since I can get some things out of it, both good and bad, but unless you have a free movie ticket like I did, don't pay to see this litter.
Verdict: 4.5/10 Not the worst of the year or of all time in my opinion, but it's simply a poorly-put together film that had some potential.
No comments:
Post a Comment