My response (Christmas Day 3:30 showing, 2/3 full) is a little different. Other than being put off by the doomed Rockette cockroaches (creepy, unnecessary), I couldn't find much to mock. You can find it uninteresting or lacking a strong narrative, but it's entirely of a piece to me. And the use of Victoria, the only new story conceit other than the overcooked barge subplot, is fine, and in two places, better than fine.
The movie's strength is its earnest belief in the material itself, and a refusal to apologize for that earnestness. When Hudson enters, the stakes are upped, and she makes a most compelling case for the character as a character. At first I was thrown by the truly ugly costume they give her -- from behind she looks like a badger. But it's actually a powerful and poignant look, since she's desexualized more than the stage iteration. She has a true, tragic homeless mien, and it's heartbreaking. Two set pieces are wonderful, one -- Gus -- for simply letting the song/actor work by itself, without adornment; and Skimbleshanks, for being the opposite, so full-out old school movie musical. I'd say, they prove that imagination and restraint were blended here. But the movie cannot be defended without opening up a bigger discussion about the source. I've known it since I saw the show 6 weeks into its run in London, and cannot watch the film without nostalgia based bias. Having seen genuine debacles like "Lost Horizon" on the big screen, I wondered why this has created such an overt backlash. Is it the price tag, admittedly a bit of a mystery other than CGI.
It is what it is, and to me, that's what "Cats" is supposed to be.
"I'm a comedian, but in my spare time, things bother me." Garry Shandling
Updated On: 12/26/19 at 08:23 PM