Well, tonight my wife and I did what few Americans will ever do.
We went to the movies and watched "Cats."
Okay, I've seen the reviews. All my favorite YouTube critics have hated it since the first trailer. It's scored 19% on Rotten Tomatoes (although it's got a 64% audience score).
I'm not a cat person. I'm not really a musical person, either. When "Cats" became a phenomenon through the 80s, I studiously ignored it. I was certainly aware of it, though, and I'm aware that "Cats" made Andrew Lloyd Webber the most wealthy songwriter in the history of the world. I didn't care. I still ignored it.
I just wasn't interested in watching dancers in cat costumes.
But I was intrigued by the CGI of this version of "Cats," even though it seemed to repel everyone else.
We had a choice this weekend of watching either "Cats" or "Rise of Skywalker." I'll watch "Rise of Skywalker" sooner or later simply to have seen the end of the saga, but I already know it's going to torque me off.
I didn't feel like being torqued off this weekend, so we went to "Cats."
And it wasn't half bad. It was entertaining.
First, it helps to understand what it is. It's a collection of TS Elliot poems about cats. I'm old enough to have been forced to read TS Elliot poetry in junior high English class, so I was already aware that nobody is expected to understand TS Elliot.
Or cats. Nobody is expected to understand cats, either. So TS Elliot poems about cats...fuggedaboudit.
I understood, then, that "Cats" is just a cat-themed variety show. It's like a cat-themed episode of "So You Think You Can Dance."
That, of course, is a weakness of the movie. Dancing is best seen in person, live humans on stage right in front of you. Dancing is never as exciting on the screen. Moreover, I've always hated cinematography of dancing. Dance is always choreographed for live audiences, and cinematographers are always too close and too fancy with the camerawork to see the dancing clearly.
And yet, I rather liked "Cats." The dancing was actually very good, the sets were very good, the singing was very good. The CGI cat fur was good, and the cats' ears were especially cool. The CGI team that handled the ears is justifiably proud of themselves.
Jennifer Hudson played the tragic protagonist, singing the famous "Memories." She must have truly been feeling it, because I don't think they fake snot for the screen.
Critics seem to be upset that there was no solid line of narrative. That was because...cats. You can't keep cats in a line.
Who is this movie most for? I think pre-adolescent girls should like it. People who like dance should like it. Cat people should like it. We were rather surprised that we liked it, probably two of the only 17 full-grown, non-cat people in America who do like it. (But then, when Bladerunner first came out, I was one of the only 12 people in America who liked that movie back then.)
Furries should like it, but let's not dwell on that.
We went to the movies and watched "Cats."
Okay, I've seen the reviews. All my favorite YouTube critics have hated it since the first trailer. It's scored 19% on Rotten Tomatoes (although it's got a 64% audience score).
I'm not a cat person. I'm not really a musical person, either. When "Cats" became a phenomenon through the 80s, I studiously ignored it. I was certainly aware of it, though, and I'm aware that "Cats" made Andrew Lloyd Webber the most wealthy songwriter in the history of the world. I didn't care. I still ignored it.
I just wasn't interested in watching dancers in cat costumes.
But I was intrigued by the CGI of this version of "Cats," even though it seemed to repel everyone else.
We had a choice this weekend of watching either "Cats" or "Rise of Skywalker." I'll watch "Rise of Skywalker" sooner or later simply to have seen the end of the saga, but I already know it's going to torque me off.
I didn't feel like being torqued off this weekend, so we went to "Cats."
And it wasn't half bad. It was entertaining.
First, it helps to understand what it is. It's a collection of TS Elliot poems about cats. I'm old enough to have been forced to read TS Elliot poetry in junior high English class, so I was already aware that nobody is expected to understand TS Elliot.
Or cats. Nobody is expected to understand cats, either. So TS Elliot poems about cats...fuggedaboudit.
I understood, then, that "Cats" is just a cat-themed variety show. It's like a cat-themed episode of "So You Think You Can Dance."
That, of course, is a weakness of the movie. Dancing is best seen in person, live humans on stage right in front of you. Dancing is never as exciting on the screen. Moreover, I've always hated cinematography of dancing. Dance is always choreographed for live audiences, and cinematographers are always too close and too fancy with the camerawork to see the dancing clearly.
And yet, I rather liked "Cats." The dancing was actually very good, the sets were very good, the singing was very good. The CGI cat fur was good, and the cats' ears were especially cool. The CGI team that handled the ears is justifiably proud of themselves.
Jennifer Hudson played the tragic protagonist, singing the famous "Memories." She must have truly been feeling it, because I don't think they fake snot for the screen.
Critics seem to be upset that there was no solid line of narrative. That was because...cats. You can't keep cats in a line.
Who is this movie most for? I think pre-adolescent girls should like it. People who like dance should like it. Cat people should like it. We were rather surprised that we liked it, probably two of the only 17 full-grown, non-cat people in America who do like it. (But then, when Bladerunner first came out, I was one of the only 12 people in America who liked that movie back then.)
Furries should like it, but let's not dwell on that.
