By this point you should've heard about how disastrous this movie was. Now it's my turn to review this cinematic disasterpiece. Here's my review of Cats (2019).
When I was little, I would always listen to my mom's music box that sat on her dresser. In that music box, there was a small dancer dancing to "Memories" from Cats, the fourth longest running Broadway musical and sixth longest running West End musical. I've known about the existence of Cats for a while because of that music box, but I've never actually known about the plot or any of the elements behind the concept of the musical. I've also known that there have been talks of film developments of the popular musical for 30 plus years, including an animated film by Steven Spielberg. And why wouldn't there be, this musical has raked in billions of dollars worldwide. In 2013, Andrew Lloyd Webber, the creative wizard behind this and many other successful musicals, announced that Universal had purchased the film rights and were in active development in getting the movie made. Tom Hooper, Academy Award director of The King's Speech (this fact will be important later), was brought aboard to direct in 2016. It seemed like finally, FINALLY, the pieces were set in place to make this long-awaited film adaptation of Cats. Then THAT trailer dropped and all hell broke loose. Universal essentially dropped a trailer to an unfinished product and no one was having it (just check that like to dislike ratio). Everyone, including myself, was saying how shoddy and unnerving the CGI looked. Universal and Hooper scrambled to touch up the CGI in order to keep its Christmas release date. Even with the "touch ups", the final product was something that should've been thrown into the litter box before it was ever released and the box office numbers really illustrate that notion. Before I really dive in, and trust me there's a LOT to unpack, let me talk about what I liked first, which isn't much honestly. Some of the choreography is truly spectacular and I think it helps that a lot of the cast (no, not you Rebel Wilson) are professionally trained dancers. Francesca Hayward (Victoria), for instance, is one of the principal dancers for the Royal Ballet, as is Steven McRae (Skimbleshanks). Most of the music, originally written for the stage musical, is admittedly pretty catchy (that first song is still stuck in my head), but of course the Broadway recordings are considerably better than the movie recordings. Jennifer Hudson absolutely delivers on that rendition of "Memories", the climax of the entire movie. I liked the new song "Beautiful Ghosts" that Taylor Swift wrote for the movie, plus it solidifies the fact that Swift should rightfully be called one of the best modern day songwriters. However, the reason why it was written is pretty obvious: to win or at least be nominated for an Academy Award. While I do think it's considerably better than other efforts that were written for the same reason (looking at you "Speechless" from Aladdin), the whole reasoning behind it still rubs me the wrong way. Now on to the bad stuff: literally everything else in the movie. As I stated before, I never knew what the actual plot of the musical was, and what I've come to realize is that the plot is very thin. The central story is that the jellicle cats have a jellicle ball to choose a jellicle cat that will be chosen to go to the Heaviside Layer, or basically the afterlife. And while that seems to make sense (just don't ask me what a jellicle cat is because I have no idea), the road to get to the end doesn't. The whole story is just comprised of one cat singing a song about something, that cat disappearing, and then another cat sings another song, that cat disappearing, then rinse and repeat. The main plot gets buried in all these unnecessary musical numbers and twists and turns that ultimately lead to nothing and don't further the story whatsoever. It frustrated me so much that I ended up looking up the original musical on Wikipedia, only to learn that, for the most part, this is the plot of the musical. Maybe the story works well on Broadway and West End, but it does not translate well on screen. Also, this movie seems like it should end at three different points, one of which is just Judi Dench's Old Deuteronomy staring directly at you through the screen and telling you how you should address cats. For instance, you shouldn't address cats as dogs, as if we didn't know the difference between cats and dogs? It's very discomforting and confusing and seems like it shouldn't even be there, but lo and behold, it's actually how the stage production ends as well. Again, how was this the fourth longest running show on Broadway? The main character, or whom I guess is the main cat, is Victoria, but all she does is go from one cat who sings a song to another cat who sings a song. She gets no character development, at least not really. We don't really learn anything about her, except I guess a little bit from the song "Beautiful Ghosts". In fact, none of the characters get any sort of character development throughout the course of the movie. I get attached to approximately 0 of the cats. If any of them died, which they don't, I wouldn't have shed a single tear. In fact, if some of the characters were completely be cut from the movie it would not change the outcome of the movie. That's how superfluous 90% of the characters are in the context of the film (and I guess to the same extent the musical itself). I guess the musical is not supposed to be an in depth character study, but it would be nice if the characters, ya know, mattered. But the fact of the matter is that they don't. You could cut out (and I did not make up any of these names) Jennyanydots or Rum Tum Tugger or Bustopher Jones or Bomburella and you could get the same exact results. Another issue is that the singing from the main cast, aside from Jennifer Hudson, is just bad. Francesca Hayward isn't bad admittedly, but her voice is a little thin. But other than that, Sir Ian McKellan and Dame Judi Dench, while wonderful actors in their own right, should never be allowed to sing. Jason Derulo and Taylor Swift sing in an awful half British accent for one song each and then pretty much disappear for the rest of the movie. James Corden isn't awful but isn't great and then Rebel Wilson isn't great at all. Idris Elba kinda sings but doesn't really. Which leaves Jennifer Hudson as the only great singer in the main cast. Some members of the general cast are actually pretty decent, but the fact is that the majority of biggest numbers belong to the main cast and unfortunately they're just not up to task in accomplishing one of the main points of a musical: to sing a song well and really sell it. Except of course Jennifer Hudson. Also, quick side note, whoever casted Rebel Wilson and James Corden in this movie should be fired immediately. For God's sakes, they are literally given time to riff and make jokes (because haha they're funny right), but surprise none of it is funny or necessary for that matter. James Corden literally stops in the middle of a song for like a whole minute just to make a fat joke because comedy I guess. Rebel Wilson says "don't mess with a crazy cat lady" which made me actually groan. Any time they showed up, which thankfully wasn't a lot, I rolled my eyes. I just do not believe that Tom Hooper and Andrew Lloyd Webber sat in a room and were like "oh yeah, these jokes will really elevate the movie". Another glaring issue is that the CGI is so unnatural and unpleasant. The CGI, which includes "state of the art digital fur" that was supposed to impress everyone, just makes the characters come off as creepy and unnerving. Double that with the fact that all of the cats still have human hands and it resembles more uncanny valley than anything else. What were they trying to accomplish with this? Were they thinking that this was going to dazzle us, the audience? It honestly would've just been better if they had the cast dress up in cat costumes like the Broadway/West End adaptation. At least then it would've seemed more in line with the actual stage production and that way we wouldn't have gotten this nightmare fuel. Speaking of the audience, just who was this movie's target audience? I can't think of a single child or teenager who thinks to themselves on the regular "man I really wish there was a movie right now where I could watch a strange human-like cat creature tap dance". Was this for the older Broadway folks who saw Cats back in the 80's and 90's, only to be horrified by this frightening CGI induced fever dream? This doesn't seem like a movie that millennials or even 30 year old Broadway/musical lovers would eat up or something that parents would willingly take their children to see. In fact, this seems like a movie that no one would want to see, which was proven by the poor box office returns. Universal tried so hard to make it a Christmas release, expecting a large crowd for the Christmas holiday weekend, and it spectacularly backfired. Point is that this movie panders to an audience that simply does not exist anymore. If they had made the movie more like the actual stage production then maybe there would've been at least a few interested parties, but alas the final product exists in an empty void where no one cares. The truth is Tom Hooper has proven himself to be a capable director. He deservedly won an Academy Award for directing for The King's Speech (2010), which is a great movie. He did an admirable job with helming Les Miserables (2012), albeit there are a few issues. He directed the excellent The Danish Girl (2015) with Eddie Redmayne and Alicia Vikander. So it baffles me he ended up with this perplexing result. He had all the resources at his hands, including the involvement of the creator himself Andrew Lloyd Webber. He was given full creative freedom over the film. He definitely had the money and Universal's full support. Sure, some of the casting was questionable, but even still there is no excuse in how awful this film turned out. I know many directors have had a dud here or there, but this stinker was a hell of an expensive one and honestly the blame should fall on Hooper. While Cats does have very few positives, the overwhelming amount of negatives far outweigh it. While the stage production definitely lives in a bizarro world and I don't really understand how it lasted for as long as it did (1982-2000), Tom Hooper's disastrous outcome was not even close to capturing whatever magic Broadway was capable of providing. I gotta admit though, this is unintentional comedy gold. Rating: 1.5/10
0 Comments
Frozen is probably considered one of the best animated movies of all time, with a stellar cast, a dazzling story, and some of the best songs in the Disney Songbook. Frozen 2 returns with the same stellar cast, some more great songs, and a solid if not somewhat uneven narrative. Here are my thoughts on Frozen 2:
Six years ago, Disney released Frozen, which turned into a juggernaut at the box office, both worldwide and domestically. It has since become one of Disney's most profitable franchises, which only made sense that there would inevitably be a second Frozen movie. A second movie was certainly a necessity for Disney, considering that the movie made over a billion dollars at the box office and it has since become the highest grossing animated film of all time. It made sense to capitalize on Elsa, Anna, Kristoff, Sven, and Olaf, some of the most recognizable characters in the Disney landscape. It made sense to have Oscar winning duo Robert Lopez and Kristen Anderson-Lopez return to write some surefire Disney hits. All of it makes sense. So does it pay off? In the long run, it doesn't matter because this movie will certainly make bank at the box office. It's the way Disney is manufactured at this point. Sequels and remakes are a major part of the lifeblood of what makes Disney run at this point, but most importantly it's what makes Disney money. However, with all that being said, Frozen 2, directed by Frozen directors Chris Buck and Jennifer Lee, is a solid sequel. The plot of this film: Elsa hears a mysterious voice calling to her from the Enchanted Forest, which may be linked to the dangerous powers that are threatening Arendelle, so she and Anna, Kristoff, Sven, and Olaf go out to investigate and seek answers, which also includes Elsa's self-discovery of herself and the origin of her powers. Whereas the last movie was primarily Anna's movie, this is Elsa's movie, presenting her as the central protagonist and giving her way more to do than the last movie. She is portrayed as brave and fearless, a strong empowered female hero who don't need no man (or woman as some people may speculate), a recurring theme that Disney has done extremely well recently. The relationship and sisterly bond between Elsa and Anna is also explored further in this movie as well, setting up for some good drama, especially considering there is no clear-cut antagonist in the film (more on that later). Anna, the goofy and light-hearted central protagonist in the first movie, is portrayed more neurotic, skeptical, and anxious in this film, which makes sense as she is more careful to not let Elsa out of her sights due to the events from the last movie. Regardless, Anna and Elsa's relationship is pushed to the forefront as one of the most important elements of the movie. While Anna and Elsa get plenty of screen time, their male counterparts are not utilized as much. In fact, I honestly forget by a certain point that Kristoff and Sven are even in the movie. Kristoff's storyline, finding the perfect time to propose to Anna, gets buried in the narrative, rending it almost forgettable except for the brilliant 80's-influenced power ballad "Lost In The Woods". For the most part though, as much as I love Kristoff and Sven, I feel like our favorite human-reindeer duo are hardly in the movie. Olaf, everybody's favorite snowman, gets a couple of moments to shine. The hilarious reenactment of the entire first movie is probably the single best scene in Frozen 2. Olaf's storyline, which I guess is about maturation, doesn't get the resolving payoff that I felt like it deserved. But Josh Gad, being the excellent thespian that he is, still brings his all and his comedic timing/relief is perfect. Other characters, such as Sterling K. Brown's Lt. Mattias, also don't really get much to do and are not fleshed out at all, which is a shame because they seemed interesting but in the end you don't really get to know them. The biggest issue I have with the movie is the narrative. While the main story with Elsa zips along at a decent pace, every other story stagnates, gets sidelined, and as a result bogs down the movie, making the movie move at a snail's pace. It doesn't mean the other stories are bad, but they also don't possess the same sort of depth as Elsa's primary storyline. While there is conflict in the movie (more person vs. self and person vs. nature), there's no antagonist in the movie, which isn't a huge problem except for the fact that in the first movie, Hans, the surprise villain, progressed the conflict and the story with his evil and charming ways. There's also a shortage of charm, a certain bit of magic that's absent from this movie. Not saying that this movie doesn't have magic because it most certainly does, but there's a lack of dazzle that had made the first movie so great. Frozen 2 is definitely darker in tone than the first movie and it did have some charming and magical moments in it for sure. With that being said, the sluggishness of the story and the lack of charm did weigh down the pace of the movie. Whatever the story lacks the music certainly makes up for, which brings me to the best part of the whole entire movie: Robert and Kristen Anderson-Lopez (who also get story writing credits for this movie as well) returning to write the songs for the Frozen franchise. Right from the get go, we are presented with "All Is Found", a beautiful lullaby that essentially sets the stage and story for the entire movie (also, who knew Evan Rachel Wood had such a great voice?). Then the main four (Kristen Bell, Idina Menzel, Gad, Jonathan Groff) join forces to give us "Some Things Never Change", a nice little upbeat tune. Jonathan Groff gets to showcase his best Peter Cetera impression for the 80's Chicago era-inspired power ballad "Lost In The Woods" during probably one of the best yet most ridiculous scenes in the entire movie. But nothing can compare to the powerhouse of a song that is the surefire future Academy Award winner for Best Original Song "Into the Unknown", sung by Idina Menzel's Elsa. "Let It Go" may have gotten rightfully popular, but "Into the Unknown" is without a doubt the song that should be popular. It is the Lopez's best song that they've written for Disney by far (considering they also wrote for Coco as well) and I consider it to be one of the best songs in the Disney songbook. Coupled with the other Idina Menzel power ballad "Show Yourself", the Lopez's have solidified themselves as one of Disney's best and most reliable songwriters. The computer animation is beautiful and breathtaking, with some of the most gorgeous Disney scenes that have ever graced the big screen. One scene that sticks out to me is the scene from the very first trailer for the movie: Elsa using her powers to fight back against the relentless sea. While I won't give any spoilers, the payoff is true Disney magic in every sense of the word. Any scene with Bruni the fire spirit (who is so cute by the way) is simply a joy and a wondrous marvel in design. There are plenty of other spectacular scenes, but it would do me no justice to ruin all of the magic. All in all, Frozen 2 is a solid if inessential sequel. However, even if it seems unnecessary, Disney all but deems it necessary for purely financial purposes. Disney knows what it wants, and what it wants is your money and the box office crown, even if it means there's some sacrifice and flaw to the overall narrative and consistent character development. Even with flaws though, Frozen 2 delivers with humor, heart, some magic, good character work with Anna and Elsa, and some of the best songs that Disney has ever had. Oh, and hardly no trolls? I can get behind that. Rating: 7.5 Yeah she's about to end Thanos' career, but how well did Captain Marvel's movie debut stand on its own? Here's my review for Captain Marvel (NO SPOILERS):
When I first saw the audience reviews for Captain Marvel before the movie was released to the general masses, I thought to myself "oh no we're in trouble here". Granted, most of those reviews were just internet trolls hating on Captain Marvel for the mere fact that she's a woman and possibly DC fans seeking revenge for critics hating on their beloved DCEU movies and HADN'T even seen the movie. Regardless, it didn't set a good tone for the release of the movie, but luckily the critics didn't pan it as much as the audiences did. Even still, it was still regarded as one of the least impressive movies in the MCU, but I went in with an open mind, hoping it wasn't as bad as those early audience reviews made it out to be. I'm just going to get this out of the way first: I didn't hate Captain Marvel and I enjoyed it far better than its DCEU counterpart Wonder Woman, but it's far from my favorite movie in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. However, before I dive into the BIG problems let me talk about what I LIKED about this movie. I loved Ben Mendelsohn as Talos, quite possibly my favorite character in the movie and probably one of the only characters to get character development. He also gets the best bits of humor and comedic timing in the film, something I always appreciate in the MCU. Samuel L. Jackson is great as always as Nicholas Joseph Fury and steals most of the scenes that he's in. I liked Lashana Lynch as Carol's best friend Maria Rambeau and she definitely gets a couple of scenes to shine in, but I wish they had done more with her in general. There were some incredible scenes that stuck out to me in the movie, such as the hand-held shot scene of the aftermath after the big reveal and the slo-mo shot of when Carol absorbs the energy-core, thus turning her into the titular hero. I can appreciate that directors Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck were trying some tricks that made the movie stand out a little bit more than other MCU movies. I can ALSO appreciate the fact that the last act of the movie wasn't just a CGI-filled, poorly choreographed, seizure inducing mess like a good deal of other superhero movies, both MCU and DCEU. Although there were some bad special effects and there were a couple of scenes where the green screen definitely felt more present, it didn't derail the movie as a whole. Lastly, Captain Marvel, for lack of a better term, kicks some SERIOUS ass and, yeah, she's a badass bitch. I was in awe in the last act of the movie as she splices through an entire enemy spaceship and destroys it. She's uber-powerful, much more so than any of the other heroes (except maybe Thor), and will be an incredibly formidable opponent for Thanos. And let's be real, she's going to kill Thanos. Now let's dive into the BIG problems of this movie, starting with the frustratingly lackluster story. I didn't feel like there was anything super interesting about this story, and unfortunately that's a big problem because the MCU, for the most part, is so great at crafting creative and fascinating stories that explore the characters and their personalities and their background. There was a twist that flipped the narrative around, and for that I am thankful, but other than that, the story was pretty bland. It's yet another origin story and the point of an origin story is to introduce the character in an intriguing way where the audience can connect, relate, and grow with them and unfortunately this movie failed to do that with its lack of dazzling narrative and character development. And aside from the twist, the story was also extremely predictable. Nothing was really left to the imagination and there were certain scenes where I murmured to myself "oh I bet this will happen" and sure enough it happened. I also wish they had explored the relationships between the Kree and the Skrulls deeper and why there's a war in the first place, but I suppose that might be fleshed out more in a future sequel (which of course there's going to be one). Now, don't get me wrong, I love Brie Larson, and I know she's a great actress, but I didn't feel like I really got to know Captain Marvel and her character. Larson does well with what she's given, but the problem is what she's given isn't much. I understand that, for the majority of the movie, Captain Marvel doesn't know who she is or where she's from, resulting in a lack of identity. However, even with all the memories that they piece together throughout the movie, it still didn't reveal to me who Carol Danvers was supposed to be. She's stoic and sometimes smirks and dishes out half-clever remarks, but that's not personality to me. In the end, Captain Marvel comes across as badass, but also, and it pains me to say this, one-dimensional. Hopefully, the Russo brothers can wrangle some better character development out of her in Endgame. Another problem is that the soundtrack doesn't really fit all that well. There's one scene in particular, a fight scene in which the song chosen is so on the nose about the 90's and about Marvel herself, that made me groan. The song is fine on its own but it doesn't seem to fit into the narrative. In Guardians of the Galaxy, the soundtrack made sense because it was the music that Peter Quill listened to, thus weaving into the narrative and becoming an important part of the story. The soundtrack felt like a grab bag of Buzzfeed-esque 90's nostalgia that were just put into the film for the sake of it being 90's music and the fact that the story is set in the 90's, even though the movie itself didn't feel like a 90's movie. The last big problem is that it seemed like the directors, while competent for the most part, didn't watch the rest of the MCU. I don't want to give away anything, but there's a certain device that's found in this movie that was introduced in a completely different way in another MCU movie. Perhaps it's given as a gift, but there's no explanation about it and it's just kinda...there. The timeline displayed in this movie doesn't line up with the rest of the MCU, and it probably would've helped if the directors had had a sense of what happened in the other MCU films and align with that timeline. Sure, there's other problems; Captain Marvel suffers from something that has been plaguing the MCU for a while: an uninteresting villain (what a surprise). However, for the most part though, this movie is competently made. There were no huge jarring editing issues and the acting, while nothing spectacular, is pretty good. The movie zips along at a pretty even pace and I never felt, except for one joke (a joke that was executed way better in a way better MCU movie), that the humor undercut the more serious moments of the film. I really appreciated the introductory Marvel logo with Stan Lee and his cameo was not only great but clever as well. Captain Marvel wasn't an awful film and it proves to be a fun placeholder until Endgame, but it definitely could've been a better platform to introduce what I'm assuming will be the future leader of the Avengers. P.S. Goose? Loved him. Rating: 8.4/10 |
AuthorBuster Bigelow: 30 year old lover of movies, cinema, and music. Whether you agree or disagree with my reviews, I'd love to hear what you think in the comments! Archives
June 2020
Categories
All
|
"Every great film should seem new every time you see it."
-Roger Ebert
Copyright © 2015