When T.S. Eliot wrote “Old Possum’s Book of Practical Cats,” a book of poems about feline psychology and sociology, I don’t think he meant for this to happen. What do I mean by this? I mean Taylor Swift, Rebel Wilson, James Corden, and a number of other well-known celebrities in CGI catsuits… or would it be cat skins?
I don’t even know what to call it, because I’m too busy focusing on the fact that I wish Idris Elba had kept on the few clothing items he possessed. I have never been more glad to have glasses that I could remove in order to no longer see the screen. Before I delve too much into the reviewing, let’s set the scene.
As mentioned above, T.S. Eliot wrote a book of poems about cats in 1939. After he died, Andrew Lloyd Webber asked Eliot’s widow if he could adapt the work into a musical, an idea which she loved. The musical was a huge hit in London and New York, and at the height of “Cats’” fame, it was not only the longest running musical, but there was also a proposed Steven Spielberg animated movie about it, though the project, unfortunately, fell through after years of planning.
Even today, “Cats” is the fourth-longest-running Broadway show and West End musical. In 1998, Lloyd Webber oversaw and produced an unmemorable direct-to-video film version of “Cats.” Most recently, Universal Pictures released a theatrical movie musical feature of “Cats,” and boy is it hard to forget.
As someone who has only seen the “Cats” feature films, I cannot speak to the original endearing absurdity of “Cats” live; however, I can say a fair bit in comparison between the 1998 film and the 2019 film. The biggest issue for me, in viewing “Cats” (2019), was the CGI.
Photoshopping human faces onto unfortunately realistic humanoid cat things? I’m not a fan. Photoshopping human faces onto enslaved mice and sentient cockroaches? I have seen “It,” “The Babadook,” “The Emoji Movie,” and many other movies proclaiming to be horrific, but none of them come close to how disturbing it is to see Rebel Wilson chow down on cockroaches with human faces. There’s even a crunch.
Unfortunately, taking off my glasses didn’t help save that scene. In contrast, the 1998 film made it very clear that the “cats” were played by humans in costume and makeup. The 21st century could never. They would rather butcher animals and insects alike with CGI.
I have no issues with the “Cats” actors themselves—they performed well enough, and I should certainly hope so, considering they went to cat school for this. They went somewhere to crawl around on all fours, imitating cats. No, I’m not joking. Picture it, folks [or maybe don’t]: Ian McKellen in cat school. I bet he wished he had not passed. However, the casting seems to be a little bit of a checklist of household Hollywood names, with the exception of lovely debut actress Francesca Hayward, principal ballerina in the Royal Ballet at Covent Garden in London. Her dancing, of course, is phenomenal, so it’s a crying shame that her debut movie was a million-dollar flop. Conversely, the “Cats” (1998) cast was made up entirely of professional singers and dancers; they may not have been household names, known by even boomers, but they were the most qualified for their roles and made the film enjoyable for viewers, as ridiculous as the concept of “Cats” is.
The only redeeming factor of “Cats” (2019) is the music. I could close my eyes and genuinely enjoy the songs, which are really the carrying factor of the musical. In the original musical, the plot revolves around the cats introducing themselves through song until the end, when one of them is chosen to go to cat heaven. Again, I wish I was joking.
The movie adheres to the original songs closely with the addition of “Beautiful Ghosts”, a brand new track written by Taylor Swift and Andrew Lloyd Webber for Francesca Hayward’s character. The only issue music-wise for me was casting Jennifer Hudson as Grizabella; Hudson has a superstar voice, but it’s too clean for the raw, vulnerable act that is Grizabella’s show-stopping “Memory”.
“Cats” (2019) received a lot of mixed reviews—some people thought it was as hilarious as it was ridiculous, others thought it was a flaming pile of kitty litter—but the general consensus across both positive and negative was that the movie is really, really, really—and I cannot stress this enough—really weird. The CGI was a big turnoff for most, and like I said, the plot has never been the strong point of the musical.
There are, however, so many missed opportunities here. Someone could have attempted to write a more cohesive plot for the musical; with the right people, brainpower, and effort behind the scenes, I believe that “Cats” could have been cohesive and coherent, maybe even enjoyable.
Another wasted opportunity is the wonderful world that could have been created through animation. Through the magic of studio animation, I think the world of “Cats” and the characters would have been a lot less cringy and less overwhelmed by the personalities of the actors. All in all, I give “Cats” 0 catnips out of 10. Universal can use the 71 million dollars they lost to help pay for all the therapy people need after seeing this movie.