If you’re a long-time West End Theatre fan you’re no doubt aware that a big budget Hollywood film of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s musical CATS has just been released. What we’ve all been wondering is whether it’ll be any good after the trailer that was distributed earlier this year made it all look rather alarming, as I reported HERE.
By now you’ll be able to see its host of A-List stars, rendered naked and covered in fur by computer effects, singing the much loved score at your local cinema and enacting the simple tale of how a new kit in town discovers the feline community through a series of encounters with its biggest characters.
I still haven’t made it yet but when I heard Stuart King, one of our regular critics, had been to see it I asked him to share his opinion with you, hoping it might be positive enough to tempt me along.
Well, he’s not as harsh as some reviewers have been - hooray! But as you’ll read below he wasn’t a CATS lover anyway. As a result it’s not quite the encouragement I need to lure me out of the theatre and off to the multiplex.
So for me the jury’s still out! Have you enjoyed it? Should I go? Drop us a line and let us know.
PW.
STUART KING’S REVIEW OF CATS ON FILM.
I’ve never been an especial fan of Lloyd-Webber’s original musical theatre production of “Cats”, but mindful of its phenomenal success (nearly $4 billion global theatrical gross), I allowed curiosity to get the better of me and went along to a screening of Tom Hooper’s new film version, which received universally scathing reviews on its opening weekend.
The harsh comments must surely have left a litter-tray of bruised egos, but I resolved to ignore the vitriol and make my own assessment. As the lights dimmed, and the sweet wrappers began rustling, I steeled myself for the anticipated cat-aclysm, but in truth, it never materialised.
True enough, the interminable first half hour of hand held camera work ensures that it won’t be garnering any five star reviews — I would award it perhaps two-and-a-half — but, by the end I had concluded that the critical onslaught was not only a stretch, but massively disrespectful of the talents and skills involved in bringing this admittedly flawed piece to cinemas.
There are some truly cringeworthy moments (most notably James Cordon’s turn) but to suggest that the whole is a lion-sized turd, is incredibly unjust. By the end, I felt no urge to dance down the street whistling any of the tunes, but if memory (no pun intended) serves, I felt no differently when I saw the original theatre show at the New London Theatre. The source material was always a bit of frivolous fun and with time, it has merely transformed into something of a dirge - but the movie floats high above a feline equivalent of “Raise the Titanic”.
The potential silver-lining for the producers, is that the reviews will be as cat-nip to those wishing to discover the apparent awfulness for themselves, and this will most surely be reflected in long-term box office takings. To date however, its flop status has been assured (with a mere $11m recouped from its $100m production costs). Only time will tell if the caterwauling antics of Grizabella et al, will save the movie from permanent cinematic cat-astrophe.
