At long, long last, Cats has finally arrived. With a 19% score on Rotten Tomatoes as of opening day, one of the most anticipated films of the year has finally graced us with its other-worldly presence. Cats follows the journey of Victoria (Francesca Hayward), an abandoned cat. She meets the Jellicles, a group of cats living in London, one by one as they compete for the honor of ascension to the Heaviside Layer. If that sounds like a strange plot for a film to have, it’s because it is.
The thing about Cats is that it is flawed at its core. This movie shouldn’t have been made. I’m not a musical theater scholar by any means, but I can think of many shows that should have been adapted before this. Moreover, I can think of many, many, shows that would have been far easier to adapt than Andrew Lloyd Webber’s Cats. There’s also the elephant in the room: the CGI in this film edges far too close to the uncanny valley for comfort. The CGI also makes the dancing feel less impressive, as it feels about as realistic as the fur on Judi Dench’s face. Cats could have easily been done without CGI, instead using traditional costumes and makeup, but it was not.
The key to engaging with Cats as a film is to accept these two central flaws (its existence and its CGI). Yes, these flaws still impact the film. However, if you accept these things and move on, Cats becomes a fun and campy good time instead of a showcase of mistakes. There’s nothing you can do about these key problems, so we, the audience, might as well make the best of it. I highly recommend the experience of seeing this film in theaters. It is a ridiculous, hilarious, and fun-filled romp through a scaled-up CGI London that I think is best enjoyed in an environment with others to prevent one’s own spiral into insanity.
What Cats lacks in realism, gravity, and sense, it makes up for with sheer enthusiasm. It feels as though every member of the cast is giving it their all, even though they could probably coast their way through the performance. Francesca Hayward shines, Jennifer Hudson dazzles, and Taylor Swift seems to be having the time of her life. While the movie isn’t great, it is at least fun to watch the cast act for their lives.
While Cats is fun, I cannot in good conscience call it a “good” film. Aside from the obvious faults I mentioned earlier, there are many smaller problems with it. While the filmmaking itself is blessedly competent, it doesn’t distract from the sheer weirdness of watching a bunch of actors you know and love behave like cats. Cats falls into the Lion King (1994) trap of trying to portray feline-on-feline affection to a human audience; one can only watch two characters nuzzle each other so many times before it just becomes weird. Additionally, the scale of the set in relation to the actors starts to become strangely humorous after a while, with long shots of the dance sequences that will make you laugh out loud more than once.
All in all, Cats feels like something that exists outside any modern method of film criticism. I, personally, truly enjoyed my viewing experience, as I love a good big-budget campy nightmare. However, my taste in film is obviously not universal, as evidenced by several people in my screening leaving halfway through the film. All I can offer is this: if you think you would enjoy Cats, you will probably enjoy Cats. The trailers advertised the film honestly, which in this day and age is something to be admired. If you don’t think you’d like Cats, that’s completely understandable. If you do think you’d like Cats, step right up to the Jellicle ball and enjoy the ride of a lifetime.
1.5/5 STARS