The 2019 film adaptation of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s iconic musical, “Cats,” clawed its way into theaters with a thunderous, albeit ultimately disastrous, arrival. Intended as a cinematic spectacle, it instead became a widely ridiculed example of a project gone wrong. But why? What factors contributed to the critical mauling and the widespread audience disdain? Understanding the film’s failings requires dissecting several key elements, from the controversial visual effects to the bewildering narrative choices.
The Uncanny Valley: A Feline Faux Pas
One of the most significant, and immediately apparent, problems with “Cats” was its visual presentation. The filmmakers opted for a “digital fur technology” that superimposed the faces of the actors onto digitally created feline bodies. The result, however, was anything but seamless. Instead of creating believable cat-human hybrids, the effect often veered into the realm of the uncanny valley.
The uncanny valley is a psychological phenomenon where human-like representations evoke feelings of unease and revulsion when they fall just short of appearing convincingly real. The “Cats” visuals were a prime example. The human faces, retaining recognizable features, clashed jarringly with the hyper-realistic fur and feline movements. The proportions often felt wrong, the textures unsettling, and the overall effect deeply unsettling.
This unsettling aesthetic permeated the entire film. Even seasoned actors like Judi Dench, Ian McKellen, and Idris Elba appeared bizarre and sometimes even frightening with their feline appendages and digitized fur. The audience couldn’t suspend their disbelief, constantly reminded that they were watching actors awkwardly contorted into vaguely feline forms. The failure to achieve believable visuals was a critical blow from which the film never recovered.
The initial trailer release further exacerbated the problem. The negative reaction was swift and intense, with the internet exploding in memes and jokes mocking the film’s bizarre character designs. The filmmakers attempted to address the criticism by tweaking the visual effects before the official release, but the damage had already been done.
Narrative Misfires: A Story That Purr-plexed
Beyond the visual issues, “Cats” suffered from fundamental problems with its narrative structure. The stage musical, while arguably thin on plot, compensated with its spectacle, music, and choreography. The film adaptation, however, amplified the narrative weaknesses without offering compelling replacements.
The central premise – a group of “Jellicle cats” competing to be chosen for ascension to the Heaviside Layer – remained largely unchanged. However, the film struggled to translate the episodic nature of the musical into a cohesive cinematic narrative. Individual musical numbers, while occasionally entertaining, felt disjointed and lacked a clear sense of purpose within the broader story.
The introduction of a new “protagonist,” Victoria, played by Francesca Hayward, did little to alleviate the narrative issues. Victoria’s character remained underdeveloped, and her presence failed to provide a central thread to tie the disparate elements together.
Furthermore, the film’s attempt to add a villain in the form of Macavity (Idris Elba) felt forced and ultimately ineffective. Macavity’s motivations remained unclear, and his actions often felt arbitrary and illogical. The absence of a compelling narrative arc left audiences feeling confused and disengaged.
Choreography and Staging: Lost in Translation
The stage version of “Cats” is renowned for its dynamic choreography and innovative staging. The dancers, clad in elaborate costumes and makeup, embody the feline characteristics with remarkable grace and athleticism. The film adaptation, however, struggled to capture the magic of the stage production.
The choreography, while competently executed, often felt constrained by the limitations of the digital fur technology. The actors’ movements were sometimes awkward and unnatural, failing to convey the fluidity and agility associated with cats.
The staging also suffered in the transition to the big screen. The intimate setting of the stage, which allowed the audience to feel immersed in the world of the Jellicle cats, was lost in the vastness of the cinematic landscape. The film’s attempts to create a sense of scale often backfired, making the characters appear small and insignificant against the digitally rendered backdrops.
The decision to scale up the cats to near-human size also contributed to the film’s unsettling aesthetic. The oversized felines, interacting with human-sized props and sets, further blurred the line between the real and the unreal, exacerbating the uncanny valley effect.
Musical Mayhem: A Missed Opportunity
Andrew Lloyd Webber’s score is undoubtedly the most enduring aspect of “Cats.” The musical features several iconic songs, including “Memory,” which has been covered by countless artists over the years. However, the film adaptation failed to fully capitalize on the musical’s strengths.
While the original songs were largely retained, their presentation often felt uninspired. The vocal performances, while technically proficient, lacked the emotional depth and power that characterized the stage production.
The film also included a new song, “Beautiful Ghosts,” co-written by Taylor Swift and Andrew Lloyd Webber. While the song itself was well-received, its placement within the film felt awkward and out of place.
The overall sound design of “Cats” also came under criticism. The mix often felt muddy and unbalanced, making it difficult to fully appreciate the nuances of the music. The film ultimately failed to leverage the inherent strengths of the musical score.
Marketing Mishaps: Setting Unrealistic Expectations
The marketing campaign for “Cats” played a significant role in shaping audience expectations. The initial trailers, as mentioned earlier, sparked widespread derision due to the film’s bizarre visual effects.
Despite the negative reaction, the marketing team continued to promote the film as a visually groundbreaking spectacle. This approach ultimately backfired, as audiences were already predisposed to dislike the film’s aesthetic.
The marketing also failed to clearly communicate the film’s narrative. The trailers offered only glimpses of the plot, leaving many potential viewers confused about the story’s central themes and characters.
The film’s release date, in the midst of the holiday season, also proved to be problematic. “Cats” was competing against a number of other high-profile releases, including “Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker” and “Little Women.” The film’s negative buzz made it difficult to attract audiences away from these more appealing options.
The Director’s Vision: A Critical Question
Tom Hooper, the director of “Cats,” had previously helmed successful film adaptations of musicals such as “Les Misérables” and “The King’s Speech.” However, his vision for “Cats” ultimately proved to be misguided.
Hooper’s decision to prioritize visual spectacle over narrative coherence was a major contributing factor to the film’s failure. His insistence on using the controversial digital fur technology, despite the widespread negative feedback, was a particularly costly mistake.
Hooper’s direction also failed to elicit compelling performances from the cast. Many of the actors appeared uncomfortable and ill-suited to their roles. The film lacked the energy and passion that characterized the stage production.
Some argue that Hooper’s attempt to “ground” the fantastical world of “Cats” in a more realistic setting ultimately undermined the musical’s inherent charm and whimsy. The film’s serious tone clashed with the silliness of the premise, creating a jarring and unsatisfying experience.
Critical Reception: A Chorus of Disapproval
The critical reception to “Cats” was overwhelmingly negative. Reviewers lambasted the film’s visual effects, narrative shortcomings, and lack of overall entertainment value.
Many critics described the film as “bizarre,” “unsettling,” and even “nightmarish.” The film’s score on Rotten Tomatoes, a popular review aggregation website, plummeted to a dismal 20%.
The critical drubbing had a significant impact on the film’s box office performance. “Cats” ultimately grossed only $75 million worldwide, far short of its estimated $95 million production budget.
The film’s failure served as a cautionary tale for Hollywood studios, highlighting the risks associated with adapting beloved stage musicals for the big screen. The negative reviews effectively sealed the film’s fate.
Audience Reaction: A Collective Head-Scratch
The audience reaction to “Cats” mirrored the critical response. Moviegoers expressed confusion, disgust, and even outright horror at the film’s bizarre visuals and nonsensical plot.
Social media platforms were flooded with memes and jokes mocking the film. Many viewers shared their experiences of walking out of the theater in disgust.
The film’s poor word-of-mouth contributed to its rapid decline at the box office. “Cats” quickly became a punchline, a symbol of Hollywood excess and artistic misjudgment.
The film’s failure to connect with audiences underscored the importance of understanding and respecting the source material. “Cats” attempted to reinvent the musical for a new generation, but in doing so, it lost sight of the qualities that made the original so beloved.
The Legacy of “Cats”: A Cautionary Tale
“Cats” will likely be remembered as one of the most notorious film adaptations in recent history. The film’s failure serves as a cautionary tale for filmmakers, highlighting the importance of careful planning, thoughtful execution, and a deep understanding of the source material.
The film’s experience highlights the dangers of relying too heavily on visual effects, particularly when those effects fail to achieve a convincing level of realism. The uncanny valley remains a significant challenge for filmmakers, and “Cats” serves as a prime example of what can happen when this challenge is not met.
The film also underscores the importance of narrative coherence. Even the most visually stunning film will struggle to succeed if it lacks a compelling story and well-developed characters.
Ultimately, “Cats” failed because it lost sight of the qualities that made the stage musical so popular. The film’s attempts to modernize and “improve” the source material ultimately backfired, resulting in a bizarre and unsatisfying cinematic experience. The legacy of “Cats” is a reminder that sometimes, less is more.
Why was the “Cats” movie so poorly received?
The 2019 film adaptation of “Cats” faced widespread criticism primarily due to its unsettling visual effects. The “digital fur technology,” intended to create realistic cat-human hybrids, instead resulted in characters that many viewers found uncanny and grotesque. This visual element distracted from the narrative and performances, creating a sense of discomfort and contributing significantly to the negative reviews.
Beyond the visuals, the film was also criticized for its confusing plot, poor character development, and overall lack of emotional resonance. Many felt that the film failed to capture the magic and whimsical nature of the original stage musical, resulting in a disjointed and unengaging experience for the audience. The changes made to the storyline and musical arrangements further alienated fans of the original production.
What is “digital fur technology” and how did it affect the “Cats” movie?
“Digital fur technology” refers to the CGI used in the “Cats” movie to transform the actors into feline-human hybrids. This involved digitally adding fur, cat-like features, and tails onto the actors’ bodies. The aim was to create a realistic and visually appealing representation of the Jellicle Cats.
However, the execution of this technology was widely considered to be a failure. The characters often appeared unsettling and unnatural, with many viewers comparing them to “nightmare fuel.” The poor quality of the CGI distracted from the performances and made it difficult for audiences to connect with the characters, ultimately hindering the film’s success.
Did the original stage musical “Cats” also receive negative reviews?
The original stage musical “Cats,” which premiered in London in 1981 and on Broadway in 1982, initially received mixed reviews from critics. Some found the lack of a cohesive plot and character development off-putting, while others lauded the innovative choreography, elaborate costumes, and catchy musical numbers. However, despite the mixed critical reception, “Cats” became a massive commercial success.
The musical’s popularity transcended initial critical opinions, attracting audiences worldwide for decades. Its memorable songs, energetic performances, and visually stunning production design resonated with a broad audience, turning “Cats” into a cultural phenomenon and one of the longest-running shows in Broadway history. This long-term success contrasts sharply with the negative reception of the 2019 film adaptation.
Were there any positive aspects of the “Cats” movie that critics acknowledged?
While the “Cats” movie was overwhelmingly panned, some critics acknowledged the dedication of the actors in their performances, even under the challenging circumstances of working with the heavily criticized visual effects. Certain musical numbers and individual vocal performances were occasionally praised for their energy and execution, highlighting the talent involved despite the film’s shortcomings.
Furthermore, a few critics appreciated the film’s ambition and willingness to take risks in adapting such a unique stage musical. Although the experiment ultimately failed, the attempt to translate the fantastical world of “Cats” to the big screen with cutting-edge technology was seen as a bold endeavor, even if the results were less than satisfactory.
How did the actors in “Cats” react to the negative reviews?
The actors in “Cats” responded to the negative reviews in various ways, with some expressing disappointment and others maintaining a sense of humor about the film’s reception. Several cast members acknowledged the criticism and admitted that the film did not turn out as expected, but also defended their own performances and the effort put into the project.
Many actors also emphasized the challenges of working with the digital fur technology and the difficulty of judging the final product until it was complete. Some expressed hope that audiences would still find enjoyment in the film despite its flaws, while others focused on the positive experiences they had during the production process and the camaraderie among the cast.
Did the negative reviews affect the box office performance of “Cats”?
Yes, the overwhelmingly negative reviews significantly impacted the box office performance of “Cats.” The film opened to weak ticket sales and quickly became a box office bomb, failing to recoup its production costs. The negative word-of-mouth and widespread criticism discouraged potential viewers from seeing the film, leading to a rapid decline in attendance.
The poor box office performance further solidified the perception of “Cats” as a major cinematic failure. The film’s financial losses contributed to the studio’s decision to withdraw it from awards consideration and eventually pull it from theaters, marking a significant setback for all involved.
Were there any attempts to fix the visual effects after the initial negative reactions?
Yes, in response to the initial wave of negative reactions following the film’s premiere, Universal Pictures made the unusual decision to release an updated version of “Cats” with improved visual effects. This version was sent to theaters after the film had already been playing for several days, a rare move in the film industry.
However, even with the updated visuals, the film’s underlying issues remained, and the improvements were not substantial enough to change the overall negative perception. The altered version did little to improve the film’s box office performance or critical reception, and “Cats” continued to be regarded as a significant disappointment.