Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Cats (2019) in Movies
Nov 20, 2020
Cut what worked in the musical and left in what didn't
I had heard that the movie version of the mega-Broadway hit musical CATS was a "total trainwreck" with bizarre performances and CGI that was incomplete and/or incompetently done making these CATS look more like FREAKS, so I was looking forward to a "so bad it's good" experience at the film. But, instead of being horrified or bemused, I felt another emotion while watching this...
BOREDOM.
I've never been a real fan of the Broadway production - I witnessed the original cast back in the early 1980's and had a follow-up viewing of the show on Broadway in the mid-to-late '90's when 2 people I know were in the cast and both times I enjoyed the music (for the most part) and the dancing was SUPERB, but I was left disappointed by the characters and the plot (or lack thereof) of this show.
And...that's the biggest problem with the film version of CATS, Director Tom Hooper (LES MISERABLES) decided to focus this film ON the characters and the performances - headlined by such stalwarts as Dame Judy Dench, Sir Ian McKellen, Idris, Elba, Ray Winstone, Jennifer Hudson, James Cordon and Rebel Wilson - and ignore the spectacle of the musical numbers and, most heinously, ignoring the dancing aspect of this musical. This approach, quite frankly, just did not work.
Now...add onto this questionable CGI (I'm being kind), a languid pace (I'm being kind) and performers who were miscast (I'm looking at you Idris Elba, Rebel Wilson, Ray Winstone and...if I'm being honest...Ian McKellan and Judy Dench), and don't get me started on Jason Derullo's RumTum Tugger and Taylor Swift's Bumbalurna (really?) - they were just plain awful. Derullo, especially, turned a fun, energizing driving character into a boring embodiment of all that is wrong with this film (okay...Rebel Wilson was worse, but still....) the only players in this film that kept my attention were stage performers like Robbie Fairchild (Munkustrap) and Francesca Hayward (Victoria) and they were sidelined for the most part by the bigger names and had their dance numbers eliminated and/or truncated.
I wish they would have gone for the campy "so bad, it's good" style of filmmaking - it, at least, would have kept my interest, but the movie as it is, did not. I was happy when the "Jellicle Cat" was selected at the end - I knew this experience would be over soon.
Letter Grade D
2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
BOREDOM.
I've never been a real fan of the Broadway production - I witnessed the original cast back in the early 1980's and had a follow-up viewing of the show on Broadway in the mid-to-late '90's when 2 people I know were in the cast and both times I enjoyed the music (for the most part) and the dancing was SUPERB, but I was left disappointed by the characters and the plot (or lack thereof) of this show.
And...that's the biggest problem with the film version of CATS, Director Tom Hooper (LES MISERABLES) decided to focus this film ON the characters and the performances - headlined by such stalwarts as Dame Judy Dench, Sir Ian McKellen, Idris, Elba, Ray Winstone, Jennifer Hudson, James Cordon and Rebel Wilson - and ignore the spectacle of the musical numbers and, most heinously, ignoring the dancing aspect of this musical. This approach, quite frankly, just did not work.
Now...add onto this questionable CGI (I'm being kind), a languid pace (I'm being kind) and performers who were miscast (I'm looking at you Idris Elba, Rebel Wilson, Ray Winstone and...if I'm being honest...Ian McKellan and Judy Dench), and don't get me started on Jason Derullo's RumTum Tugger and Taylor Swift's Bumbalurna (really?) - they were just plain awful. Derullo, especially, turned a fun, energizing driving character into a boring embodiment of all that is wrong with this film (okay...Rebel Wilson was worse, but still....) the only players in this film that kept my attention were stage performers like Robbie Fairchild (Munkustrap) and Francesca Hayward (Victoria) and they were sidelined for the most part by the bigger names and had their dance numbers eliminated and/or truncated.
I wish they would have gone for the campy "so bad, it's good" style of filmmaking - it, at least, would have kept my interest, but the movie as it is, did not. I was happy when the "Jellicle Cat" was selected at the end - I knew this experience would be over soon.
Letter Grade D
2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated A Star Is Born (1954) in Movies
Jun 29, 2020
A Long Winding Road In Need of a Detour
An aspiring actress gets a her big break when discovered by an alcoholic film star.
Acting: 10
Apparently her first film since four years prior, Judy Garland makes the stage sizzle playing the main role of Vicki Lester. I loved her passion and charisma and the way she delivers her lines with a charm that just lights up the screen. There are a number of other shining roles as well, including a fun performance from James Brown playing the role of Glenn Wiliams.
Beginning: 3
Characters: 10
Although you don’t really get to fully see her development until two thirds of the way into the movie, Vicki Lester is definitely a character an audience can get behind. I rooted for her success in hopes that she would steer clear of the trap the movie was clearly setting for her. That’s the thing about movies, sometimes the audience can see from a mile away something it takes ages for the characters themselves to see. The movie would have been unbearable without solid characters to carry it through.
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
Conflict: 8
There were a lot of pitfalls Vicki had to deal with along the way, namely her alcoholic husband who continues to bring her down. Had they delved into her backstory a lot quicker, I would’ve given this category a perfect score as her upbringing provided another potential pitfall for her future. Overall, with everything going on in the film, it’s clear the winding road is only leading to one place.
Entertainment Value: 8
Memorability: 7
Pace: 4
This version is the longest of the four coming in at almost three hours. Seeing how the other three were able to tell the same story with considerably less time, there is no reason for this version to be so long. It gets boring in a few spots and had me longing for the conclusion. While there are a number of shining moments, a slow pace kept this to a one-watch movie for me.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 10
Overall: 78
A Star is Born is just unnecessarily long. I was expecting a legit reason for the length but, after watching the other three movies, I was at a loss. To hold an audience’s attention for almost three hours means you need plenty of meat for your story. The movie is good, but merely one-watch good. Unfortunately that’s not quite good enough.
Acting: 10
Apparently her first film since four years prior, Judy Garland makes the stage sizzle playing the main role of Vicki Lester. I loved her passion and charisma and the way she delivers her lines with a charm that just lights up the screen. There are a number of other shining roles as well, including a fun performance from James Brown playing the role of Glenn Wiliams.
Beginning: 3
Characters: 10
Although you don’t really get to fully see her development until two thirds of the way into the movie, Vicki Lester is definitely a character an audience can get behind. I rooted for her success in hopes that she would steer clear of the trap the movie was clearly setting for her. That’s the thing about movies, sometimes the audience can see from a mile away something it takes ages for the characters themselves to see. The movie would have been unbearable without solid characters to carry it through.
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
Conflict: 8
There were a lot of pitfalls Vicki had to deal with along the way, namely her alcoholic husband who continues to bring her down. Had they delved into her backstory a lot quicker, I would’ve given this category a perfect score as her upbringing provided another potential pitfall for her future. Overall, with everything going on in the film, it’s clear the winding road is only leading to one place.
Entertainment Value: 8
Memorability: 7
Pace: 4
This version is the longest of the four coming in at almost three hours. Seeing how the other three were able to tell the same story with considerably less time, there is no reason for this version to be so long. It gets boring in a few spots and had me longing for the conclusion. While there are a number of shining moments, a slow pace kept this to a one-watch movie for me.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 10
Overall: 78
A Star is Born is just unnecessarily long. I was expecting a legit reason for the length but, after watching the other three movies, I was at a loss. To hold an audience’s attention for almost three hours means you need plenty of meat for your story. The movie is good, but merely one-watch good. Unfortunately that’s not quite good enough.