Cats was welcomed to theatres this past week with scathing reviews. The film has an incredibly low but rightfully so 18% on Rotten Tomatoes (with an average rating of 3.7/10).
To take an excerpt from my review:
This movie handcuffs you to your seat, vomits a furball on your head and then claws you across your face. Too bad it doesn’t dig its claws deep into your eyeballs.
The cats looked pretty terrible in the trailer, but on the big screen, they’re the stuff of pure nightmares. Picture the bodies of cats (fur and tails and all) but with human faces, hands and legs. No, not in a cool Beast from X-Men sort of way. How do I put this? Imagine walking into your grandparent’s house to borrow some curry powder (I’m Indian okay), only to discover them cosplaying as animals, about to engage in some furry sexy time, and their costumes look like they’re designed by the psycho neighbour dude from Toy Story. But the cast of Cats aren’t wearing costumes. All of it is horribly rendered CG, so every now and then their heads sort of says “f**k you” to the bodies and floats around aimlessly. I wanted to laugh, but then I realised the film cost $US 100 million to make, so a little part of me died inside.
Speaking of its $US 100 million budget, Cats has grossed merely $US 15 million thus far, which means that unless the god of feline descends from the heavens and does something about it, this movie will be one of the bigger big-studio financial disasters in recent memory.
Funnily enough, Universal initially had high hopes for the film. Cats was listed on Universal’s For Your Consideration (FYC) page — the page basically lists movies that the studio pushes during awards season. Can you really blame Universal, though? The film is directed by Tom Hooper (King’s Speech).
However, the studio has since removed the film from their list. According to Variety, Cats also isn’t featured on the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences’ streaming platform, where members can watch Oscar contenders.
