Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Cats the movie has some awesomely scathing reviews...

The only musical I remember enjoying was The Umbrellas of Cherbourg. I can’t remember anything about it specifically though.
 
I know someone who was a dancer on this. Likewise, not keen on musicals at all, apart from Jungle Book. Was kinda tempted to go watch it, but I don't think I will! I heard they changed directors* half way through and that wasn't seen as a good thing by some of the cast. Original director = good atmosphere on set, New director = tense atmosphere on set.

*Note: it might have been change of choreographer, rather than director... Not sure actually :D Come to think of it, makes more sense it was a change of choreographer...
Yes, it was always Tom Hooper directing. I believe there was a tense atmosphere on set a lot of the time. I don't think Tom Hooper is a pleasure to work with.
 
Top class crawling. :thumbs:



There was a thread about counting cat nipples, IIRC by the urban expert in such things - Spymaster.

Spymaster was very insistent that I'd find may cat's nipples when I said I couldn't find any any. When I finally found them, I felt dirty and used. Groomed on Urban ! :(

We learnt a lot from that thread, significantly, that not all cats have the same number of nipples.
 
Part of the problem, beyond the “uncanny valley” CGI cat boobs, is surely because the stage play doesn’t really have a story to speak of. Because it’s true to the TS Elliot source, it’s a succession of set-piece solo numbers for a large cast. Each cat gets a number either sung by or about them. On stage that works with a flimsy narrative conceit stringing them together, because it feels a bit like a music concert. Film has different expectations. Too many characters, each getting their brief and one-off spotlight means that it neither works as a classical narrative, nor an effective ensemble piece.

As a stage show, Cats was popular with people who didn’t like plays. It wouldn’t be my choice.
^^^^
This.

Theatre isn’t film. The two don’t always cross over.
 
This looks like the most WTF movie to come out of Hollywood in quite some time. The first trailer became the laughing stock of the interwebs when it got posted a few months ago. I sort of can't wait to see this, fur-titties and all...


There's a fair to strong chance I'll knock one out later on the strength of that trailer. :hmm:
 
^^^^
This.

Theatre isn’t film. The two don’t always cross over.

Given the reviews, it may be a little premature to say the inherent structure of the thing is the reason for the failure (though Spangles makes a very good case).

I think it might be a little premature to assume commercial failure too.
 
It is La La Land. I always mix them up because so did Faye Dunaway at the oscars. :D
La La Land was great. I've still no idea if Ryan Gosling and Ryan Reynolds are legitimately different people though.

On the subject of Cats, aged maybe 12 I successfully campaigned to get myself on a school trip to London to go and see it, only to learn that I was the only male signed up, whereupon I campaigned even more vigorously to get out of it. Looking back I was the idiot in a particularly wide variety of ways, and I wish I'd been more enlightened, but on the plus side: my toxic masculinity yielded the dividend of never having had to see Cats.
 
I find the way people feel the need to outdo each other here when it comes to being vitriolic about Corden a little weird. I’m no fan, I don’t watch his show, but he’s been fine in the few things I‘ve seen him in. He appears to be skilled when it comes to musical theatre stuff because he’s had that sort of training and that‘s why he gets cast in musicals. So far I haven’t noticed him being singled out in the many terrible reviews the film is getting.

What’s he done to you lot, set a bunch of kittens on fire ?

Horne and Corden.
 
The whole thing puts me in mind of Louis Wain

UU11lswn11UU_465_630_int.jpg


The psychedelic madness of Louis Wain’s cats
 
Back
Top Bottom