A shy woman, endowed with the speed, reflexes, and senses of a cat, walks a thin line between criminal and hero, even as a detective doggedly pursues her, fascinated by both of her personas.A shy woman, endowed with the speed, reflexes, and senses of a cat, walks a thin line between criminal and hero, even as a detective doggedly pursues her, fascinated by both of her personas.A shy woman, endowed with the speed, reflexes, and senses of a cat, walks a thin line between criminal and hero, even as a detective doggedly pursues her, fascinated by both of her personas.
One word is brought to mind when thinking back to my viewing of, Catwoman- Crap. It might be inspired by my estimation of the film's display of only 12 minutes of living, breathing actors (which I will get into more below). Or it could possibly be inspired by the many errors that there wasn't even an attempt to cover, i.e.- Patience becomes Catwoman after wandering into a restricted area. How did she get into this restricted area, you ask? By walking through the door marked 'RESTRICTED AREA,' in bold, red text, which was simply unlocked and didn't even have a significant locking device on it. You know, I might've also hated the movie (not worthy of the word 'film') because of the pointless-undeveloped story line. And, really, it's not possible to look beyond the disgustingly audacious 'style' of one-named director, Pitof, which can only be described as the style of a headless chicken running through a maze of landmines. Oh, yes, said headless chicken is also being chased by angry natives wielding machetes.
I mentioned above that I estimated that only 12 minutes of living, breathing actors were shown during the entire 140 minutes of film. Almost every sequence of the movie featuring an actor seemed to be butchered by the insertion of CGI's. I'm dead serious. I'm not just talking high-flying, sucky action sequences- I'm talking scenes of Catwoman walking to a motorcycle and calmly getting on it, and the other one that immediately comes to mind is a sequence where a man (a baddie) is simply walking. Yeah, walking. It seems agents and managers are really watching over their clients these days.
Now, two questions I'm asking-
1) What is the point of Catwoman? What the [expletive] does she do?
It's explained in the film that Midnight, the 'magical' cat, chose Patience to become Catwoman, but something is wrong here- CATWOMAN HAS NO PURPOSE!! Every other superhero out there has a purpose- They save people! It seems Catwoman's only purpose is to kill the people who attempted to kill her and chase a cricket or two. There's nothing else to her!
2) Where is the REAL back story?
It sure as [expletive] wasn't in the film! Why wasn't she shocked and attempting to reason and deal with the emotional ass-kicking that would come with the revelation? She's told she's Catwoman by the cliché cat lady, she buys a mask and nails and the result is the 'superhero.' It's adds up, but not into anything of any value whatsoever. Shame on you terrible writers!
Halle Berry is a good actress. I'm not doubting or denying that. She fully deserved her Academy Award nomination and win for 2001's Monster's Ball, but something bad happened here. Her acting started awful and ended awful. I'm hoping the talents and reputation of Berry won't be harmed by her inadequate performance.
Now, My request to Halle Berry- Ms. Berry, I want my money back. I never thought I could see such a terrible performance from an Oscar winning actress. Maybe you were just doing your best with the material? But, you know, that really is not a valid excuse. After reading the screenplay, you should've thrown it in the face of the agent who dared display it to you. How could you not notice how awful it was? Make some better choices and hopefully your career won't plummet as so many others have.
I recall an interview with Ashley Judd, the original casting choice for Catwoman, who said something along the lines of, 'Turning down the role of Catwoman is one the things I regret the most.' Ashley, never say that again. You have only been saved by not appearing in this hilariously terrible film.
Listen people, don't waste your money on this glorified..er um..crap. It's not worth the $6-$15 bucks!
So now you ask, why not just give it a zero? Why the zero-point five? Well, The editing was sufficiently bad; the acting of Alex Borstein could've possibly taken some effort, appropriately placed CGI's were okay, and I like cats.
Directing 0/10, Writing 0/10, Cinematography 0.5/10, Editing 1/10, Acting 0.5/10, Overall Satisfaction 0/10
- Jul 28, 2004