The same can be said for the Broadway stage production of Cats. People either like it or can't understand it & dismiss it as trash. But that is how all art is. One person looks at a painting on a wall worth thousands of dollars, where the artist literally just took a brush & flung paint randomly onto the canvas in nonsensical patterns & calls it 'modern art' & someone else looks at it & says, "my toddler could have done better for free." Everyone is entitled to their opinion but it may be helpful to know where people are coming from to see the bias of their opinion.
Someone who has never seen the stage production, probably won't like this at all, even though the movie has more (believe it or not) story & plot than the stage version. Also people who don't like musicals or are used to people singing dialogue, instead of just saying it, probably won't enjoy this movie either. People who don't see "art" in bizarre poetry with nonsensical words, probably won''t understand either the play or movie & get frustrated & angry because they don't know what is going on & people don't like to feel stupid, so they will blame the art itself for not spoon-feeding them everything. People who don't like dancing probably won't enjoy Cats either because most of the show is dancing. People of the lowest common denominator who are looking for explosions or quick 1-liner jokes every 2 seconds or some complicated hidden plot twist, have no business watching Cats. People who expect every song to be top a 40 hit will not like Cats either because again, the songs are meant to express the dialogue, not end up on the radio. Most musicals have 1 or 2 (maybe 3 if they are lucky) memorable songs that could be radio-worthy & for Cats, the only song of that caliber is "Memory." But even for an epic song that good, it doesn't have as big of an impact if the context is lost on most of the audience. It is hard to "feel" for the characters if their backstory is not shown/demonstrated/explained in detail. A couple lines of exposition that are easily missed if not paying close attention is not enough to make a character "likeable" or "relatable" to modern audiences.
Also, if a character is supposed to be an old destitute homeless bum with nothing, they should look like one. Other than a scar by her eye & some not 'purrfect' fur, Grizabella looked fine & quite beautiful. It is harder to feel empathy & sad for someone if they don't look like they should have much to be sad about. In spite of that I think Jennifer Hudson was amazing in her acting in her face & her eyes. It is only because of her looks of cautious surprise & "I'm not sure if you're going to hurt me" expressions when Victoria attempted to befriend her that made me feel anything for Grizabella at all. She totally encapsulated the look of someone who is familiar with being hurt, abused, & betrayed throughout her life. In her song, she mentions the memories of her past, yet we know virtually nothing about her past other than she used to be a glamour cat & was with Macavity at one point. And that is all. But in spite of that her version of "Memory" still blew me away & is my favorite version of the song ever. Some people have complained that the fact that her nose was running because she was crying while she was singing was distracting to them. What? If an old homeless hag was singing about their terrible life, you think they would be smiling? Laughing? No, they would be sobbing, uncontrollably, just like Jennifer Hudson was. She didn't just sing the song so it could be technically perfect, she 'lived' the song fully by putting herself into the character she was playing. Does seeing emotion like that make you uncomfortable? Was that too raw for you? When you see a homeless person on the corner, do you look the other way? Sorry, not everything is sunshine & rainbows & happy endings all the time. Life sucks for most people most of the time with a few bright spots along the way. That's reality. And even though this musical is obviously a fantasy, making it somewhat realistic & relatable is what art is about. It is about having an experience where you hopefully feel something & are changed as a result. But again art is not for everyone.
Is this movie 'purrfect'? Absolutely not. Could it have been better? Totally, in a bunch of ways that have already been related in detail by other reviewers. Were there some cringe-worthy scenes? 100% for sure in the Gumby-cat & Glutton-cat songs. Is it the worst movie of all time? Not in the least, unless you are one of the people mentioned above that really should stick to the cookie-cutter Hollywood movies that you are used to. No offense, really. People like what they like & don't have to like everything that someone else likes. I actually really enjoyed many of the other comments & lol at the creativity of expression in how seeing this movie somehow destroyed their lives. They deserve some credit & props for their gift with humorous words. :-)
Any time something is adapted from one art medium to another there are going to be purists that want things to be the same & any changes are an offense. If everything was going to be exactly the same, what would be the point of making it again? But by changing things, it gives a chance for a different interpretation & maybe even a modernization. A lot of people seem to have issues with the motion-capture & the CGI cat fur not passing the 'uncanny valley' threshold & I can see their point but I find the movie version much more enjoyable than the stage production's terribly gaudy makeup & over-the-top costumes, but that is just my opinion. I know some really like the crazy costume design of the Broadway shows. To each their own, I guess. In the movie, you can almost believe that they are some sort of cat, albeit a fantasy cat, since your pet cat at home probably doesn't talk, sing or dance, or have a human face, hands, & feet.
Some have suggested that the CGI should have just been full 100% cat, but then you lose the important emotional performance that is in the actor's/actresses' face & eyes. The face & eyes are really the window to the soul in conveying the emotion of the story & what you are trying to portray. Using motion capture & CGI helps to not lose that part of the performance. If seeing a human face on a cat body disturbs someone then maybe more practice with using one's imagination might be in order. Some people were bothered by lackluster singing by some of the characters & I can see their point since this is a musical. Being a good singer is 'typically' part of getting a job in a musical. But if the artist is interested in making something 'not typical' that seems a little more realistic than a world where every single individual is a perfect singer & nobody ever sings off key, then they might make a musical where some are more talented with dancing (or something else) instead of singing 'purrfectly'.
Could they have made a different version of this that was dumbed down & Americanized so that a wider audience could have enjoyed it & understood it more? Absolutely, but they seemed to want to stay quite close to the British stage version so that this would still be similar enough for those familiar with it & yet different enough so they could make this version their own interpretation.
So in summary, I would only recommend this to those who are theater-inclined or those who enjoy art & are not looking for 'purrfection' or an exact reiteration of the Broadway show. And to be honest, even though I enjoyed the movie as a whole, there are parts that I did not like. The best part, in my opinion, is from 1:25:08 - 1:36:55 & is the only part that I have re-watched many times. Full disclosure: I actually have never seen the Broadway show in its entirety, but I do enjoy theatre generally, even though it is not as widely available here in the USA as it is in England. I also enjoy some art & educated & cultured activities including musicals & dancing with Les Miserables probably being my most favorite & have not found a version (stage or film) I do not enjoy, including Mr Hooper's version, with the live singing. To me it made it more realistic & emotionally raw & compelling.
Someone who has never seen the stage production, probably won't like this at all, even though the movie has more (believe it or not) story & plot than the stage version. Also people who don't like musicals or are used to people singing dialogue, instead of just saying it, probably won't enjoy this movie either. People who don't see "art" in bizarre poetry with nonsensical words, probably won''t understand either the play or movie & get frustrated & angry because they don't know what is going on & people don't like to feel stupid, so they will blame the art itself for not spoon-feeding them everything. People who don't like dancing probably won't enjoy Cats either because most of the show is dancing. People of the lowest common denominator who are looking for explosions or quick 1-liner jokes every 2 seconds or some complicated hidden plot twist, have no business watching Cats. People who expect every song to be top a 40 hit will not like Cats either because again, the songs are meant to express the dialogue, not end up on the radio. Most musicals have 1 or 2 (maybe 3 if they are lucky) memorable songs that could be radio-worthy & for Cats, the only song of that caliber is "Memory." But even for an epic song that good, it doesn't have as big of an impact if the context is lost on most of the audience. It is hard to "feel" for the characters if their backstory is not shown/demonstrated/explained in detail. A couple lines of exposition that are easily missed if not paying close attention is not enough to make a character "likeable" or "relatable" to modern audiences.
Also, if a character is supposed to be an old destitute homeless bum with nothing, they should look like one. Other than a scar by her eye & some not 'purrfect' fur, Grizabella looked fine & quite beautiful. It is harder to feel empathy & sad for someone if they don't look like they should have much to be sad about. In spite of that I think Jennifer Hudson was amazing in her acting in her face & her eyes. It is only because of her looks of cautious surprise & "I'm not sure if you're going to hurt me" expressions when Victoria attempted to befriend her that made me feel anything for Grizabella at all. She totally encapsulated the look of someone who is familiar with being hurt, abused, & betrayed throughout her life. In her song, she mentions the memories of her past, yet we know virtually nothing about her past other than she used to be a glamour cat & was with Macavity at one point. And that is all. But in spite of that her version of "Memory" still blew me away & is my favorite version of the song ever. Some people have complained that the fact that her nose was running because she was crying while she was singing was distracting to them. What? If an old homeless hag was singing about their terrible life, you think they would be smiling? Laughing? No, they would be sobbing, uncontrollably, just like Jennifer Hudson was. She didn't just sing the song so it could be technically perfect, she 'lived' the song fully by putting herself into the character she was playing. Does seeing emotion like that make you uncomfortable? Was that too raw for you? When you see a homeless person on the corner, do you look the other way? Sorry, not everything is sunshine & rainbows & happy endings all the time. Life sucks for most people most of the time with a few bright spots along the way. That's reality. And even though this musical is obviously a fantasy, making it somewhat realistic & relatable is what art is about. It is about having an experience where you hopefully feel something & are changed as a result. But again art is not for everyone.
Is this movie 'purrfect'? Absolutely not. Could it have been better? Totally, in a bunch of ways that have already been related in detail by other reviewers. Were there some cringe-worthy scenes? 100% for sure in the Gumby-cat & Glutton-cat songs. Is it the worst movie of all time? Not in the least, unless you are one of the people mentioned above that really should stick to the cookie-cutter Hollywood movies that you are used to. No offense, really. People like what they like & don't have to like everything that someone else likes. I actually really enjoyed many of the other comments & lol at the creativity of expression in how seeing this movie somehow destroyed their lives. They deserve some credit & props for their gift with humorous words. :-)
Any time something is adapted from one art medium to another there are going to be purists that want things to be the same & any changes are an offense. If everything was going to be exactly the same, what would be the point of making it again? But by changing things, it gives a chance for a different interpretation & maybe even a modernization. A lot of people seem to have issues with the motion-capture & the CGI cat fur not passing the 'uncanny valley' threshold & I can see their point but I find the movie version much more enjoyable than the stage production's terribly gaudy makeup & over-the-top costumes, but that is just my opinion. I know some really like the crazy costume design of the Broadway shows. To each their own, I guess. In the movie, you can almost believe that they are some sort of cat, albeit a fantasy cat, since your pet cat at home probably doesn't talk, sing or dance, or have a human face, hands, & feet.
Some have suggested that the CGI should have just been full 100% cat, but then you lose the important emotional performance that is in the actor's/actresses' face & eyes. The face & eyes are really the window to the soul in conveying the emotion of the story & what you are trying to portray. Using motion capture & CGI helps to not lose that part of the performance. If seeing a human face on a cat body disturbs someone then maybe more practice with using one's imagination might be in order. Some people were bothered by lackluster singing by some of the characters & I can see their point since this is a musical. Being a good singer is 'typically' part of getting a job in a musical. But if the artist is interested in making something 'not typical' that seems a little more realistic than a world where every single individual is a perfect singer & nobody ever sings off key, then they might make a musical where some are more talented with dancing (or something else) instead of singing 'purrfectly'.
Could they have made a different version of this that was dumbed down & Americanized so that a wider audience could have enjoyed it & understood it more? Absolutely, but they seemed to want to stay quite close to the British stage version so that this would still be similar enough for those familiar with it & yet different enough so they could make this version their own interpretation.
So in summary, I would only recommend this to those who are theater-inclined or those who enjoy art & are not looking for 'purrfection' or an exact reiteration of the Broadway show. And to be honest, even though I enjoyed the movie as a whole, there are parts that I did not like. The best part, in my opinion, is from 1:25:08 - 1:36:55 & is the only part that I have re-watched many times. Full disclosure: I actually have never seen the Broadway show in its entirety, but I do enjoy theatre generally, even though it is not as widely available here in the USA as it is in England. I also enjoy some art & educated & cultured activities including musicals & dancing with Les Miserables probably being my most favorite & have not found a version (stage or film) I do not enjoy, including Mr Hooper's version, with the live singing. To me it made it more realistic & emotionally raw & compelling.