Emma Kilb

I didn't go see the movie just for Taylor Swift (Bombalurina) or just because I was invited by a family friend that ended up hating it--I went because I knew it would be "Interesting." And sure was it. (My theater experience was not good at all but I've been trying to look past that.) Overall, it was breathtaking and intriguing as much so as a movie can get. It's a movie of underrated art and misunderstanding of what art is. People back in the 90s and back used to make movies all the time like Cats. And even the musical production reflects that. Although I have not seen the musical/theater production I have seen a snippet and suppose the story is the same but the overall visuals are more realistic here in the screen version... Which is why I believe it turns many people off... But that's why I love it. There are a few things that turned me off (the beginning, the feet, James Cordon's (Bustopher Jones) song, and a few minor things) but I look past those and see it for what it truly is meant to be and what it truly was written for; TO BE A PIECE OF ART, and to be cherished by cat lovers of all ages. Its visually gorgeous and soft and bright and playful. I've have seen many review that the cat fur looks unrealistic but I extremely disagree. Then again, I didn't view Cats on an expensive screen and it's a fast-paced movie. I would have to point out the last like 15 or more minutes of the movie is trash (sorry.) J. Hudson's (Grizabella) singing of Memory is quite long and pointless, then Dame Judi Dench's (Old Deuteronomy) ending is quiet strange and as well pointless. (Please don't come at me if this is how it is in the musical (since I am unaware) and you love it. I am just saying here for my first experience I didn't enjoy this ending.) But I loved many of the songs and most of the characters very much and will be buying the movie and soundtrack to love and cherish as the art that it is: Cats!