Yet another pile of Hollywood cat poo. A review by Rick Groen of the Globe and Mail here in Canada:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040722.wxcat0723/BNStory/Front/

Written by John Brancato, Michael Ferris, John Rogers, Theresa Rebeck

Starring Halle Berry, Sharon Stone, Benjamin Bratt

Classification: PG

Rating: ½ star

It's nearly a full hour into Catwoman before the “outfit” makes an appearance, and I won't lie to you: Call me biased, but the sight of Halle Berry shoe-horned into black leather — skin-tight pants, skimpy bra, pointy-ear accessories — is not at all disagreeable.

Savour it guys and gals alike, because every odorous frame before and after that sight can be safely consigned to the litter box. By my crude math, the bottom line is a picture boasting a $90-million price tag and one fetching outfit — move over Valentino, that's some awfully haute couture.

Now when it comes to comic books all dressed up in celluloid — and our pop culture is coming to little else — the standards aren't exactly demanding. Good is always preferable, of course, but so-bad-it's-good is definitely acceptable. What's not, what's an unforgivable sin, is blandness. And when even the blandness gets butchered, well, call it a hanging offence and round up a posse.

As for the culprits, let's begin with the committee, the gang of four, that pummelled some guiltless keyboard and dreamed it was a script. I stake no claim to expertise in the lineage of feline femmes but, if recollection serves, the genus enjoys a walk on the wild side and displays a certain flair for things villainous.

In fact, my distinct memory (curvaceously shaped to resemble Michelle Pfeiffer) is that catwomen have been put on this earth to make life hell for batmen. But our committee members, it seems, have a different idea: Apparently afraid for their furniture, they've gone out and declawed the poor creature.

Her freshly varnished back story goes something like this: The girl has a new alias, Patience; a new residence, some unnamed metropolis; and a new job, toiling in the art department of a cosmetics company. Not just any old L'Oréal place, but one that's about to unload on a world of unsuspecting women an anti-aging cream with some unfortunate side effects.

Cut to anguished cry of mad scientist: “I can't live with turning people into monsters." But the committee can. They've turned Sharon Stone, as the company's former cover girl, into an aging beauty fighting her own battle with Father Time. Spoiler alert: She isn't fighting fair.

Now back to Patience who, in the fine tradition of every hero with a prefix, is a mousy little thing until the metamorphosis kicks in. Dying one day, she awakens the next with a sudden yen for sushi, an uncanny ability to land on her feet, and an unfortunate propensity for hokey wordplay — “purrrfect,” “cat got your tongue,” all that ha-ha stuff.

Oh, and one other enhancement: With her resurrected self comes a reborn fashion sense. So bring on the outfit, and bring it on fast. You see, no outfit, no movie — or did I make that point already?

All this is well and fine, but what does our costumed kitty do with her prodigious powers? Nothing too bad, I assure you. Actually, nothing much good either: She demonstrates an impressive slam-dunking skill on the basketball court; saves a kid from tumbling off a faulty Ferris wheel; waylays a couple of jewel thieves, then returns the jewels to their rightful owner; and allegedly brings a whole new sexual energy to her hitherto tepid romance with Benjamin Bratt.

I say allegedly, because their making out is damn hard to make out — frankly, you'd have to be Owlman to see it. Then there's the climactic set-to with Stone, a generational battle of the beauties flashing their respective outfits. In Sharon's defence, it must be conceded that the playing field isn't really level — a lovely pant suit, however well-tailored, just ain't no match for leather and a whip.

That leaves our posse, in dogged pursuit of the cat makers, with one last villain to corral: The French director known only as Pitof, a man whose talent appears to extend no further than his name.

Dipping into the budget's expensive bag of computer-generated effects, he's managed to create an entire digitalized city that has all the allure of an underground parking garage. And his action, it's cluttered; his editing, it's confused. The result: blandness butchered, hamburger chopped, kitty littered.

A postscript: Reports have it that Berry is hoping to become the first black American woman to successfully “open” a summer blockbuster. Maybe so, but I credit her with loftier motives.

Surely, and bravely, she's putting herself to the George Clooney test. If his career can withstand that Batman, then hers can endure this Catwoman. After all, isn't that the true mark of any bona fide movie star — the ability to survive a trial-by-turkey?

Meee-OUCH!

It honestly didnt look like much more then a rental movie to me.

It honestly didnt look like much more then a rental movie to me.

even that is being generous I think.

Yet another pile of Hollywood cat poo. A review by Rick Groen of the Globe and Mail here in Canada:
Groen is hardly the most genre-friendly critic out there.
That critic and the paper for which he writes has too much arsty and not enough fartsy.
That said, "Catwoman" IS consistently panned this morning.

Not even a 99 cent rental.

I don't think that even my cat would watch this from what I am hearing.

And cats do have good taste. About 6 years ago, a neighbor's cat used to come by my house every evening just in time to curl up in my lap for an episode of Babylon 5 which was airing nightly here then. He would promptly leave when the show was over and would leave immediately if anything else was on.

Cool cat!:thumbsup:

Huzz (and that's a true story boys and girls)

Local review starts by saying it's not as bad as the trailers make it look - then goes on to say nothing good about it whatsoever, except that Sharon Stone steals the film with a character that (as the description read to me) sounds like it belongs in a Jim Carrey film. A Cosmetics queen who is EEEEVVIIIIIIIIILLL has become addicted to a new skin cream formula (I kid you not - this movie's Evil Scheme centers on skin cream) that has turned her body as hard as marble (!!!), and she plans to market the stuff and gete rich (!!!) in spite of objections from concerned employees (who she simply has killed). Notes the reviewer, there's a campy little comedy buried in here somewhere. Ooooooooookay...sounds more like The Tick than DC Comics...

Director Pizof takes the brunt of the blame (deservedly) for creating a film that's all slickness and no style. Many of the complaints above are repeated. Berry gets some good marks for being appropriately timid as early Patience, and gamely fierce after the murdered Patience is resurrected by the breath of a cat that is apparently an ancient Egyptian cat goddess (???). The character is choppy and inconsistent, one moment channeling Michelle Pfeiffer and the next Eartha Kitt.

"One also leaves the theater wondering why "Spider-Man 2", which features a person in an equally silly costume, resonates so much more powerfully than "Catwoman". This movie fails because ittries to create it's heroine out of poses and surfaces." - M.E. Russell

Let's hope this ends the career of Pilaf, at least here in Hollywood.

"One also leaves the theater wondering why "Spider-Man 2", which features a person in an equally silly costume, resonates so much more powerfully than "Catwoman". This movie fails because ittries to create it's heroine out of poses and surfaces." - M.E. Russell
And if one know's one's comic book history, one knows why "Spider-Man 2" is one of the best comics-to-film adaptations, and why "Catwoman" most certainly isn't.

Man, the critics are savaging this one with a ferocity usually reserved for Adam Sandler movies, I'm almost curious to see if it's really THAT bad. But not $8.50 worth....

Oh, the trailers, tv ads, and film clips are as much as I can take. Jeez, what howlers! Patience going nuts over what looks like catnip, hissing at dogs, the ludicrous shots of her "landing on all fours", the bouncing around rooms like something out of Looney Tunes...bad enough that I started to think maybe she wears open-toed shoes because she sprouts claws or something...

Then consider the script. This is one of those "female-empowerment" things, right? So we get an empowered woman who dresses like a sex toy, spends her time saving kiddies in peril, and her foe is a cosmetics maven unleashing toxic skin cream.

(Sure, Spidey saves a few kids too - but gets bigger and more dangerous heroics as well.)

This should be MST3K fodder...but the reviews are saying it's not lively enough to be so-bad-it's good even on that level. Yeesh.

The always-stunning Berry was a guest on Conan O'Brien's show last night, and a clip was shown. Made me wince, because the clip was obviously chosen to "show off" the effects work.

Now, I'm not one of those constantly griping about "obvious CGI" in every movie that comes along, but this was just ... wrong.

I'll have to rent the movie -- Halle Berry is too great a draw for me. But it appears they tried to make this version of the character into a sort of Catwoman in the way that Peter Parker is Spider-Man (maybe it should have been called Cat-Woman) -- something happens and she gains the powers of a cat. Bad idea, it seems.

Qapla'

SSB

Then consider the script. This is one of those "female-empowerment" things, right? So we get an empowered woman who dresses like a sex toy, spends her time saving kiddies in peril, and her foe is a cosmetics maven unleashing toxic skin cream.


Yep, few things say intelligent-empowered-woman more than a leather bra and pants. And the most ridiculous thing is Halle and Sharon stumping this as a great movie and role models for young girls!

Yep, if I had small girls, I could think of few better role models than Sharon Stone and Halle Berry. As Bill Macey said in "State & Main", they go topless for voice-over work!

Yep, few things say intelligent-empowered-woman more than a leather bra and pants. And the most ridiculous thing is Halle and Sharon stumping this as a great movie and role models for young girls!

Yep, if I had small girls, I could think of few better role models than Sharon Stone and Halle Berry. As Bill Macey said in "State & Main", they go topless for voice-over work!
I was in Borders earlier today and saw Ms. Berry on the cover of "Cat Fancier" magazine. Anything for a little publicity, I suppose. Just bought "Wonder Woman: The Complete First Season" for my 5 year old daughter.* "Fighting for her rights in her satin tights..." Now, that's female empowerment!;)

*And I'm very pleased to see that it includes the episode with Debra Winger as Diana Prince's younger sister - Wonder Girl!

I was in Borders earlier today and saw Ms. Berry on the cover of "Cat Fancier" magazine. Anything for a little publicity, I suppose. Just bought "Wonder Woman: The Complete First Season" for my 5 year old daughter.* "Fighting for her rights in her satin tights..." Now, that's female empowerment!;)

*And I'm very pleased to see that it includes the episode with Debra Winger as Diana Prince's younger sister - Wonder Girl!

On a related note, when did the "Today" show decide to become a total summer blockbuster movie whore? I got no problem with them cross promoting movies, but they've gone to new extremes with "Spiderman 2" and "Catwoman", it's a little hard to take Matt and Katie seriously as they gravely announce the next segments serious news piece while being fimed thru a plastic spiders web.

And if they're such movie fans, what's the explanation for Gene Shalit, still the worse movie critic of all time inho......

On a related note, when did the "Today" show decide to become a total summer blockbuster movie whore? I got no problem with them cross promoting movies, but they've gone to new extremes with "Spiderman 2" and "Catwoman", it's a little hard to take Matt and Katie seriously as they gravely announce the next segments serious news piece while being fimed thru a plastic spiders web.

And if they're such movie fans, what's the explanation for Gene Shalit, still the worse movie critic of all time inho......
I thought Shalit died about 20 years ago. Choked on his moustache or something. You mean he's still on?:eek:

I thought Shalit died about 20 years ago. Choked on his moustache or something. You mean he's still on?:eek:

Was yesterday, he gave "Bourne" a wishy-washy review before Halle came out to promote "Cat", ending with if it's successful Matt Damon will be bourne again.

I suggest only the over sixty crowd finds Shalit's reviews helpful, or his puns funny. Even movies he trashes he always points out something good about it so they quote him on the poster and comercials.

And whatever happened to Rex Reed? I actually met him about 20 years ago at a press event and he was just as big a jerk as you might expect.

And whatever happened to Rex Reed? I actually met him about 20 years ago at a press event and he was just as big a jerk as you might expect.

Apparently building up his music collection!:

http://www.anecdotage.com/index.php?aid=8155

Two months from now in a video store:
"Let's see now, there's Roger Corman's Fantastic Four.That'll be good. Here's Dolph Lundgren as the Punisher, that got an Oscar nomination didn't it? Ooh, look, Halle Berry..."

:freak:

Okay, I just got back from seeing CATWOMAN. It's 3:00am here... Julie and I wanted to take the boys ( Collin - 11 and Stone 7 ) to a drive-in movie - an experience they'd never yet had. Catwoman was playing with SCHRECK 2 so, that was the double bill we decided to see ( there were 6 different screens at this Drive-In ). http://www.drive-ins.com/theater/uttredw
What's showing now:
http://166.70.46.222/TheaterResults.asp?Theater=Redwood+Drive+In


Anyway, CATWOMAN wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. Oh, it was pretty pedestrian - a movie that tries hard to be "deep" but is actually pretty sophomoric - but it was fairly entertaining. Most of the CGI effects are pretty bad. They look about as fake as they could be - How is it that WB and Universal can't seem to get it right but, Columbia ( Spiderman ) does CGI to near perfection? But the characters are kind of fun to watch.

There aren't any big surprises here, it's all pretty predictable. There's really no association to BATMAN whatever ( which we were all told well in advance ) however, there are some similarities in origin between Patience Phillips and Selina Kyle from BATMAN RETURNS - parallels that seem to be very deliberate. Just seeing Denise Di Novi's name on the screen was, more or less, a harbinger of what was to be expected.
http://www.comics-unlimited.com/downloads/wallpapers/catwoman-halle.berry03.jpg
Long and short - It's NOT what I wanted from a movie entitled "Catwoman". But it wasn't the worst movie I've ever sat through, either.

- GJS

P. S. - Schreck 2 was great!

On a related note, when did the "Today" show decide to become a total summer blockbuster movie whore? I got no problem with them cross promoting movies, but they've gone to new extremes with "Spiderman 2" and "Catwoman", it's a little hard to take Matt and Katie seriously as they gravely announce the next segments serious news piece while being fimed thru a plastic spiders web.

And if they're such movie fans, what's the explanation for Gene Shalit, still the worse movie critic of all time inho......

ALL the "news" shows have become shills for the media industries...on the other hand, our populace is so shallow that its the only way to get 'em to watch the news.

as to (s)catwoman, a friend has said "..bad. like gigli bad." woah.

Funny how a rainy Sunday afternoon and a bored 5 year-old superhero fan can compromise your movie-going intentions. I pretty much agree with Gary's assessment. For me, "Catwoman" is certainly no sillier than the Schumacher Batman installments, and no shallower than the Affleck "Daredevil". For my money, however, the execution of this movie was better than the other titles I've mentioned - the storytelling is more coherent here than in any of those titles and the direction is better than that of "Daredevil". The cinematography has the look of a cosmetics commercial, which is appropriate given the story-line, and the editing is superior to "Daredevil" too, although the fight scenes suffer from the same "flash-cut" style employed in that film. The CGI is certainly less than convincing, but I think most of the problem is in the attempt to realistically render a character who's costume shows a fair amount of human flesh - something even the best CGI falls short of achieving. Considering that this character is not Selina Kyle, Ms. Berry is just fine in the role of Catwoman, and Sharon Stone delivers a more than convincing villainess. Would I recommend this movie? No - but I wouldn't recommend "Batman & Robin" or "Daredevil" either. I've certainly sat through worse "popcorn movies" than this, and my 5 year-old daughter gives it "two thumbs up". And the costume sort of grows on you - due in no small measure to the way Ms. Berry moves in it.

Who designed that costume? Edward Scissorhands? Do you see the 'mark' on the floor? Photo op pose.

Who designed that costume? Edward Scissorhands? Do you see the 'mark' on the floor? Photo op pose.
Yeah, I thought that was pretty stupid for them to release that print without even airbrushing the floor mark out of the picture!

- GJS

Weekend Box
1. Bourne Supremacy $54.
2. I Robot $ 22.
3. Catwoman $17.
4. Spiderman2 $15.

3 of our 'our type' movies at the top. Times have changed. From what I read quite a few people at catwoman left in the middle and/or asked for their money back.

I enjoyed it. Wasn't real crazy about the name change. But it was an interesting spin on the character. Did you notice how she kind of let the bad in herself out when the theives were robbing the jewelery store??

Who designed that costume?
Don't know, but I'd sure like to say, "Thanks!"

Qapla'

SSB

On his show this week, Roger Ebert said, "There are three good things about this movie: Halley Berry's face, Halley Berry's body, and Halley Berry's costume. The rest...." :lol:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/wkp-news-catwoman23f.html

Yeah, I thought that was pretty stupid for them to release that print without even airbrushing the floor mark out of the picture!

- GJSLooks like she has some Stretch marks that needed to me covered as well.

-fixed spelling error-

stregth? Stretch.

Ebert; The director, whose name is Pitof, was probably issued with two names at birth and would be wise to use the other one on his next project.
Yeah. Ex porn director depends on woman body to sell picture. Surprise surprise. Well, it did better than Barb Wire.

From what I read quite a few people at catwoman left in the middle and/or asked for their money back.

These reports wouldn't be online would they?

Ex porn director depends on woman body to sell picture.

??????

Berry plays the wallflower OK but I couldn't buy her unconvincing performance as Catwoman.
Berry has liberally swiped Eartha Kitt's rolling Rs.
Stone apparently prepared for the movie by watching episodes of the 60's Batman.
She's camping it up big time while everyone else is, for the most part, playing straight.
One particularly over the top scene, is the first meeting/confrontation between Stone and the costumed Berry.
The main plot involving cosmetics is both insulting and pandering to young women.
Like others who've seen it say, it's not as bad as the celluloid intelligentsia would have you believe.
A TV movie undeservedly granted big screen showings.

Pitof's "Vidocq" is also full of visual gimmicks but with a much more compelling mystery narrative despite the drawbacks of subtitles.

The main plot involving cosmetics is both insulting and pandering to young women.
Like others who've seen it say, it's not as bad as the celluloid intelligentsia would have you believe.
A TV movie undeservedly granted big screen showings.
Pretty accurate assessment. Stone's character is pretty much a straight lift from Roger Corman's "The Wasp Woman" (1959).

Jaguar has a new commercial. 'Have a new Jaguar just like in catwoman.' Another marketing ploy goes awry.