CinemaInternational

Some other bad marquees were featured on a photo gallery. I'm sharing carefully.... These occurred both in 2007 and the bad sense to put Knocked Up in the same theatre with Nancy Drew.... not that Nancy was the only one affected by the Apatow comedy 2013.... a bad idea for a double feature 2006. DreamWorks and Ridley Scott gone light don't mix 2000. Nor do a blackspotation remake and a Disney film. 2005. Or a documentary about birds and another Apatow comedy.... 2001, Spy Kids and Blow do not belong on the same marquee either.... 2014, two bad films for the price of one? 2008, what happened to certainty? 1995, sounds like the biggest giveaway horror title. And finally 2011, and I assume some wished to do so....

She did appear though in that HBO documentary about her which was up for an Oscar in 2011 though. That said though, I wonder what Mother Dolores had to think of some of the films up for Oscars over the years if she saw them.

I was at Metacritic, which would explain the difference. Neither score is anything to crow about, that's for sure. On Metacritc, there are actually a few major studio films that got scores less than 10 (gulp). And that's on a weighted average, so double gulp. Those films were The 1996 Pauly Shore film Bio-Dome (1) [MGM] The abysmal Baby Geniuses from 1999 (6) [TriStar] The luckless sequel Caddyshack 2, from 1988 [WB] The dismal comedy Screwed from 2000 [7] Fox's Miss March from 2009 (7) Fox again with Meet the Spartans from 2009 (9) Lionsgate with the horror film Awake in the Dark from 2005 (9) Columbia's Bucky Larson: Born to be A Star from 2011 (9) Orion's teen film Johnny Be Good from 1988 (9) AFD's Saturn 3 from 1980 (directed by Stanley Donen!?!) (9) Anfd the instantly notorious WB sci-fi film Battlefield Earth from 2000 (9) But even Battlefield Earth was spared the ignominy of this marquee which the unfortunately titled Screwed had to face.

Not quite, but close. Even if you limit yourself to major studio releases, Paramount's Playing with Fire, a kiddy comedy with a WWE star, had a lower score.

Sorry. Too many puns today. It's too easy a target. Rocky and Bullwinkle would have had fun with it....

Exactly. Plus it has a killer soundtrack, a lovely Olivia Newton-John, and Gene Kelly's last great dance number. Plus, its really charming.

i saw a tweet comparing this to Xadadu. I know Xanadu, and Xanadu just got wronged, honey.

it used up its 9th life.

Full Review from The guardian, complete with piffle line....

A CAT Scan might be more entertaining in the long run.

It came out only in a few big cities in September, before it moved two weeks later to the Netflix streaming service, where it can still be seen.

Two more notes: Tom Hooper began the decade winning Best Director and Best Picture at the Oscars. He looks to be closing it by getting the two "top' awards at the Razzies. Somebody wants to take me to go see this. 🤢 Please, take me to Little Women instead!

They ended up pushing it to the back burner before casting it so they could fast-track Cats. Big mistake. Wicked would have been a hit. Stephen Daltry of Billy Elliot, The Reader, and The Hours fame was to have directed it.

It was a dark comedy/crime film done by Steven Soderbergh for Netflix about the giant Panama banking scandal of a few years ago. Streep played the whistle-blower. Gary oldman and Antonio Bandares were the corrupt bankers. Co-starring were Matthias Schoenaerts, Jeffrey Wright, Rosalind Chao, David Schwimmer, Will Forte, James Cromwell, and Sharon Stone.

Critical quotes from Metacritic: Is it the worst film of 2019, or simply the most recent misfire of 2019? Reader, I swear on a stack of pancakes: “Cats” cannot be beat for sheer folly and misjudgment and audience-reaction-to-“Springtime for Hitler”-in-“The Producers” stupefaction. -- Chicago Tribune. The problem is not that Cats makes no sense . . . nor that the performances are mediocre (most of them are quite good). The murder weapon is the galling CGI intended to cover the actors in head-to-toe feline fur. Instead, the animation detracts from the film’s capable performers and inventive surroundings, drawing the eye reluctantly in like the sight of a person vomiting in the middle of an amusement park. It makes for a slow death, so overwhelmingly grotesque that it ceases to be interesting at all. -- The Playlist The only realistic way to fix Cats would be to spay it, or simply pretend it never happened. Because it's an all-time - a rare and star-spangled calamity. -- The Telegraph It’s warbling warbling warbling piffle. -- The Guardian This adaptation gets straight to the heart of the material, which is basically two hours of stray cats introducing themselves. -- Slant I truly believe our divided nation can be healed and brought together as one by Cats — the musical, the movie, the disaster. In other news, my eyes are burning. -- The Boston Globe Please wipe this movie from my “Memory.” -- New York Post Tom Hooper’s jarring fever dream of a spectacle is like something that escaped from Dr. Moreau’s creature laboratory instead of a poet’s and a composer’s feline (uni)verse, an un-catty valley hybrid of physical and digital that unsettles and crashes way more often than it enchants. -- The Wrap It's almost unfathomable that this one made it through all the preliminary production meetings without someone sensibly calling a halt to the process by saying, "Wait a minute, those kitties are d*** creepy! -- The Hollywood Reporter Tom Hooper’s outlandishly tacky interpretation seems destined to become one of those once-in-a-blue-moon embarrassments that mars the résumés of great actors (poor Idris Elba, already scarred enough as the villainous Macavity) and trips up the careers of promising newcomers (like ballerina Francesca Hayward, whose wide-eyed, mouth-agape Victoria displays one expression for the entire movie). -- Variety For the most part, Cats is both a horror and an endurance test, a dispatch from some neon-drenched netherworld where the ghastly is inextricable from the tedious. Every so often it does paws — ahem, pause — to rise to the level of a self-aware hoot. -- Los Angeles Times Cats is a slick and tedious and weird-looking exercise in self-indulgence. -- Chicago Sun-Times Of course, Cats has always been ridiculous, just as it has always been ridiculed. (“Cats is a dog,” declared a notorious review of the musical’s Broadway debut.) But Hooper can’t even get camp right. -- AV Club “Cats” the movie is deeply, deeply weird, and not in a good way. -- The Seattle Times

Judi Dench will probably take a razzie for Cats, because I noticed at least one singled her out for giving a bizarre performance. It's something I shiver to think of, an actress of her caliber getting one of those. But then again, I've seen some think that Meryl Streep will be razzie nominated for The Laundromat, which is even crazier.

I don't know about that yet. If we hadn't had La La Land, Beauty and the Beast, The Greatest Showman, Bohemian Rhapsody, A Star is Born, Mamma Mia Here We Go Again, Frozen II, The Lion King, Rocketman, Mary Poppins Returns, and Yesterday rake in profits, I might say yes. But all those were hits, some enormously so. Wait and see seems the best approach.

And to even be a member of the Academy, you have to be a former nominee/winner or if you aren't, you must have made one movie in the last 10 years. That was put in place as of a few years ago, and that means than now poor Kim Novak is not even an Academy member! She made her last film in 1991; it makes one wonder what will happen years from now when she passes. Will they remember her or not? They didn't even include Dorothy Malone or Carol Channing (a former winner and a former nominee) in their in memorioum sequences.

Let's face it though, this is the Batman and Robin of its generation. One might say Ishtar (which I liked) or Heaven's Gate, but those films have gone up in reputation over the years. Not sure this will happen here. This is a film where cats, mice, and even cockroaches have human faces, a film which, just like the Broadway show has no discernible story. It's Razzie bait. And, unless there are a lot of people who are morbidly curious, it will go down as one of the biggest loss makers in Universal's history. At one point, they were going to release the musical Wicked as a film this Christmas. If they had remained on that path, i assume things would be much easier for them at the moment.

It's a cat-astrophe.

Seems like it laid a cinematic furball.

The only way it went out the way that it did was because it was released at the precise moment when there was a boycott on films at least in Philadelphia that caused attendance numbers to go down dramatically. Amidst all the hubbub around that, the film slipped out with a quickly appointed approved seal,only because it was finished and because they did not actually take a look at it; even by even pre-Code standards, it was too hot to trot. Only two cities, New York and Chicago showed it unedited, and then it was locked up for decades.

It's way too overkill. i saw it once, and no more. it's not the curt lines really, its the whole gestalt of the film. It involves a group of dubious publishers who lure athletes (including Buster Crabbe and Ida Lupino) and beauty contest winners to add dignity to what is really a precursor of sorts to the Playboy/Playgirl type. The women wear see-through clothing with no bras, the men go around only in short swim trunks (and in one scene nothing at all from the back), and when its all over, it ends with the words The End planted on two men's rear ends. there's also a bizarre scene, a "celebration of beauty" that given the physical types on show, has disturbing Nazi-like parallels. it's weird.

I'm a 90s kid, so.... I have to say that Mulan was the first film I ever saw in a movie theatre.