The Catwoman Argument

[Athaniar]

It has gotten so many bad reviews, so much hate, yet nobody seems to come up with a decent explanation that cannot be explained with "Artistic License". Anyone with a GOOD argument against it? I saw it, and liked it, and don't have any clue to why it got so much criticism.

[FoE]

It was dull. 'Nuff said.

[Foeofthelance]

They took Halle Berry, stuck her in a leather otufit that had encountered a blender, handed her a whip, and tried to sell it as a classic Batman antagonist who was capable of being perhaps the best definition of good natured rogue. If it had been a follow up to the Batman franchise it might have been good; as it was it was a cheap attempt to cash in on the comic book movie craze, and it flopped. The message? When translating comic books to the silver screen, makre sure its what the fans who actually but the comics are expecting. They'll give you a little leeway to make it acceptable for mainstream audiences, but they won't accept a ham sandwich no matter how often you try and tell them its steak.

[factotum]

Well, we're talking a film where the entire earth-shattering McGuffin the plot revolved around was...a new type of cosmetic. I don't think they ever explained why it would be such a bad thing if this cosmetic DID get onto the streets, especially since the main villainess had apparently been using the stuff for years with the only ill effect being that it had made her almost indestructible! Yeah, that was REALLY something that needed stopping...

Oh, and of course, Halle Berry just didn't work in the role. I think there are certain roles she does very well--Storm in the X-Men films comes to mind--but she really didn't convince as Catwoman.

[Kaelaroth]

Why was it bad? Well, the plot was ridiculous, none of the actors can act, her mystical birth was directly ripped from Michelle Pfeiffer's, Halle Berry can't pull leather off, they didn't put that much amazing choreography in that could have made the comic fans be distracted from all the other hideously horrible changes they made, it wasn't in Gotham, and finally, there was no Batman. Catwoman is a Batman supporting character. She has to be introduced with him. Or she merely becomes one of those forlorn little kitties stuck tall on trees.

I wasn't immensely fond of it. :smalltongue:

[Athaniar]

Perhaps you all should read my original post?


yet nobody seems to come up with a decent explanation that cannot be explained with "Artistic License".

[Revlid]

Perhaps you all should read my original post?

You can explain a lack of originality, good acting, choreography, costumes, or a plot that made sense with "Artistic License"? :smallconfused:

[FoE]

It was dull. 'Nuff said.

You can't chalk that up to artistic licence. I don't think any writer/director/producer sets out at the beginning of a film with the intention of making it 'boring.'

One could forgive the butchery of Catwoman's comic book origins and the over-the-top tone of the film were Catwoman actually entertaining. But it's not.

[Fuzzy_Juan]

Yeah, it wasn't the story being way off from the 'origional' that made it suck...it wasn't even the acting (stone and barry were good with what they had). It was everything else. Bad lines, lame plot, bad action, pacing that was just wierd...

it was 'ok' if you were just expecting it to be better than like...Home Alone 3...but Ernest Scared Stupid was a much better movie than Catwoman.

Sometimes things just suck...the fact that the fans of Catwoman were unhappy just also ensured that it didn't get a cult following. Plenty of movies that stay true to the origional material get cult followings from diehard fanboys that let the story live despite being a pretty lame move (people might argue the Star Wars prequils in here).

If a movie deviates from the material, but makes a good movie, fans will grumble, but mainstream audieces will cheer at a good movie...when the movie sucks, and they abandon the fans...noone likes the movie and it just dies.

This is the fate of Catwoman.

[Rawhide]

Wait, I think I remember the bit about the cosmetics... I have seen this movie. It was... very forgettable.

[Serpentine]

Anyone with a GOOD argument against it?
Well, I've never even seen the movie, but...

It was dull. - not entertaining.

They took Halle Berry, stuck her in a leather otufit that had encountered a blender, handed her a whip, and tried to sell it as a classic Batman antagonist who was capable of being perhaps the best definition of good natured rogue. - cynical

as it was it was a cheap attempt to cash in on the comic book movie craze, and it flopped. - cynical, poorly planned.

When translating comic books to the silver screen, makre sure its what the fans who actually but the comics are expecting. They'll give you a little leeway to make it acceptable for mainstream audiences, but they won't accept a ham sandwich no matter how often you try and tell them its steak. - failed to appeal to main potential fan base.

Well, we're talking a film where the entire earth-shattering McGuffin the plot revolved around was...a new type of cosmetic. I don't think they ever explained why it would be such a bad thing if this cosmetic DID get onto the streets, especially since the main villainess had apparently been using the stuff for years with the only ill effect being that it had made her almost indestructible! - weak premise.


Oh, and of course, Halle Berry just didn't work in the role. I think there are certain roles she does very well--Storm in the X-Men films comes to mind--but she really didn't convince as Catwoman. - poor casting.


Well, the plot was ridiculous - poorly written.

none of the actors can act - poorly cast and/or acted.

her mystical birth was directly ripped from Michelle Pfeiffer's - derivative.

Halle Berry can't pull leather off - poor casting and/or costuming.

they didn't put that much amazing choreography in - unentertaining.

it wasn't in Gotham - dissatisfactory setting.

there was no Batman. Catwoman is a Batman supporting character. She has to be introduced with him. Or she merely becomes one of those forlorn little kitties stuck tall on trees. - poorly thought-out.

What more do you want? :smallconfused:

[rubakhin]

Dude, a silly plot and poor acting are not covered under artistic license. The cynical, money-grubbing nature of the project that led the crew to stomp all over the established mythos was just the icing on the cake. I'm sure if it had been a film of good quality, most people wouldn't care how wildly it diverged from the source material.

I have only the vaguest memories of watching it on the television ages ago and can't remember much about it, otherwise I'd go more in-depth on where it went wrong. However, even as someone who could care less about comic books, I do think disrespect for the characters as characters was a big part of why it failed. They didn't treat Patience Phillips like a character, or the plot like a plot, but as excuses to get Halle Barry in leather pants. That being their primary goal, it's not surprising that that was the only part of the movie that worked. Roger Ebert explains it better than I could. (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040719/REVIEWS/40719004/1023)

Bad acting and a plot that's hard to take seriously aside, these (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/movies/183182_catwoman23q.html) two (http://www.movie-gazette.com/cinereviews/841) reviews blame, among other things, a script that was completely unintuitive to the committee who wrote it - middle-aged guys trying too hard to appeal to the youth crowd and to women. (Couple that with the disrespect I mentioned above, it's no wonder it came off as hackneyed, empty, and dishonest.) And here (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/click/movie-1134224/reviews.php?critic=columns&sortby=default&page=1&rid=1299890) are two (http://www.filmcritic.com/misc/emporium.nsf/reviews/Catwoman) more reviews discussing the poor cinematography - I do remember disliking the editing quite a bit. You'd be surprised how much the nuts and bolts can impact a film. I know that it was only an unpretentious action film, but to create a good action film is much more difficult than people assume - you have to worry about pacing, predictability, atmosphere, believability, so many different things. Also, those were four reviews out of many, all saying the same thing. You could say that all this was artistic license as well, only the choices made for this movie just did not work for the vast majority of the viewers, and I think we can objectively say they were poor.

Really, there were so many things working against it. The plot was too thin to carry the film, so the characters had to carry it, unfortunately, the characters were flat, so the acting had to carry it, unfortunately, the acting was bad, so the horrible cinematography ... you get the idea.

[Athaniar]

Well, I saw nothing wrong in neither the plot nor the acting. I still think it's good. Am I really the only one?

[rubakhin]

*nod* Yes.

[turkishproverb]

Well, I saw nothing wrong in neither the plot nor the acting. I still think it's good. Am I really the only one?

Unless I'm already dead, and a memory stripped version of Josef Stalin, than yes, you are the only one.

[horseboy]

Well, I saw nothing wrong in neither the plot nor the acting. I still think it's good. Am I really the only one?

Looks like it.