| Catwoman | | Cast : | Halle Berry, Benjamin Bratt, Sharon Stone | | Director : | Pitof | | Studio : | Warner Home Video | | Format : | Color, Closed-captioned, Widescreen | | Released Date : | July 23, 2004 | | DVD Released Date : | June 07, 2005 | | Language : | English (Dubbed), French (Dubbed), English (Subtitled), Spanish (Subtitled), French (Subtitled) | | Audience Rating : | PG-13 (Parental Guidance Suggested) | | | BUY THIS DVD FROM AMAZON |
Customer Reviews
| Rating |  | | Date | July 24, 2005 | | Summary | Halle Berry deserved a better screenplay | Content
 | There are three main things wrong with this film.
1. The screenplay has no direction whatsoever. We are supposed to believe that Halle Berry's character Patience Phillips transforms overnight from milquetoast to femme fatale. While the Catwoman mythology had promise, it never really takes off, and so we're still left wondering why Patience Phillips actually earns the title of Catwoman in the first place. It might have been best to make Patience Phillips more psychologically complex--i.e. have the Catwoman transformation affect her in a supernatural, but also disturbing way (as what happened to Selina Kyle in the Batman Returns film). Also, the cosmetics corporation (the headquarters of villainry) was not even threatening or mysterious. In fact, the toxic makeup subplot was unintentionally humorous, and obliterated an already thin storyline. The love interest, played by Benjamin Bratt, falls flat (he would have made a great platonic character, though). Sharon Stone is great, but she should have been a supporting character rather than the main villainess. Alex Bornstein should have had a minimal role, since her best friend character makes the film even more excruciating.
2. Since the screenplay does not live up to expectations, Halle Berry is left with nothing to do but play the role campy. The costume design is terrible, and bears no resemblance to the comic book character that spawned the film in the first place. In the process of making the costume revealing and sexy, the designers actually did the opposite, and made Halle look instead like something the "cat dragged in." I think the costume actually robbed Halle Berry of her natural beauty, and made her look like a soft-core porn model. When will people learn that being covered up can also be sexy too?
3. The fight sequences were problematic. Yes, capoeira is a fascinating and dazzling fighting technique. However, it requires far camera angles, and so the suspense is lost when the moves actually connect. Also, it looked like a stunt double was performing all the moves (it had to be since Halle Berry has little, if no, gymnastics training). It would have been better if Halle Berry was trained in a kung fu or taekwondo style. She would have looked much more believable and intimidating.
If they ever do a sequel--which I almost hope for, to redeem Halle Berry's wasted time and effort--I pray that they really take advantage of Halle's talent. Who knows? Maybe the sequel would make the people forget the previous film. After all, wasn't Tomb Raider 2: The Cradle of Life better than its predecessor, since the sequel featured Angelina Jolie looking more athletic and natural, and of course, having a sexy supporting man played by Gerard Butler? Hopefully, the same can happen for Halle.
|
| Rating | | | Date | July 20, 2005 | | Summary | Better than what I thought it would be | Content
| Maybe I am being biased because I love Halle Berrys acting and of course her natural beauty. This is Catwomen. I don't know what people were expecting. I thought Halle played the innocent clumsy girl role very well in portraying Patience Phillips in the begining of the movie and then shifting over to the more sexy catwomen role after she was resurrected from death by the cats. I liked the basketball court scene when she plays B.Bratt one on one with all the kids screaming in the background. She really looks sexy in that scene. In my mind I think she is in the top 5 actresses out there today. The women does have acting ability. That is without question. Its all in what you like I guess but I did not think this movie was to awfully bad. |
| Rating | | | Date | July 17, 2005 | | Summary | Very entertaining | Content
| Possibly the worst, most entertaining movie i've ever seen. Seriously, i was on in a fitworks dark room and I ended up going on the exercise machine for the entire hour and a half. Never happened before and will never happen again, but I just couldn't bring myself to leave.
So, basically, what was everyone expecting? An award winning Titanic? I mean, it's called "catwoman" and has halle berry in a tight leather cat suit. Give it a break. It's fun, action packed entertainment with a really really corny plot. So go into it, knowing what it is, and don't be so hard on it. Unlike some movies that are actually supposed to be all "deep" and "masterpieces", this movie was actually interesting, not to say those aren't, but a lot of them can put people to sleep in minutes.
However, I was impressed by the visual effects of some scenes. They were like, wow, that's cool. More if you're an artsy type of person but they were just, very pretty. And the romance was surprisingly cute. I really liked seeing the two of them on the screen.
My one and only complaint is that i have a cat and this movie had the most uncat like catwoman ever. Dont know if you've ever seen the batman catwoman, but now that was a cat. She's like "meow" and struts around real slow hitting things. Doesn't move too much.
This catwoman crawled on ceilings and moved at lightening speeds, hopping on walls. My cat has still never done that, and I dont know too many cats that do. She also kept jumping around and moving and doing acrobat flips and couldn't sit still for a single second, while my cat just sleeps in a ball for seventeen hours a day, stretches, then moves somewhere else and goes back to sleep. Cats don't move ever. Make a mental note of that should catwoman ever be reborn for the third time. they also fit like, one half a kitty nibble in their mouth at a time, and lick at the surface juice of a can of cat food. they don't shove in a dozen giant shrimps. They eat.... very... tiny... bits.... at a time. So, all i kept thinking was, this is the worst cat i've ever seen. try harder.
cute movie though. |
| Rating | | | Date | July 13, 2005 | | Summary | How Bad Can A Movie Be? Well... | Content
| What a nightmare. Somebody pinch me and wake me up. That's what I kept thinking while watching this movie, which turned out to be a truly painful experience. And I'm not generally a conspiracy theorist, but after enduring "Catwoman," directed by Pitof (who? who?), I'm convinced that someone (or ones) are out to sabotage the careers of both Halle Berry and Sharon Stone (not to mention Benjamin Bratt). It's one thing to set out to make a "B" movie, but to waste such talent and beauty through sustained incompetence (yes, sustained, this movie wasn't filmed in a single day, was it? Come to think of it, maybe it was...) is nothing short of criminal (cinematically speaking).
I do not like to dwell on the negative aspects of any film, and I always attempt to seek out the positive (even most bad movies have something good in them, though you often have to look hard and deep to find it), but in fairness to Halle Berry, it must be noted how badly the script, editing, graphics and visual f/x, choreography and the director-- especially the director-- failed her here.
This misfire shouldn't allow us to forget Berry's excellent performances in such films as "Introducing Dorothy Dandridge" and "Monster's Ball," for which she deservedly was awarded an Oscar for Best Actress. The extent of her talent is undeniable and evidenced by the fact that her presence alone can add the necessary spark and elevate the stature of movies like "Bulworth" and "Die Another Day." So the million dollar question is, how did she wind up in this embarrassment? She (as well as the audience) deserves better. Obviously, she put her trust in the wrong people this time around, and at the top of that list is the "director" of this mishmash, Pitof.
I guess the lesson here is that even a major star should be wary when approached with a project that's been placed in the hands of someone whose name sounds like one of those ridiculous vanity plates you try to figure out while sitting at a red light and staring at the car in front of you. To put this as nicely as possible, Pitof (who? what does that MEAN?) didn't have a clue about what to do with this film, and especially with his actors. How could this have happened? He's given all the ingredients (Berry, Stone, Bratt, big budget) to make a prize winning cake and he turns out a lump unfit for consumption.
Add to Pitof's incompetence a laughably bad script (even the ability on the part of the viewer to suspend disbelief won't help with this one), bad editing and exceptionally poor computer graphics and visual f/x that look like something left over from the Stone Age of technology (when Catwoman is bounding and leaping about it has the appearance of an early generation video game; she looks more like a frog than a cat) you have a film that should be expunged from the resumes of everyone involved.
But, like I said, even a bad movie can have a high note if you look for it, which brings me to the only redeeming aspect of this film, the performance by Alex Borstein as Sally, one of Catwoman's co-workers. Best known as the voice of Lois Griffin in TVs "The Family Guy," Borstein has a charismatic presence that, within the context of this film at any rate, outshines even Berry and Stone. Better off for all concerned had this movie been titled "Sally," with Borstein given top billing and accordant screen time.
Unfortunately, too, for all concerned, "Catwoman" will enjoy it's full nine lives on the shelves of video stores everywhere. Just keep in mind, when you come to this shelf, pick up "The Cat's Meow," "The Cat In the Hat," "Cat People." "Cat On A Hot Tin Roof," or anything with "Cat" in the title that isn't followed by "Woman." Take it from me, you'll feel a lot better in the morning. |
| Rating | | | Date | July 12, 2005 | | Summary | I'm really not exaggerating when I say: Worst. Movie. Ever. | Content
| I honestly mean it when I say that "Catwoman" is the worst movie I have seen in my life. It is the lowest of the low. The absolute bottom of the bucket. I have seen "Hypercube: Cube 2" and "Battlefield: Earth" and "Alone in the Dark" and "Plan 9" (who hasn't?) and even "Future War." Twice. That's right, I saw "Future War" two times the WHOLE way through, and I would still rather do that than watch "Catwoman" again.
Often when I say a movie is horrible, it's just hyperbole for the purpose of humor. But I really mean it when I say this. If I was to count how many horrible tragedies I would rather suffer than to watch "Catwoman" a second time, my head would explode once I realized that the list contained more entries than the number of atoms in the universe.
This movie is sh**. Utter sh**. It is the only movie I have ever seen where NOTHING is done right.
I know a lot of people who would probably say that this movie is good if you don't take it too seriously. But there's a problem with that assumption. In order for a movie to be good, light-hearted fun, the director has to think of his movie as a popcorn flick. Not a serious movie. Popcorn flicks are all about action and quick-paced fun. "National Treasure" is a popcorn flick. It's illogical and silly, but it's fun because it's breezy and has snappy one-liners and there's a lot of great action scenes. It's a fun movie because not even the director believes that he is making a realistic or serious movie. Nobody honestly thinks there's a treasure map on the back of the Declaration of Independence, so you can lean back and enjoy the show.
"Catwoman" is much different. Everything about it is made as if it is meant to be a serious movie. This isn't meant to be a pocorn flick, it's meant to be an exploration of serious themes like freedom and the conflict between good and evil. There aren't winks to the audience to let us know that the filmmakers are just playing around---it's just a dead, straightforward movie that is horribly put together.
Let's start with the basic concept: A superhero with the powers of a cat. When I think of cats, here are the special "talents" that they have/are said to have which a catperson might possess: 1) Exceptional balance. 2) Great jumping abilities. 3) Speed. 4) Quick reflexes. 5) Nine lives. 6) Retractable claws. 7) Mild toxins within the claws. 8) Sharp fangs. 9) Great night vision. 10) Always lands on their feet.
A good cat-based superhero would have most or all of these abilities and be pretty cool for it. Wolverine has retractable claws and he's pretty awesome, right? Super-speed, ability to jump---kind of like Spider-man, right? Night vision, reflexes, these are all great things you could use to have a good Cat Hero.
In "Catwoman," though, we have a superhero who has "far-sight" (which I'm not even sure cats actually have, but let's pretend they do) and she uses a whip. She can also stick onto walls and climb on them like a lizard. Occasionally she jumps, too, but mainly she climbs on the wall like a lizard. And she uses a whip. A whip?! What the f*** do whips have to do with cats?! Theoretically she has night-vision, but she uses it only when it's convenient and never at any times when it would make sense. She has claws, but they're actually fake fingernails that she has glued on to her gloves. She lands on her feet but only when it's at a time for comic relief. She has good balance, but only when she's talking on the phone with her friend. None of her abilities are all that good, and only a couple of them are even remotely cat-like. Halle Berry isn't the Catwoman that hunts and pounces and strikes when you least suspect it. She's the Catwoman that eats canned tuna and then sits in the corner licking her crotch.
So, she's not even a Catwoman. She's a weird-lizard-Furry-woman. And I haven't even gotten around to describing the movie yet!
Halle Berry. How you won an Oscar, I'll never know. You clearly looked to Dustin Hoffman for inspiration and watched "Rain Man" many times as research. And then Pitof told you that all you had to do was shake your booty a bunch and the illusion would be complete. Seriously, this is the worst performance in any movie I've ever seen. Berry manages to get every single emotion wrong. Even when she's playing a corpse, she doesn't look like she's doing a good job. It's embarassing to watch her. It's like watching a grown man running around in public wearing only a diaper.
The characters are all irritating, stupid, and wooden. Cliches all around, from the obese best friend who tells bad jokes to the evil boss who's cheating on his wife and tells bad jokes about her age. Patience Philips is the only character in the movie with any depth, but unfortunately she doesn't have length and width and must still suffer the shame of being uni-dimensional.
The story is about cosmetics that cause an irreparable skin condition. You know how the Joker did that in "Batman," and it was actually pretty cool because Jack Nicholson played the role with a lot of flair and the movie was stylistic and fun and didn't take itself completely seriously? Well, the trouble in Catwoman is that it DOES take itself seriously. It's one thing to have a plot about killer cosmetics and then throw in some other funny bits to show that the movie acknowledges its own absurdity. It's another thing altogether to have characters try delivering lines with straight faces that all hinge on KILLER COSMETICS.
The dialogue in this movie? My god. Jeff Foxworthy has more sophistication than the scriptwriter of this travesty. There is not a single good piece of dialogue in the whole movie. Even simple lines, like, "How are you?" are difficult.
It's probably expected that there would be at least one line in the movie where Catwoman says that something is "purrfect," but a good---or even an average---screenwriter would at least try to work it into the story subtly. In this movie, they don't bother. Catwoman actually breaks a scene and goes OUT OF HER WAY to say "Purr-fect" to remind us that she is, in fact, a CATwoman. Just in case we forgot. That's how all of the dialogue is in this movie---it's blunt and obvious and written as if you are a total idiot and can't figure anything out unless the script points it out for you.
There's a scene toward the end of this movie that really symbolizes my outrage at watching "Catwoman." The police are pursuing our lizard-crap-hero through a theater, and she leads them on a chase throughout a network of catwalks above the stage. There's some sort of odd play going on below, with a bunch of dancers doing stylish things in pink outfits. The audience looks bored. Suddenly, Catwoman jumps on the stage and climbs up the curtain to get away from her adversaries, disrupting the play. The audience cheers and breaks out in applause, really enjoying the show.
This is a stupid audience, easily amused by random crap with no context and a bad actress wearing an unflattering and ugly leather suit. They are monkeys. The director thinks of us like that audience.
Under no circumstances should you ever attempt to watch this movie. I give it zero stars. |
|
|
|
|
