That ending... I'm not sure if it's woeful or brilliant, I'm leaning towards the latter I gotta be honest. Hear me out.
For most of my watch, I was expecting to give this a less than positive rating. It starts off decently before meandering towards its conclusion. When it gets there, though, it's absolutely bonkers. My feelings towards the final part switched completely, I initially found it stupid (which it probably is) but the last embers of it are so ridiculous that it's actually entertaining.
Don't be fooled by the covers for this film, by the way. It looks like it's going to be a CGI cat but it isn't, a real cat is used for the vast majority as far as I could tell. Even on Disney+ it has the CG cover, which cheapens the film and would've turned me away - had I not been on this Disney marathon that I'm on. Very strange choice from the makers.
At this point, it is worth noting I thoroughly enjoyed the 1965 original film; which is far, far superior to this remake. The cast in '65 are terrific, but the '97 cast list is one I actually rate. Dean Jones, to my surprise, appears in this one. He plays a different character completely, but it's cool to see him nevertheless.
As for the newcomers onscreen, Christina Ricci (Patti) and Doug E. Doug (Zeke) are the leads. Ricci is no Hayley Mills, nor is Doug a Jones, but I still liked them together. Michael McKean (Peter) is also involved, as is Pixar staple John Ratzenberger (Dusty) - who, alongside Mark Christopher Lawrence (Rollo), play a part in the finale.
This has a very low average rating on Letterboxd, which I can completely understand. For me, though, I found it so bizarre that it actually works in a twisted sort of way. Would I recommend this? I dunno. Was I entertained? Surprisingly, yeah.
...and yes, I'm fully aware I did just do a five-paragraph review about 'That Darn Cat' (1997)... ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Review by r96skBlockedParent2020-10-06T23:59:38Z
That ending... I'm not sure if it's woeful or brilliant, I'm leaning towards the latter I gotta be honest. Hear me out.
For most of my watch, I was expecting to give this a less than positive rating. It starts off decently before meandering towards its conclusion. When it gets there, though, it's absolutely bonkers. My feelings towards the final part switched completely, I initially found it stupid (which it probably is) but the last embers of it are so ridiculous that it's actually entertaining.
Don't be fooled by the covers for this film, by the way. It looks like it's going to be a CGI cat but it isn't, a real cat is used for the vast majority as far as I could tell. Even on Disney+ it has the CG cover, which cheapens the film and would've turned me away - had I not been on this Disney marathon that I'm on. Very strange choice from the makers.
At this point, it is worth noting I thoroughly enjoyed the 1965 original film; which is far, far superior to this remake. The cast in '65 are terrific, but the '97 cast list is one I actually rate. Dean Jones, to my surprise, appears in this one. He plays a different character completely, but it's cool to see him nevertheless.
As for the newcomers onscreen, Christina Ricci (Patti) and Doug E. Doug (Zeke) are the leads. Ricci is no Hayley Mills, nor is Doug a Jones, but I still liked them together. Michael McKean (Peter) is also involved, as is Pixar staple John Ratzenberger (Dusty) - who, alongside Mark Christopher Lawrence (Rollo), play a part in the finale.
This has a very low average rating on Letterboxd, which I can completely understand. For me, though, I found it so bizarre that it actually works in a twisted sort of way. Would I recommend this? I dunno. Was I entertained? Surprisingly, yeah.
...and yes, I'm fully aware I did just do a five-paragraph review about 'That Darn Cat' (1997)... ¯_(ツ)_/¯