Skip to main content

Calm down, Mr Brand. You’re a cat. It’s not the end of the world.

Nine Lives
(2016)

(SPOILERS) Something of a departure for Kevin Spacey, who after all, isn’t known for prowling the streets at night, on the lookout for frisky business. Nine Lives was roundly ripped to shreds by critics and viewers alike, which rather ignores its star’s Oscar-worthy performance. Spacey, rightly envious of Bill Murray’s astonishing achievement with two Garfield movies, decided he wanted some of that. It probably doesn’t need stressing that Nine Lives is not a good movie, but it isn’t quite the horrendous one it’s been made out as either; it’s simply lazy, which pretty much sums up Barry Sonnenfeld’s directorial career.


I wonder if Baz ever wishes he’d stuck to cinematography. He was, after all, pretty good at it (his Coen Brothers collaborations from Blood Simple to Miller’s Crossing being particularly emblematic). Since casting his net wider, however, he has evidenced zero appreciation for quality or consistency, from producing Space Chimps to directing the likes of Wild Wild West. There have been upticks; Get Shorty, the Men in Blacks showing a flair for the cartoonish that ought to have translated to this, his most recent movie, and dabbling in TV that sometimes pays dividends (Pushing Daisies, and the good notices for A Series of Unfortunate Events). But why would he want to immerse himself in waters that last elicited a trio of less-than-adored Look Who’s Talking movies?


In fairness, I don’t think there’s anything much wrong with this concept, and on paper, Spacey playing a dyspeptic cat sounds decent enough in terms of laughs potential (which is why I put it on my list of 20 to see last year, inadvisably, maybe even inexcusably, I know). But Sonnenfeld’s take appears to have been inspired by YouTube cat videos (as per the opening sequence) rather than MGM or Warner Bros cartoons, with a budget to match. He has an actual, ostensibly live-action cat made to perform, by the less-than-magic of CGI, various feats an actual, live-action cat couldn’t, but seems to be making a feature of the terrible effects from the first scene onwards, almost as if he’s proud of them (in said first scene, Spacey’s corporate titan Tom Brand dives out of a plane for kicks; it looks really bad, not funny bad). Brand’s a good-guy capitalist, a bit of a grouch whose only real failing is that he doesn’t spend enough time with his family, a mogul who’s opposed to privatising his firm. So basically, this guy doesn’t exist in reality.


Five credited writers have come up with nary a gag to rub between them, but the tried-and-tested plot outline, in which Mark Consuelos’ oozing villain attempts to wrest the company from Tom while he’s in a coma (and in a cat) is inoffensive and at least isn’t dull (for contrast on the latter, see The BFG). Jennifer Garner as the long-suffering wife only gets to be grateful she’s not her real hubby in terms of starring roles you really regret, but Cheryl Hines scores as the brittle ex, while the child actors (Malina Weissman and Talitha Bateman) provide decent showings.


This isn’t Christopher Walken’s finest hour, though. He usually brings something to any role, no matter how nondescript the surrounding movie, but his cat whisperer really is nondescript (and as has been pointed out, is pretty much the part he played in Click, to similarly forgettable results).


Spacey does acerbic with aplomb, even when he’s just picking up a cheque, so there are occasionally lines here that work (“Looks like a cat already ate this” he observes of his food), and I’ll admit to raising a smile as the feline dives off the office roof after his son during the climax (“Mr Fuzzypants?” asks the bewildered Robbie Amell). The problem is, no one seems to be enthused by what they’re doing. Even the cat sound effects are half-hearted (seemingly exactly the same sound dubbed onto any given comic moment). As The Secret Life of Pets and Cats and Dogs (or Barnaby and Me, or The Shaggy D.A.) have shown, this kind of thing has a ready audience if done well. Sonnenfeld just doesn’t seem to care. He even kills the cat. 


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019)
(SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You're not only wrong. You're wrong at the top of your voice.

Bad Day at Black Rock (1955)
I’ve seen comments suggesting that John Sturges’ thriller hasn’t aged well, which I find rather mystifying. Sure, some of the characterisations border on the cardboard, but the director imbues the story with a taut, economical backbone. 

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

It looks like we’ve got another schizoid embolism!

Total Recall (1990)
(SPOILERS) Paul Verhoeven offered his post-mortem on the failures of the remakes of Total Recall (2012) and Robocop (2013) when he suggested “They take these absurd stories and make them too serious”. There may be something in this, but I suspect the kernel of their issues is simply filmmakers without either the smarts or vision, or both, to make something distinctive from the material. No one would have suggested the problem with David Cronenberg’s prospective Total Recall was over-seriousness, yet his version would have been far from a quip-heavy Raiders of the Lost Ark Go to Mars (as he attributes screenwriter Ron Shusset’s take on the material). Indeed, I’d go as far as saying not only the star, but also the director of Total Recall (1990) were miscast, making it something of a miracle it works to the extent it does.

How do you like that – Cuddles knew all the time!

The Pleasure Garden (1925)
(SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s first credit as director, and his account of the production difficulties, as related to Francois Truffaut, is by and large more pleasurable than The Pleasure Garden itself. The Italian location shoot in involved the confiscation of undeclared film stock, having to recast a key role and borrowing money from the star when Hitch ran out of the stuff.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

I’m not the Jedi I should be.

Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith (2005)
(SPOILERS) Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith is the only series entry (thus far) I haven’t seen at the cinema. After the first two prequels I felt no great urgency, and it isn’t an omission I’d be hugely disposed to redress for (say) a 12-hour movie marathon, were such a thing held in my vicinity. In the bare bones of Revenge of the Sith, however,George Lucas has probably the strongest, most confident of all Star Wars plots to date.

This is, after all, the reason we have the prequels in the first place; the genesis of Darth Vader, and the confrontation between Anakin and Obi Wan. That it ends up as a no more than middling movie is mostly due to Lucas’ gluttonous appetite for CGI (continuing reference to its corruptive influence is, alas, unavoidable here). But Episode III is also Exhibit A in a fundamental failure of casting and character work; this was the last chance to give Anakin Skywalker substance, to reveal his potential …

I take Quaaludes 10-15 times a day for my "back pain", Adderall to stay focused, Xanax to take the edge off, part to mellow me out, cocaine to wake me back up again, and morphine... Well, because it's awesome.

The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)
Along with Pain & Gain and The Great Gatsby, The Wolf of Wall Street might be viewed as the completion of a loose 2013 trilogy on the subject of success and excess; the American Dream gone awry. It’s the superior picture to its fellows, by turns enthralling, absurd, outrageous and hilarious. This is the fieriest, most deliriously vibrant picture from the director since the millennium turned. Nevertheless, stood in the company of Goodfellas, the Martin Scorsese film from which The Wolf of Wall Street consciously takes many of its cues, it is found wanting.

I was vaguely familiar with the title, not because I knew much about Jordan Belfort but because the script had been in development for such a long time (Ridley Scott was attached at one time). So part of the pleasure of the film is discovering how widely the story diverges from the Wall Street template. “The Wolf of Wall Street” suggests one who towers over the city like a behemoth, rather than a guy …

My dear, sweet brother Numsie!

The Golden Child (1986)
Post-Beverly Hills Cop, Eddie Murphy could have filmed himself washing the dishes and it would have been a huge hit. Which might not have been a bad idea, since he chose to make this misconceived stinker.

I think the exorcism made the problem worse.

Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977)
(SPOILERS) While I’ve seen instalments the originaland III a number of times, until now I hadn’t got round to checking out the near-universally reviled first Exorcist sequel. Going in, I had lofty notions Exorcist II: The Heretic would reveal itself as not nearly the travesty everyone said it was, that it would rather be deserving of some degree of praise if only it was approached in the right manner. Well, there is something to that; as a sequel to The Exorcist, it sneers at preconceptions right off the bat by wholly failing to terrify, so making its determined existence within the fabric of that film becomes downright bizarre (the relationship is almost like Back to the Future Part II to Back to the Future, but not). Further still, it warrants a twisted validation for being its own thing, refusing to rehash its predecessor like 90% of sequels, then and now, thus exerting fascination all its own. Unfortunately, John Boorman’s film is also equal parts lis…