“If I hang out with talented people wasting their talent, maybe people will think I’m one of them!”
Doc, very nice explanation of the character, but again my comments are based on looking at the movie alone, not how faithful it is to the franchise.
The love interest is played by Benjamin Bratt. I hope that his and Halle’s ethnicity had absolutely nothing to do with the casting. The 60’s were 40 years ago.
I agree with all of this. About the only audience they have is Halle Berry fans, which is why my GF and I went to it. Well, that and one of those “have to watch the train wreck” kind of things. Since my only prior knowledge of Catwoman was Michelle Pheiffer in Batman returns, I didn’t care if they stuck to canon. In that light, I was surprised that it wasn’t as much of a train wreck as reported.
Incidentally, although Michelle had the better costume, I find Halle much more attractive. Michelle never did much for me.
It’s probably silly to debate the fine points of the plot on a movie like this, but my take was that
Sharon Stone’s face was not horribly scarred as the users of the cream who stopped using it had been. Instead, after long-term use, her face had hardened into something resembling marble. When Catwoman slugs her in the face to no effect she says something along those lines. After her fall, her face indicates a cracked sort of appearance, as perhaps marble would have fared after being dropped 10 stories (but still attached to her skull).
I think I will take exception to the criticisms of DocCathode and several others. To criticize this film for being unfaithful to the Catwoman credo of the DC comics is doing it a diservice. This movie has nothing at all to do with that character (except that she has the same name… that is, the movie has the same name. I don’t know if she ever really calls herself “Catwoman” but reporters do (because she dresses and acts like a cat. And she’s a woman.))
This is not Gotham city. There is no Batman. I don’t know whether they had to buy the rights to the DC character or not to title the movie Catwoman, but there is no connection. I don’t know enough about the comic version to absoultely deny that their “origins” had anything in common, but I doubt it. I did not think that the comic version had any sort of “extra-human” abilities, but this Catwoman does.
Perhaps you would have a legitamite complaint if you were dissapointed that they made this film instead of the one you would have rather they made with the comic book villain. But they didn’t. The movie may have many glaring things wrong with it, but this is one complaint that I think misses the mark.
That being said, I agree with RogueRacer. It is not a great movie, I don’t think it even qualifies as a good movie. But it is not as bad as many would have you think.
RichardB Then why call it Catwoman? I’m sure that they had to pay DC to use the name.
They could have changed a few scenes, used a different mask and made the movie Chipmunkwoman.
Kind of. The movie was produced and distributed by Warner Bros., who own DC Comics.
But is DC a division of TimeWarner, or a wholly owned subsidiary corporation?
When Fox bought the rights to adapt The Tick as a cartoon, they created several new characters for the series- Die Fledermaus, American Maid, and Sewer Urchin among others. When Fox bought the rights to adapt The Tick as a live action series, they were unable to use thos characters as they belonged to FoxKids. Which is why we saw BatManuel and Captain Liberty.
Darkhorse comics bought the rights to do comic book series based on Aliens, Predator, Robocop, and Terminator. They combined these properties for the miniseries Aliens Vs Predator and Robocop Vs Terminator. I have several comics in which the head editor explains that a video game company wanted to produce games based on these miniseries. The game company had to obtain the rights to Alien, Predator, Robocop, and Terminator from the movie studios that own them. However, the concept of Alien Vs Predator and Robocop Vs Terminator had to be licensed from Darkhorse. Though the editor was glad at the popularity of the miniseries, and the licensing fee Darkhorse had received for the game, he also found the whole thing very confusing.
I’m not sure exactly what the relationship between TimeWarner and DC is. Mad magazine has long been a wholly owned subsidiary corporation. But while Will Gaines was alive, he was able to prevent whichever megacorp it was from changing anything about the magazine or doing anything with its characters that he didn’t approve of.
Oh, it’s not any harder (or easier) to believe than any other comic book hero setup - the wild plots are part of the genre.
My point was that it was harder to be interested in it, that it didn’t seem to be on a scale with the antagonists of other comic book characters. In short, Sharon Stone wasn’t all that entertaining as a villain, or scary. Believable, well sure, greed is always believable.
Or kept the costume, and changed the title to “Night of the Pus–”
Er, never mind…
I don’t know, other than that is the most obvious and direct name for a WOMAN who has the POWERS OF A CAT and dresses up as a cat.
I don’t have any insight into the workings of the movie studios and comic book companies. I am just comparing the characters in the movie I saw to the character called “Catwoman” in the Batman comics I remember and the character called “Catwoman” in the Batman movies. In my opinion, they are not the same character. There is no connection to their being in the same “universe” (ie., no Batman, no Gotham City, no costumed heroes and villians (other than Halle Berry’s character); no connection to their origins, no connection to their abilities: Halle Berry’s character has actual “powers” in the movie, no Batman Catwoman I ever read or saw was anything more than a normal human (perhaps more buffed or acrobatic or skilled in martial arts than the average person, but normal nonetheless).
Other than having the movie (and her character as referred to by the press) having the same name, I see no connection whatsoever. I’m sure there are better examples to choose from, but all I can think of at the moment is that there was a Marvel version of “Captian Marvel” that was a spirit-like float through space kind of guy that was completely different from the “Shazam” Captain Marvel. Same name, but no other connection. I think it’s the same thing here.
Of course, I am no expert and missed out on years of DC comics, so if someome would like to correct me with some facts I would be interested to here them.
Until then, I think dissing the movie because it is not faithful to the DC comic’s Catwoman is totally off base.
Is that somehow central to the movie, or would changing it to chipmunk powers work just as well? Remember the television series Mantis? The hero (the same actor who now provides the voice for Martian Manhunter on Justice League) had an exoskeleton which allowed him to walk and increased his strength, paralyzing darts, and a flying car. They could have left him those powers and changed his name and motif to a great number of things.
(I admit I still haven’t read the movie spoiler page. I keep meaning to, but it just isn’t that high on my list of things to do) How much does the plot depend not on super powers, but cat powers? Could it have been rewritten to Philips being revived by a lightning strike? Toxic waste? Snakes?
Finally, OTTOMH other female cat themed characters include- Black Cat, Wildcat, Cat’s Claw, Night Cat, and She Cat. I’m sure the writers could have come up with something.
I don’t have any insight into the workings of the movie studios and comic book companies. I am just comparing the characters in the movie I saw to the character called “Catwoman” in the Batman comics I remember and the character called “Catwoman” in the Batman movies. In my opinion, they are not the same character. There is no connection to their being in the same “universe” (ie., no Batman, no Gotham City, no costumed heroes and villians (other than Halle Berry’s character); no connection to their origins, no connection to their abilities: Halle Berry’s character has actual “powers” in the movie, no Batman Catwoman I ever read or saw was anything more than a normal human (perhaps more buffed or acrobatic or skilled in martial arts than the average person, but normal nonetheless).
Other than having the movie (and her character as referred to by the press) having the same name, I see no connection whatsoever. I’m sure there are better examples to choose from, but all I can think of at the moment is that there was a Marvel version of “Captian Marvel” that was a spirit-like float through space kind of guy that was completely different from the “Shazam” Captain Marvel. Same name, but no other connection. I think it’s the same thing here.
Of course, I am no expert and missed out on years of DC comics, so if someome would like to correct me with some facts I would be interested to here them.
Until then, I think dissing the movie because it is not faithful to the DC comic’s Catwoman is totally off base.
[/QUOTE]
You are right in that repect. With a rewrite, they could have used any animal they wanted, but it would take quite a rewrite. Few animals have the attributes we associate with the normal housecat, including the agility, landing on their feet, razor-sharp claws and a cocky arrogance. They use some sort of reference to ancient egyptian cat goddesses (the plot wasn’t too clear on how this gave HB her powers, but maybe I just wasn’t paying attention). There is a scene where she has to climb out on a ledge to try and save a cat early in the movie that sets up events later, and there is a scene with some wise old cat lady that just wouldn’t have seemed as “normal” if she were a lady who had dozens of chipmunks running around her house.
With enough of a rewrite, of course they could have made her a different animal. But they wanted a cat. Maybe they even wanted to capitalize on the name “Catwoman” and get people to pay to see their movie who thought it might be the further adventures of Michelle Pfeiffer. That all still doesn’t change the fact that as far as I can tell, the actual character in this movie has zero to do with the Batman villain.
One of my favorite MST3K quotes came from a movie where a guy had been bitten by a bat and was tossing and turning in bed while transforming into a human bat. One of the robots cracks “Wouldn’t this have been a much better movie if he’d gotten bitten by a cow?”
Anyway, I’m gratified to see that my prediction regarding Catwoman came true – nearly every review has referenced kitty litter as the proper repository for this movie.
richardb, I think you and I have been tilting at windmills. It’s kind of like trying to explain that Planet X does not exist to the true believers.
No disrespect to the comic book folks posting in this thread, I’m just making fun of the subject. 
It’s kind of sad that we ended up more or less defending this movie. Like we’ve both said, it didn’t even quite make it to the level of being good. This movie has been treated unfairly though. A lot of people passionately wanted this movie to be terrible. Well, like I said earlier, I’ve definitely sat through worse movies this year. I know that’s not a glowing endorsement, but I’m at least trying to be fair and objective. 
It Lives By Night