Cats may have felt like a fever dream when it came and went from theaters over the 2019 holiday season as Star Wars: Rise of Skywalker overthrew screens globally, but Idris Elba’s Macavity very much happened and was there, Rebel Wilson’s Jennyanydots sure did unzip her cat’s skin for a music number, and Jason Derulo brought his sex appeal to Rum Tum Tugger. With nearly two years since Cats' release, Andrew Lloyd Webber, the composer of the hit Broadway musical it is based on, is sharing his blunt thoughts about the failed film adaptation. 

The 2019 movie was directed by Les Miserables’ Tom Hooper, who once won Best Directing at the Oscars for The King’s Speech. Cats was a huge flop at the box office and memorably critically panned, though it did pick up momentum as the butthole of jokes for some time. Andrew Lloyd Webber shared his thoughts about Cats to Variety as the playwright prepares to see his other show Phantom of the Opera return to Broadway: 

It sounds like Andrew Lloyd Webber found the perfect remedy. If you don’t like Cats, fuss up and buy a dog to forget the pain. The 73-year-old is a musical icon who has seen Cats thrive on the Broadway stage for the past 40 years. However, he was not a fan of Tom Hooper’s adaptation either. Webber joked about the flop further, sharing this story: 

Brutal! Of course, few people would disagree with him. The movie was a commercial failure, with many of its own cast, like James Corden, even sharing that it didn’t necessarily ‘work’ despite having fun making the movie personally. Andrew Lloyd Webber has specifically called out Corden for being “unfunny” as Bustopher Jones in the movie as well. 

Andrew Lloyd Webber worked on the 2019 movie, collaborating with Taylor Swift to write a new song for the movie called “Beautiful Ghosts.”  The movie swept the Razzies for Worst Picture, Worst Supporting Actor in James Corden, Worst Screenplay, Worst Director, Worst Supporting Actress in Rebel Wilson and Worst Screen Combo in any two half-feline/half-human hairballs. 

Of course, a big element of distaste for the film came out of the decision to CGI the actors into cat/human hybrids, which reportedly dealt with a lot of reworking behind the scenes. An alleged VFX crew member even shared that all the cats once had buttholes in the film before it was decided to remove all of them. Whether or not that’s true, it sounds like Andrew Lloyd Webber will be erasing the memory of Cats from his mind as he enjoys his new dog instead. 

Tom Hooper's movie Cats arrived in theaters in December, and promptly broke the internet. The reaction to the Andrew Lloyd Webber adaptation has been strong, as the wild musical combined with digital fur technology and the movie's scale polarized moviegoers. Cats recently arrived early via video on demand, allowing cinephiles to re-examine the viral movie. Rumors of the "butthole cut" have also emerged over the past few weeks, claiming the VFX team added said body part to the actors at some point during the editing process. And now we know a bit more about how and why said buttholes were discovered.

Calls for Cats' butthole cut began a few weeks ago, when someone on Twitter claiming to know a VFX artist let slip that the singing cats were made atomically correct. The internet soon began riffing from this news and referencing Justice League's long awaited Snyder Cut, resulting in #ButtholeCut trending on social media. One crew member from Cats recently revealed how said buttholes were reportedly found, and the story is truly bananas. As the anonymous crew member put it,

Talk about a crazy day at work. One minute you're transforming Oscar-winning Jennifer Hudson into Grizabella, and the next you're discovering a slew of buttholes that somehow snuck into the movie. And that, ladies and gents, is why the public has been so Cats crazy over the past few months. It's just too entertaining.

The anonymous crew member's comments to The Daily Beast seems to corroborate the original story. It seems that editors one day discovered the subtle buttholes on cast members while preparing Cats for its theatrical release. Their origin remains a mystery, but VFX artists did have to go in and edit out that part of the dancers' bodies. After all, the movie already featured anthropomorphic cats, cockroaches, and mice. Including buttholes would just be too much.

The mystery surrounding Cats' rumored butthole cut has been ever changing since it was first revealed. One VFX professional refuted the rumors, claiming that any buttholes were actually just strange folds in the digital fur that needed to be adjusted. Universal itself hasn't given an official ruling, but posted an amusing response once #ReleaseTheButtholeCut started trending.

Most recently, a fan added some buttholes to footage from Cats, to hilarious results. And as the situation continues to unfold, there are sure to be more revelations coming from those who worked on the movie musical.

Cats is available on DVD and Blu-ray now. Be sure to check out our 2020 release list to plan your next trip to the movies.

Remember where you were when the first trailer for Cats came out? It hangs on to the memory like a fever dream. It was in the midst of last summer’s San Diego Comic-Con when exciting news surrounding Top Gun: Maverick and Terminator: Dark Fate had just come in. And suddenly, no one could look away from Tom Hopper’s nightmarish vision for the Broadway musical.

The trailer instantly went viral and became the butt of a ton of jokes that still follow the movie today. Since Cats became available on digital, new light has been shed on behind-the-scenes details. For one, a previous allegedly included cat buttholes before they were removed. There was also a graphic peeing scene according to anonymous VFX artists. Now, another source claims work on the trailer alone took up a huge chunk of pre-production. Per The Daily Beast:

Now, it should be noted that anonymous sources are at the center of these claims and, when a source goes on the record without offering their name, it cannot be officially confirmed. Mill Film, which is a visual effects company that was hired on Cats, has previously been contacted to comment on Cats and revealed that there are NDAs in place that forbid the studio and crew members from talking about the making of the film. So the Cats crew couldn’t go on record if they wanted to.

But according to this new source, the way the Cats director conducted the post-production process was “almost slavery” for the VFX crew. The workload is described as 90-hour work weeks for months straight – some days leading to workers sleeping under their desks in between shifts. The famed trailer apparently took up a huge chunk of the allotted time, giving them less time to get the actual movie finished. Here’s what else the source had to say:

The source also claims a big part of the problem lied in Tom Hopper just not knowing enough about what an animated production entailed. He would apparently have the crew completely render sequences for him to view when it’s actually commonplace to send rough cuts to the director to save time. The source also claims the director would send the crew personal emails criticizing their work.

And as far as the Butthole Cut goes, the source said the VFX crew offhandedly noticed it halfway through the making of Cats and it had to be removed in an already time-crunched production.

And still the plot thickens surrounding the production of Cats. Stay tuned here on CinemaBlend for more updates on the mythical mystery of a movie.

When the pitfalls of procrastination are discussed, Tom Hooper’s Cats is now a prime example to be mentioned. Often described as “nightmarish” is the movie adaptation of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s Broadway musical, Cats purred “flop” from the moment its first trailer dropped over summer. Even after the studio’s best efforts to mess with the VFX, the movie is facing at least $70 million in losses.

Since the backlash months ago, Tom Hooper and the VFX team has been messing with the film – so much so that the director admitted to finishing the film only the day before the London premiere. After Cats hit theaters, Universal released an additional updated version to screens with “some improved visuals effects." But what exactly was altered in this second version?

According to THR, there were no content changes made to Cats in the new version. Tom Hooper, who is described as a “very exacting director” decided to refine small things within the VFX such as lighting, integrating, and actor’s performance time. The runtime remained at a 1 hour and 50 minute runtime as well.

Sounds like the difference between these versions sent to theaters was minor, but perhaps gave Tom Hooper some piece of mind. Cats still bombed in its first weekend, making only $6.5 million during its debut against Rise of Skywalker and going on to make just $43.5 million globally on an over $100 million production budget.

Critics gave Cats brutal reviews, with a combined 21% score on Rotten Tomatoes. Audiences weren’t too happy with the musical as a whole either, giving it a 53% audience score and C+ Cinemascore. Cats does have the love-to-hate angle going for it, considering its star-studded cast donning strange feline-human hybrid looks and it’s tone veering on erotic.

While the movie was initially part of Universal’s award season campaign, the studio recently pulled Cats from its “For Your Consideration” page after the bomb. Taylor Swift’s original song for the movie “Beautiful Ghosts” has been nominated for a Golden Globe though – so who knows? It could still win an award… you know, in between all the jokes it’s sure to get during the Sunday broadcast.

Cats stars Jennifer Hudson, Idris Elba, Judi Dench, Ian McKellen, Jason Derulo, Francesca Hayward, and James Corden – the Late Late Show host admitted he hasn’t seen it after hearing how terrible it is. It’s a notoriously confusing story based on T.S. Eliot’s collection of poems written in 1939, Old Possum’s Book of Practical Cats.

What did you think of the VFX of Cats? And how about the rest of Cats? Sound off in the comments below and check out what exciting new movies are ahead in the new year with our 2020 release calendar!

Taylor Swift’s cinematic debut probably didn’t go the way she expected. Though she has received some praise for her performance as Bombalurina, Cats has been an unmitigated disaster. And it turns out that the pop icon could have had a much different entry onto the silver screen, except Tom Hooper rejected her from Les Misérables.

In a conversation with Vulture, Cats’ director revealed that Taylor Swift was nearly cast in his 2012 adaptation of Les Misérables -- a film that was much better received, both by critics and at the box office. He also explained why she didn’t make the cut -- and how that rejection ultimately led to her role in Cats:

As femme fatale Bombalurina, Taylor Swift sings “Macavity: The Mystery Cat,” a song that belongs to two characters in the stage production. Tom Hooper told Vulture that once the singer was on board, he wanted to make sure she got her moment to shine:

Despite the universal flogging that Cats has received since it was released, Taylor Swift doesn’t seem to have any regrets about her first foray onto the big screen. She’s said that she loves how weird the movie is, and that she’s grateful for the opportunity.

Cats is currently playing in theaters as one of the many films closing out 2019. Keep up with everything heading to the big screen soon with our 2020 movie release date schedule.

If you’re anything like me, you’ve spent the past week obsessively thinking about Cats. You’ve lost sleep wrestling with key plot points and trying to figure out the whys behind certain decisions. Well, I came across a quote from director Tom Hooper today, and I’m happy to report I (we?) did miss something: the political commentary.

The Academy Award winner for The King’s Speech sat down with Business Insider to discuss his much-discussed film, and during the chat, he said his musical adaptation is about needing to come together and not cast aside the fallen, the forgotten and the disgraced. You can check out a portion of his quote below…

Now you’re probably thinking wait, that’s not a political message. Oh but it is. In the same interview, Hooper clarified that he was talking about politics. Here’s the quote from that part of the interview below…

I’m normally a guy on the lookout for political themes and/ or social commentary when I watch movies. Not to brag but I’ve participated in several really pretentious conversations after screenings this year about whether the themes were too heavy-handed. Deciding what the director was trying to lecture the audience about is kinda my thing; so, to discover I completely missed this commentary in Cats is really upsetting.

At no point did I even consider there was a larger message here. I was just too engrossed in the songs and the dancing and the CGI and wondering what how big these cats are supposed to be. Now I’m just gonna have to see it again and view it through that lens. No offense to my parents, but it’ll be the best punishment I’ve ever gotten.

If you haven’t seen Cats yet at all, you need to seriously look in the mirror and examine your life choices. The film is currently in theaters, and thanks to horrendous box office returns, it may not be there that long. So, when you’re heading to the theater on Christmas and deciding between the best movie Adam Sandler has ever made (seriously, so effing good), the culmination of the most discussed franchise in film history and Cats, please please please make the right decision.

Alright let's address the elephant, err, cat in the room. Cats the musical is notably bonkers and Tom Hooper’s latest adaption is no exception. You’ve probably seen the scathing reviews, including ours, that have been getting tossed around the Internet. If you’re anything like me, negative reviews indicate that you may be able to skip the big screen and enjoy the movie from the comfort of your own home, right? Wrong. You need to see Cats and you need to see it right meow (buckle up for all the cat puns).

Why? Well for starters, it’s the most bizarre theater experience I’ve ever had.

Cats Is Absolutely WILD

Cats doesn’t mess around with narrative exposition. You are dropped straight into fantastical world of talking, dancing and singing cats. Why you might ask? Doesn’t matter, CATS! What’s the overarching plot? Doesn’t matter, CATS! That’s what you are in for, for just under two hours.

We are talking Hunter S. Thompson drug-induced fever dream levels of nonsensical story here. Basically, these cats bounce (pounce?) from the introduction of one feline to another featuring song and dance numbers the entire time. These Jellicle cats are competing to go to the Heaviside Layer, which as far as I can tell is cat heaven. Okay, but what’s a “Jellicle” cat? Doesn’t matter. Why are they competing? Again, doesn’t matter. The answer is always “doesn’t matter, CATS!” That’s it, there’s your plot.

Why would you want to put yourself through this? Because it’s a freakin’ awesome ride. Once the pure shock starts to wear off you can begin to appreciate Cats for what it is, a big budget CGI musical featuring Hollywood legends and pop stars, who happen to be cats.

The CGI In Cats is Actually Purrty Good - Maybe Too Good

When the first trailer for Cats came out, there was quite a bit of hubbub about how the actors didn’t really look like cats, instead looking more like humans in hyper-realistic cat suits. So, the studio went back and attempted to fix the CGI.

How do you fix a human-turned cat hybrid? Well you don’t, you just make it look more realistic. These human-like cats are so realistic it’s unnerving. I’m not kidding, If you flipped Cats into a horror movie and these cat-people were the villains, you’d have the scariest movie of the year, that’s how good the CGI is.

Seriously though, the visuals are superb. Set pieces, costumes, choreography and animation are all great throughout the movie. It’s a very pretty, dreamlike look at mid-twentieth century London, in a sort of oh-god-I-had-that-nightmare-about-the-cats-again sort of way. Also, I feel the need to mention these cats wear clothes, but only sometimes. Why? You know the answer at this point. Say it with me: doesn't matter, CATS!

The Mewsic of Cats Slaps

Okay, no more cat puns. The music of Cats rules. Despite the pagan cat rituals displayed on screen, I found myself bopping along to songs such as Mr. Mistoffolees (yes this is the name of a cat) and Skimbleshanks, The Railway Cat (again, real cat name).

I suspect this is why the musical has been such a success. People come for the catsuits but stay for tunes and this movie is much the same. I’m still humming Magical Mr. Miistoffolees two days later and I don’t even like musicals or cats.

Plus, some of these songs are performed by talented musicians such as Taylor Swift, Jennifer Hudson and Jason Derulo. The real fun here is that the songs are the only plot moving device and it’s up to you, the audience, to figure out what the hell they are saying and how it fits into the plot. Good luck!

These performances are mostly really, really good though, featuring complex theatrics and dance numbers, which leads me to my next point.

Cats Is An Enthralling Theatrical Experience

The choreography of the theatrics and dance numbers are simply astounding in Cats. There’s something for everyone here, from classical pointe ballet to modern hip-hop. To put it simply, the whole affair is one spectacle so enthralling you just can’t look away. How could you possibly disengage when there are cats in shoes hitting the dougie while singing about digging in the trash?

There’s also a theater production-like atmosphere in Cats that makes the entire experience somewhat impressive. There’s multiple instances of complex dance numbers featuring lifts, flips and cat tails that have minds of their own!

However, the most impressive feat achieved by Cats is entrancing properties of the non-stop song and dance. Seriously, there’s barely a moment to take in a breath throughout this entire film, which is why it’s just so dang captivating. At one point I felt like I was in a seance, about to summon some comic elder feline god. The endless barrage of bizarre keeps building up steam until you don’t know why these cats are dancing and you don’t even care, you’ve accepted it.

I imagine this what Nietzsche was saying with “if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.” The whole affair feels like something you shouldn’t be watching but can’t look away, like a beautiful train wreck.

Director Tom Hooper’s Absolute Commitment

So, we all know the story of Titanic, right? The captain going down with the ship is a navy tradition that basically means ole’ cap has responsibility of the entire ship all the way until the end. Well in the case of Cats the captain is Tom Hooper, the Titanic is Cats and the iceberg is your eyeballs.

The level of commitment by Tom Hooper and the cast is admirable. There’s not even the slightest attempt at fashioning this farce into a digestible plot. Hooper captains Cats with such gusto that you begin to wonder, is it me? Am I wrong? Do I love Cats? This is where the magic of Cats lives. It’s such a peculiar and appalling experience that you should by all accounts dislike, but just can’t help being strangely dazzled.

Cats takes itself so seriously and is done with such pomp that it begs the question of why? But the only answer that Tom Hooper is willing to give is, you guessed it: “Doesn’t matter, CATS!”

That blatant disregard of audience approval is what takes Cats to the next level for me. It doesn't care about its ludicrous plot, uncanny presentation or even you. Tom Hooper just tells this story as well as he can and crash lands it right into your psyche at light speed. Basically, if you want your mind blown go see Cats. You won't regret it. Probably.

This poll is no longer available.

Tom Hooper's Cats is finally in theaters, and is getting quite the reaction from those who have seen see the movie musical. Andrew Lloyd Webber's iconic Broadway musical (based off T.S. Eliot's poetry) has been adapted for film by Les Miserables director Tom Hooper, and the critical response has been wild. The movie is unlike anything that has hit theaters before, with bonkers source material and digital fur technology creating a moviegoing experience that will leave you dizzy. But what happened during Cats' movie ending?

Cats: It's All About The Jellicle Ball

While Cats might be a somewhat confusing moviegoing experience, the plot is actually simple. Just like the Cats musical, once a year the Jellicle Cats (that's just their name, go with it) assemble for the most exciting of days-- appropriately named The Jellicle Ball. It's a grand contest, where one cat is chosen for the Jellicle Choice. See a theme here?

In the Cats musical and movie, the winner of the Jellicle Choice is given a new life. That lucky kitty ascends to the Heaviside Layer, where it transforms into everything it ever wanted to be. The stakes are high for the cats of Cats, and plenty of colorful characters show up to compete for the affections of Judi Dench's Old Deuteronomy. O.D. (as call her for short) is the one who makes said Jellicle Choice, and picks the most deserving candidate from the group of cats.

That's it. Every cat wants to win, and only one will. The runtime of Cats is made up of various cats showing up to join the competition, and hopefully go to the Heaviside Layer. Each of the starring cast members pop up and sing a song, allowing for the Cats movie to function as a true ensemble project. But every competition has its winner, and for Cats that is Jennifer Hudson's Grizabella, the glamor cat.

For some reason, Grizabella is an outcast from the rest of the kitties in Cats. Life has treated her badly, with Griz being an outcast. But once she eventually is welcomed to the Jellicle Ball by Francesca Hayward's protagonist Victoria, Jennifer Hudson is able to shine by singing the 11 o'clock number of the musical "Memory."

What Happens At The End Of Cats?

Since Cats is all about the Jellicle Ball, Tom Hooper's movie ends the same time as that mythical kitty event. While plenty of cats appear to sing their songs and compete for the Jellicle Choice, there's one cat who seems to want the victory at all costs. That's Idris Elba's villainous Macavity, who somehow has magical abilities the other cats do not. (They're talking cats, it's best not to think too hard about it.) Macavity spends most of the movie lurking around, and kidnapping (catnapping?) the starring cast after each actor finishes their big number.

Eventually the kidnapped cats (including Judi Dench) manage to escape in the Cats movie's third act, through some magic by Laurie Davidson's Mr. Mistoffelees, who also has magic. The quirky characters of Cats make it back to the Jellicle Ball just in time. Judi Dench's Old Deuteronomy decides that Grizabella is the one who deserves a new life the most, with the ensemble cats all moved by her life story. And as such she gets the honor of ascending the Heaviside Layer. Jennifer Hudson jumps into a chandelier, and flies out of the Jellicle Ball and into the sky to her destiny, bringing an end to the main story of Cats.

Of course, Idris Elba's Macavity can't help making one last ditch effort to steal the spot from Grizabella in the final moments of the Cats movie. He uses his magic and nearly manages to get aboard the chandelier, but comes up short. We last see him stranded on top of a statue, and seemingly without the powers he used to teleport around for the entirety of the movie. I call that kitty karma.

How Is Cats' Ending Different From The Musical?

Cats director Tom Hooper clearly has love for the original musical, as his movie is a fairly accurate adaptation of Andrew Lloyd Webber's record-breaking show. Yet, there are a few changes made to the source material. The most obvious is that the director attempted to give the film adaptation more of a linear narrative than the musical. The cats no longer break the fourth wall, with their stories all told through Victoria's eyes. This choice makes sense to give Cats a more film feel, although it is startling when Judi Dench finally addresses the audience in the closing number. It was a moment that got an audible reaction from the audience during my Cats screening.

As for for Judi Dench, her role is actually gender-swapped from the usual casting of Cats the musical. Old Deuteronomy is usually played by a man, with a high baritone voice. Dench's songs were adjusted to fit her voice, and she sounded killer in the role. If you didn't already know Cats, you wouldn't know any change was made. She has the necessary gravitas and wisdom for the role, and has had a long tenure in the theater.

Regarding Cats' ending itself, it pretty closely follows the musical, although Macavity's plot to become the winner goes by a little differently. He doesn't spend the Cats musical slowly kidnapping the Jellicles, but instead focuses solely on Old Deuteronomy. Once he kidnaps that powerful cat, Macavity returns disguised as O.D. in an attempt to crown himself the winner. But he's found out, and is forced to flee the stage. From there, Mr. Mistoffelee uses his magic to return Old Deuteronomy in time for the Jellicle Choice-- just like Tom Hooper presented in the movie.

Grizabella is the one chosen in both the Cats movie and musical, as Jennifer Hudson's character is given a new life after her years of suffering and isolation. But the way she ascends to the Heaviside Layer is a bit different. In the Cats movie she rides an old chandelier, a la another musical, Phantom of the Opera. In the stage version, Grizabella and Old Deuteronomy ride a flying car tire to the heavens, where she makes her exit into the sky. The tire moment is an iconic Broadway visual, as the musical version of Cats ran for nearly two decades, and was the longest-running show on the Great White Way.

What Does Cats' Ending Mean?

So what exactly does the ending to Cats mean? Well, it's fairly straightforward... kind of. Regardless, it's an ending that strikes true to the original, complete with Judi Dench's final number "The Ad-Dressing of Cats" Basically Grizabella lived her life and suffered, and was rewarded with a new life. Whether or not this is literal or metaphorical is never quite clear, even in the musical Cats. The plot of the movie hints that the goal is for the cats to be reborn, this time as exactly who they've always wanted to be. For some this means young and beautiful, and for others it means some new power. But Griz is the winner of the Jellicle Choice, so the happy ending is for her to enjoy.

Since Cats premiered as a show on Broadway, the show's ending has been discussed by musical fans. Many consider the Heaviside Layer to simply mean heaven-- I mean, they sound similar. Since Grizabella was an old cat, Cats' ending could represent the natural circle of life and death.

There are also darker theories about what the Heaviside Layer could symbolize. Some of these include a ritual sacrifice, which certainly makes Cats' ending less happy. Another is that the kitties in Cats are actually in purgatory, and that the Heaviside Layer is the real heaven. Clearly it's up for interpretation, which is why moviegoers may be puzzled by the ending of Tom Hooper's Cats movie.

Cats is in theaters now, so you can check out the wild musical blockbuster and judge its ending yourself. Plus, CinemaBlend's official review is up here. In the meantime, check out our 2020 release list to plan your next trip to the movies.

I saw Cats on Tuesday night. It sucks in a way that makes me want to add a bunch of extra letters when I spell it out. It suuuuuuuuucccccckkkkkkkssssss. I hate some of the cats more than others, but at some basic level, I hate each and every one of them. I hate their CGI-ed half-human faces, their genital-less bodies and that thing they do with their legs when they’re excited. They’re all needy, annoying and the absolute worst.

I also hate the basic structure of Cats, which I realize was taken from the musical. Some of my least favorite cats just vanish for long periods of time, and some of my other least favorite cats only show up to make stupid jellicle faces in the background. I think I went thirty minutes during one stretch without finding a single new reason to hate Rebel Wilson’s cat. Would it have been so hard to give her at least one awful cat pun every fifteen minutes? I’m not asking for much here.

And can we talk about how horny all these little monsters are? I hated that part too. As a conservative estimate, I’d say eighty percent of all the line deliveries in the entire movie are just dripping with sex. When they’re not ogling each other with their eyes, they’re nuzzling each other’s noses or licking each other’s jellicles, which made me deeply uncomfortable. You know that feeling you get in your stomach the first time an adult talks about sex with you in a direct way? On Tuesday, I learned I get that same feeling when watching two hours of cat foreplay.

And why was it only two hours? At some point, these cats and I became arch-nemeses, and conventional time ceased to exist. They dug deep and found new and exciting ways to piss me off, and my eyes darted back and forth on the screen, grasping for unanswered questions or strange background choices to stubbornly fixate on. Why are the object sizes so inconsistent? What’s the human involvement here? Who is the target audience for this?

And then it was just over. Suddenly the lights came up, the credits rolled and I was expected to what? Get in my car and drive home, as if I hadn’t just spent the last two hours in a life or death struggle with the hallucinations of an unhinged cat lady? No thank you. I won’t just move on, especially since I’m still on the wrong side of the Heaviside Layer.

What Do I Even Do After Cats?

I haven’t moved on. The hate is too strong. I’ve spent the past thirty-six hours listening to songs from Cats on YouTube. They’re all so dumb. None of them make any sense. None of them should be nominated for anything, but also, they’re kinda catchy and sometimes I do this thing now where there’s silence and I just shout “Jellicle Cats” to fill the space. My wife isn’t on board yet, but maybe if I keep trying long enough. I also started a Google doc called ‘Cats Questions’ and shared it with all my co-workers who have seen Cats so we can talk about all the ridiculous plot points and artistic choices we’re still confused about.

Long story short, my entire life now revolves around talking about Cats. With my deepest apologies to Little Women which I saw last night and is a really solid movie, Cats is the only thing I’m interested in talking about right now and may be the only thing I talk about moving forward. My hatred and utter confusion for it is so deep and intense that there’s no natural endpoint. And I just keep thinking about how hard everyone went for it. There's no apology in these cats. I’m worried my brain may one day mistake this obsession for love, and if that happens, Cats may turn into my favorite movie of all-time, which would be an alarming turn of events.

Real talk: there's a chance that may have already happened. How many hours can you spend listening to a soundtrack and talking about how bad it is before you have to admit that maybe you don't actually hate it anymore? Now I'm curious if this is why Cats ran for so many years on Broadway. Is it all people who despise it but then get fascinated in a morbid kind of way and then return over and over again until they just straight up like it? Because if so, I'm in deep trouble.

Anyway, Cats suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuccccccckkkkkkssssss. Also, I’m thinking about hitting up a Saturday morning matinee. Anyone else in?

This is a big weekend at the cinema because one of the most highly anticipated movies of the year is finally arriving. Also, there's a new Star Wars movie coming out.

While Cats isn't expected to set any box office records, it's still been one of the more talked about movies of 2019, if only because, ever since the first trailer dropped people have been fascinated by the use of CGI to create strange human/cat people. While the general public is still a few hours from filling their eye holes with the insanity that is Cats, critics have made their voices heard, and their voices are largely saying "What the fuck did I just see?"

The response to the trailer was a lot of confusion. Reviews are generally in the negative. However, Cats director Tom Hooper seems to be taking it all in stride. While he tells EW that he certainly didn't expect this sort of response, he doesn't seem to be letting it bother him. According to the director...

Tom Hooper admits to be a lifelong fan of Cats as a Broadway musical, and so he had a particular drive to make the movie happen. With that sort of passion, it's not surprising that he isn't letting the response from others bother him.

However, that's not to say that Tom Hopper wasn't listening to the response from those early trailer reactions. He recently admitted that the movie was actually barely finished in time for the world premiere, and that the time was used to change up the CGI a bit in what he hopes will make it all a bit more palatable for audiences. Hooper explains...

The response to the Cats has been equal parts terrified and hilarious, but it certainly can't be said that people aren't talking about it, and that's something. While most may be calling it a bad movie, it's the sort of bad movie that you might want to see anyway, if only to understand the insanity that people are talking about. In the end, if enough people are curious, Cats might end up being something of a success after all.

And then, at least, we will have all suffered together.

Cats hits theaters tonight.

Movie musicals have had a long history in the film world, originally helping to shape moviemaking, and still remaining a tried and true genre. Usually around this time of the year a movie musical will arrive in theaters hoping to accrue some Oscar nominations in the coming awards season. This year's entry is Tom Hooper's Cats, based off the record-breaking Andrew Lloyd Webber Broadway musical of the same name. However, while Hooper scored a whopping eight Oscar nominations and won three with 2012's Les Miserables, Cats won't have the same impact on voters or audiences.

Cats is based on the 1939 poetry book Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats by T. S. Eliot. The story takes place over one special night a year when the Jellicle Cats assemble and compete to become the winner of the Jellicle Choice. That lucky kitty will get a new life, ascending to the Heaviside Layer a.k.a. Heaven. And as you probably guessed, the words "Jellicle" and "cat" are uttered countless times throughout the course of the story.

Cats is a show about dancing, and in that respect the movie version really delivers. The main ensemble of dancers kill it, making each of the big names look better as a result. But the movie went viral ahead of its release thanks divisive digital fur technology used to transform the cast into their feline alter egos, and the final result is just as bizarre as expected. You won't be able to look away, but you might wish you could forget the "memory" of Cats by the movie's end.

Despite its flaws, Cats is a fascinating visual experience. There's a strange cognitive dissonance happening, as human faces and forms are given digital fur. The actors also play with giant set pieces, meant to give them smaller appearances of cats. But the scale isn't quite right, and the digital fur technology is inconsistent depending on the scene and character involved. In fact, it ends up being the most distracting aspect of the new movie musical.

Cats’ Fur-Like CGI Is Inconsistent And Distracting,

In some shots, the transformation truly happens. An actor's face properly becomes more cat-like, allowing for a unique visual experience. But it really depends on which scene and which character is involved. Newcomer Francesca Hayward plays protagonist Victoria, one of the characters whose visual effects always look completed. As for the bigger names in the Cats cast, they didn't all fare as well. Jennifer Hudson's transformation never quite clicks. Taylor Swift's appearance is another that appears unfinished. That, or they want to give the pop star's fans ample times to connect with her during the character's brief role and didn't want the CGI to completely hide her.

With the digital fur technology so inconsistent, audiences will likely spend much of the time in theaters trying to figure out exactly what is off about Cats' visuals. It's a disservice to the cast, who are each trying to sell their respective solo songs in the movie. One has to wonder if doing the traditional Broadway makeup would have been a better choice. While this would obviously take a toll on the skin of the cast, it might have allowed the Broadway magic of Cats to properly translate to the screen.

The All-Star Cast Of Cats Fails To Become An Ensemble,

Tom Hooper assembled a killer group of actors to play the iconic roles in Cats. While Francesca Hayward will be a new (cat) face for moviegoers, there are plenty of big names attached, each with their own musical number. There are legendary talents like Judi Dench and Ian McKellen alongside Oscar winner Jennifer Hudson, Idris Elba, James Corden, and Rebel Wilson. Pop stars Jason Derulo and Taylor Swift round out the group for some extra star power. But despite all the talent, the group fails to ever truly become an ensemble.

It appears that it was a scheduling nightmare to get such big names together in the same room to film Cats, so it appears like Tom Hooper and company might have avoided this task altogether. Each big name shows up and introduces themselves, gets a song backed up by the dancers, and then fades back into the background. A subplot about kidnapping (catnapping?) is added to remind the audience that those names are even in the movie, as the various cat origin stories continue at the Jellicle Ball.

While it looks like Judi Dench was present during the big ensemble scenes, Cats' theatrical cut makes it seem like the majority of the starring cast recorded their numbers in private. As a result, the group of all-stars fail to gel together. The group mentality is vital to what Cats is as a Broadway show, and while the movie version keeps the dancers as a unit, the starring cast didn't have that same dynamic.

Cats The Musical Just Isn’t Right As A Movie

As I sat watching the movie version of Cats, I was struck by how difficult it was to connect to the material. Andrew Lloyd Webber is a legendary Broadway composer who has other hits such as Phantom of the Opera, Evita, Jesus Christ Superstar, and Sunset Boulevard. The Broadway run of Cats lasted a whopping 18 years, and was the record holder for the longest running show. Clearly there's something special about the story that resonates with audiences, so why does it feel so strange in film form?

It's because it simply doesn't work in the medium. Cats has no real plot; each principal cast member pops up and sings a song-- eventually one of them is chosen to ascend into cat heaven. There's no real story to follow on the big screen. And while its not usual for dancers to wear flamboyant costumes and transform into a cat on stage, seeing people act like cats just isn't as effective here. The cats break the fourth wall and speak directly to the audience in the show, although Tom Hooper abandons this framing device and tries to craft a linear narrative out of the film. It's changes how the story is told, and creates some dissonance. Is this supposed to be a drama or comedy?

The main issue with Cats seems to be that it's a movie at all, as the task of adapting such a stylized and iconic Broadway musical into a film would be a challenging task for anybody. The cast, however separate from each other, puts on spirited performances-- and there are some moments of magic and joy throughout the course of the movie's 110 minute runtime. Jason Derulo is arguably the scene stealer of the movie, while both Judi Dench and Ian McKellen prove why they're legends. But overall, Cats is a wild theatrical ride that as bizarre as you'd think... and perhaps more.

Cats, man. Talk about a movie that’s sparked such a coal fire of response, especially when it came to the film’s first look revealed earlier this summer. As if the Andrew Lloyd Webber adaptation of T.S. Eliot’s rather eccentric collection of poems wasn’t weird enough, the art style of human and cat being fused together was something that most definitely turned heads. But to director Tom Hooper, this wasn’t a disappointment, or even a big shock. If anything, the man behind The King’s Speech and Les Miserables felt more curious about the hoopla than anything else.

Recently, Hooper revealed his thoughts on the internet field day that was had by all to be the following:

It’s certainly an interesting way to look at the moment that saw everyone both shocked and awed by just how Cats looked in its first glimpse shown to the masses. But considering that Tom Hooper has been living and breathing this project, and knew that those initial responses were to an earlier build of the film’s visual effects, it’s no surprise that it wasn’t all that huge of deal to him. Especially because those pointers given by the people were instrumental to Cats’ continued development.

Tom Hooper told Empire not only about how this reaction initially struck him, but ultimately how the more extreme reactions to the look of Cats helped his team to continue to carve out the final look of those infamous characters for the finished product. Though it’s not unclear if those changes were visible in the second trailer to the film which was released more recently. Should that be the case, the online response really hasn’t change all that much.

But even in the face of a potential opening weekend that could fall between $10 - $20 million, and in the shadow of an allegedly incredible figure for a production budget, Tom Hooper and his Cats team don’t seem to phased by the weirdness that this film seems to exude. Even one of its stars, award winning recording artist Taylor Swift, seems to be drawn to the madness that Cats represents.

Which has to make us wonder: isn’t that the film’s biggest draw to begin with? Cats has always been, and always will be, regarded as an ultimately weird enterprise. You don’t make Broadway history by playing it safe, and Andrew Lloyd Webber certainly ran in the direction of that notion when first crafting the show in 1980. If there was a more “traditional” execution of this story, would have been as popular? Would Tom Hooper’s story of Cats as a trending topic have ever happened?

The fact is that what we’ve seen come out of Cats, no matter how weird it may seem, is par for the course. And you get to walk that course yourself when the film comes out on December 20th; provided of course you aren’t already otherwise booked in the realm of cinematic whimsy that very weekend. You may want to check the 2019 release schedule one last time, just to make sure you aren’t forgetting anything.

A certain sound barrier-breaking blue hedgehog isn’t the only one whose trailer has resulted in something of a digital makeover. Tom Hooper’s cinematic adaptation of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s Cats provoked quite the viral online response when its first trailer dropped over the summer. Reactions ranged from confusion to amusement to abject horror; it definitely got Cats noticed, but not necessarily for the right reasons. It turns out that Cats’ controversial CGI has actually been changed following the online response, as director Tom Hooper explained:

The first Cats trailer, as is the case for many trailers, especially those with lots of CGI, reflected a film that was still a work in progress. As Tom Hooper told Empire, the film only finished principal photography in March, so the July trailer that caused such a viral response featured visual effects that were not yet finished. But in part because of the responses to the trailer, Cats’ CGI was changed.

Although Tom Hooper was surprised by the reaction to the Cats trailer, the intense nature of some of the responses caused him and the creative team to take a step back and evaluate how to best move forward. The Cats trailer provoked some truly extreme reactions. And in that viral controversy the filmmakers found some clues about how to evolve the CGI and the designs of the cats

The look of the cats was going to change to a degree regardless as more work on the film was done, and as the artists got a better handle on how to use the technology effectively. But these online responses acted like notes to take under advisement about how exactly the CGI and the look of the cats should change.

So when you see Cats in December, the designs of some of the cats won’t be quite the same as what we saw in that July trailer. You can already see some of this evolution in the recently released Cats trailer.

Below you can see Judi Dench’s Old Deuteronomy, with the image on the left from the July trailer and the image on the right from the November one. Take a look:

Beyond the obvious overall color change in the image and the fur, it looks like Judi Dench’s character has much more of a mane here. The shape of the ears is slightly different as well. Take a look at another example of Cats’ changed CGI below:

Again the color temperature of the image has been changed in the newer trailer but Francesca Hayward’s Victoria has also undergone something of a makeover. Her stripes are more pronounced now and her ears are pointier. Her face is also less round and more oval shaped.

Trailers aren’t necessarily indicative of the final product, but as you can see, Tom Hooper and his team have definitely been evolving the design of the cats in the film. Whether that evolution elicits a different reaction is another matter though. Unlike with Sonic the Hedgehog, these cats still look very similar overall and I don’t think that anyone who found the first trailer too uncanny valley weird and off-putting will suddenly be converted by these changes.

But as Ian McKellen has said, these cats aren’t supposed to be real cats. I tend to think that there are limits to the design changes that can be made and still have this movie be Cats and not something else entirely. It seems that Tom Hooper is trying to find the right balance within those limits.

Cats making changes after a viral online response now marks the second example of this phenomenon following what happened with Sonic the Hedgehog. It’s an interesting thing that can be viewed as both good and bad, but that’s a conversation for another day.

Cats opens in theaters on December 20. Check out our 2020 Release Schedule to see what big movies are on the way next year.

If you’re one of those folks who thought that had a field day with first trailer to Cats, thinking it was creepy at best, and nightmare fuel at worst, you’re officially in the wrong place. The Tom Hooper directed film has dropped a new trailer for audiences to behold, and if anything, it doubles down on that crazy energy that we saw in the first, more restrained look at T.S. Eliot’s famed feline frolic come to life.

So prepare yourself to read and write more wild comments about this film’s CGI creatures, but not before you dive head first into the world of Cats yet again, with the trailer below:

This Cats trailer has it all: Idris Elba’s Macavity showing off more of his sneaky ambitions, Judi Dench playing a god-like elder cat who will grant a lucky soul a new life, and Taylor Swift’s Bombalurina shaking it off in true Swiftian fashion. If you watched that last trailer and thought, “Geez, Tom Hooper, you’re holding back aren’t you?”, then James Corden hissing at another cat and grooming himself only shows that the challenge you dropped has been accepted.

But in the middle of the CGI work that Cats has shown off yet again, it all feels a little more… routine. True, nothing’s changed, and it’s still kind of frightening to see this world of singing and dancing cats in Cats, but it’s starting to feel more normal than outlandish.

This isn’t another Sonic The Hedgehog where the internet said something, and then the folks behind the film tried to strike a compromise in the edit. Cats is here to do only one thing: be the best Cats movie it can be. That includes crafting a new song with Taylor Swift and Andrew Lloyd Webber joining quills to knock that tune right out. In that respect, you kind of have to respect this movie, and the people behind it, for not wavering from such a vision. It might be a fever dream, but it’s their fever dream; and they aren’t letting it go.

It’s a dream that looks to be opening to the tune of $10 - $20 million at the box office its opening weekend, though monetary success is probably the least of the concerns to the powers that be behind Cats’ finished product. If anything, this film is more than likely being groomed for an awards season pedigree, and the claws will come out when it comes time to be considered for that trophy.

Above all else, Cats is proof that no matter how crazy, heightened, or downright bizarre the vision is, there’s always a market that’ll buy it. And there’s no such thing as bad buzz on the internet, because at least there’s only one crazy cat movie that folks are talking about at this moment. Sorry Nine Lives, you just got kicked out of the litter box.

Cats curls up into theaters, and knocks the audience’s drinks from their holders, on December 20th. It should be safe to open a movie on that day, right?

Movie musicals have always been a tried and true genre of filmmaking. In the modern era, these type of blockbusters typically arrive around Awards Season, allowing actors to rack up nominations and awards for their ability to bring stage characters to life on the big screen. We've seen this in notable movies like Chicago, Dreamgirls, and Les Miserables. The latter was directed by Tom Hooper, with the project earning a whopping eight Oscar nominations and winning three.

Tom Hooper is bringing his director's vision back to the musical genre with Cats, adapting the beloved Andrew Lloyd Webber classic onto film for the first time. Hooper has assembled an all-star cast to play the Jellicles, and a set video recently teased the wild spectacle of the blockbuster. But now we've got an official trailer, and you can see the various feline characters come to life below.

Holy wow. Just how director Tom Hooper was going to bring Cats to life was largely a mystery, but now his method is clear. Rather than the typical costumes and makeup from the show's Broadway run, it seems that the feline appearance of the cast is happening thanks to some cutting edge visual affects.

The Cats trailer opens on Francesca Hayward's Victoria, the white cat. The part is usually only brought to life through dance, but it's clear that Victoria is going to be the protagonist kitty by which we meet the rest of the Jellicles. Dance is still at the heart of the character as well, and Hayward is a principal ballet dancer who is making her big screen debut in Cats.

Casual moviegoers might not be familiar with Francesca Hayward's work, but they'll recognize all the other kitties that will occupy the space and flesh out the cast. Top Hooper assembled a stellar cast, not dissimilar to what he did with his adaptation of Les Miserables. Oscar winner Jennifer Hudson is playing Grizabella, and we can hear her goosebumps-inducing rendition of "Memory" throughout this first trailer.

There's a ton of musical talent attached to the project including the likes of Idris Elba (he has albums, look it up), Jason Derulo, and pop princess Taylor Swift. Swift is surprisingly not featured very heavily in this first trailer, playing the role of feisty cat Bombalurina. Then again, the extensive visual affects make it hard to discern the faces shown in this first trailer, so it's not like those hardcore T Swift fans are missing much.

Related: James Corden Felt High While Filming Cats

There's also some legendary actors involved in Cats, namely Ian McKellen and Dame Judi Dench. Both appear briefly in this first trailer, taking on colorful unique feline personas in their own wright. Additionally, Tom Hooper got some comedic royalty involved as well, in the form of James Corden and Rebel Wilson. Both actors have done movie musicals before, and their characters look like they'll be real scene stealers once Cats arrives this Holiday Season. Wilson's likeness was captured quite well in this first trailer, and you can see a glimpse of the comedic chops she'll bring to the character Jennyanydots.

For those unfamiliar, Cats is an iconic part of composer Andrew Lloyd Webber's catalogue, alongside Broadway hits like Phantom of the Opera and Jesus Christ Superstar. The show takes place over the course of one night, where the Jellicle cats must decide which among them will ascend to Heaviside Layer, and the next stage of life. Each one of the cats gets a song of their own, so we should expect to see each A-Lister get their time to shine when Cats is released.

Cats is currently set to arrive in theaters on December 20th, 2019. In the meantime, check out our 2019 release list to plan your next trip to the movies.

Dafne Keen first made a splash in Hollywood with her breakout performance as the badass X-23 in Logan, and now the young actress is tackling yet another role that requires a strong female heroine. Keen has joined BBC One's big adaptation of Phillip Pullman's His Dark Materials, which is finally coming together and amassing a lot of talent beyond the young rising star. Keen will play the novels' lead character Lyra, in what will be the second adaptation of the franchise.

His Dark Materials has long been a controversial trilogy of books, mainly for its criticism and parallels of modern religion. Dafne Keen's Lyra lives in a universe parallel to our world and finds herself entangled in a cosmic war between her uncle, Lord Asriel, and the first angel to come into existence, The Authority. Keen's Lyra goes on many adventures throughout the series of three books, Northern Lights, The Subtle Knife, and The Amber Spyglass, all of which will be portrayed in this eight-part series that's set to begin production in Wales soon.

The television adaptation of His Dark Materials will be helmed by famed director of The King's Speech, Tom Hooper. Deadline reported Hooper has long expressed an interest to direct the project, which had its television adaptation written back in 2015 by Wonder and National Treasure writer Jack Thorne. Dafne Keen's Lyra is the series' central character, although in the second book she is joined by a boy name Will, who also becomes a character of importance. No casting has been announced for Will, although one other big name has popped up in the casting that should show how serious The BBC is about making this series a major television event.

Dafne Keen will also be joined by Lin-Manuel Miranda in the television adaptation for His Dark Materials, and the Hamilton actor will play the aeronaut Lee Scoresby. Early on in the book trilogy, Scoresby interacts with Keen's Lyra by helping her travel to Svalbard, and then comes into play in a bigger way later on in the novels. Given the amount of star power that's already attached to the project, its likely many that are unfamiliar with the tale will be tuning in.

This television adaptation of His Dark Materials will be the second adaptation of the series in recent memory, as the movie The Golden Compass portrayed the events of the first book back in 2007. The film starred the likes of Daniel Craig, Nicole Kidman, Christopher Lee and Sam Elliott, but was not received well by either critics or a general audience. The controversy surrounding the film's subject matter slightly played into that, but for the most part, critics said the film suffered from poor storytelling. Hopefully, that will not be the case with The BBC's television adaptation.

No word has been given as to when His Dark Materials will appear on BBC America, but with big names like Dafne Keen and Lin-Manuel Miranda signing on, more updates will come sooner rather than later. For some information on upcoming programming that will air in 2018, visit our midseason premiere guide.

Cats is one of those iconic musicals that some would say has been long overdue for a film adaptation, so the news that the project is finally moving forward would be seen as good news by some. However, before you get too excited, we've got a piece of information that may or may not color your opinion of this project: it's being directed by Les Miserables' Tom Hooper.

The bearer of potentially bad news is The Wrap, as their report has indicated that Universal and Working Title, the partners behind Hooper's 2012 nominee for Best Picture, are mounting Cats to become their next Broadway inspired film. The project is in early days, with no acting or writing talent named just yet, but the classic story of life, death, and reincarnation – through the eyes of alley cats – is sure to be seen as a crowd pleasing possibility by the studio. And yet, Universal went and did a thing like hiring Tom Hooper to direct Cats.

Say what you will about Cats as a musical, but hiring Tom Hooper to direct a feature film adaptation is probably not the best idea in the world. His previous efforts with adapting Les Miserables certainly don't inspire confidence, as the casting of Russell Crowe as Javert and the method of filming his actors no further than 10 feet away turned what should have been a home run into a massive disappointment. So obviously, turning to the Academy Award winning director behind The King's Speech to direct a more fantastical musical involving singing animals doesn't sound like the best fit. Of course, Les Miserables was a financially comfortable hit, and considering the Universal game plan, this could end up working out in the long run.

While Universal doesn't have a superhero franchise to keep itself in the money game, it does have three franchised quantities it's working to secure: Jurassic World, the Universal Monsters shared universe, and stage adaptations. At the moment, Universal also holds the rights to the Broadway smash Wicked, and was the previous rights holder to Lin-Manuel Miranda's In The Heights. While the latter didn't work out, the former could be seen as very much a priority, as it's one of those shows that people know and love by heart. So if the studio wants to continue putting out big ticket Broadway adaptations, they're going to have to succeed with Cats in a similar fashion than to how they did with Les Miserables.

Cats could turn out to be a better product than the bomb we're dreading it will be, but if this works out, Hollywood's long standing obsession with the movie musical could see a successful revival. And if that happens, it might not be long before we see bigger, more recent Broadway hits take center stage on the silver screen. Which is basically our way of telling Tom Hooper not to screw up the chances of Hamilton becoming a feature film, seeing as tickets are as impossible to snag as it is to create a hit movie musical.

So much has been made, over the course of the lengthy Oscar season, of the struggles – both internally and externally – that Lili Elbe (Eddie Redmayne) had to endure as she wrestled with her gender identity in Tom Hooper’s biographical drama, The Danish Girl. While this much is true, it was the effect that Lili's decisions had on her marriage to Gerda (Alicia Vikander) that made Hooper’s film transcendent. As the two actors prepare for Sunday’s Academy Awards, where they are both nominated in their respective categories for Hooper’s fine film, we have an exclusive clip from Universal Home Video featuring the cast and their director explaining why this classic story is relevant and important today. Give it a listen:

Based on the 2000 fictional novel of the same name, Tom Hooper’s The Danish Girl introduces fey Copenhagen artist Einar Wegener (Redmayne, Oscar nominated for the role), who experiences emotional conflict because he realizes he identifies more clearly as a woman than as a man. As you can imagine, this creates enormous issues for Einar’s wife, Gerda (Vikander, also nominated), even though Gerda initially – and somewhat playfully – helps Einar come up with the identity of Lili Elbe. The Danish Girl examines the hardships that Lili endures, even if that means undergoing extremely experimental gender reassignment surgery… something that was unheard of at the time.

While the film didn’t make the overall cut for Best Picture at the Academy Awards, The Danish Girl is competing in four categories overall, including Best Costume Design, Best Production Design, Best Supporting Actress and Best Actor. And I don’t think you will find very many who would argue with the selections of Alicia Vikander and Eddie Redmayne as Oscar nominees in their categories. As is mentioned in the above, exclusive clip, the love story between Gerda and Lili is central to the drama on display in The Danish Girl, and it’s part of the reason why the protagonist's decision to live life as Lili is devastating to her loving and devoted wife.

Alicia Vikander had an incredible year in 2015. In addition to The Danish Girl, the actress played an A.I. in the brilliant Ex Machina, and dabbled in summer-tentpole action as a beautiful mechanic in The Man from U.N.C.L.E.. If that was her coming out year, then an Oscar for The Danish Girl would be the icing on a delicious cake. Seeing as how she is viewed as the frontrunner in her category, I’m feeling good about her chances on Sunday night.

Tom Hooper’s The Danish Girl is currently available for digital download. The DVD and Blu-ray will reach stores on March 1, from Universal Pictures Home Entertainment.

In order to prepare for his role as Lili Elbe in The Danish Girl, Eddie Redmayne was rather rigorous with his research. Not only did he read every book on her that he could get his hands on, but he also visited individuals who had gone through sexual reassignment surgery themselves. But while filming Jupiter Ascending he was able to talk with director Lana Wachowski, who had not only undergone the operation herself but who also knew a great deal about Lili Elbe.

When I sat down with Eddie Redmayne at the end of October to talk about his research and performance in The Danish Girl, he admitted that he talked extensively with Lana Wachowski, who was born and formerly known as Laurence Wachowski until she completed her transition from a man to a woman in 2008, during the production of the sci-fi blockbuster.

And the direction that Lana Wachowski pointed Eddie Redmayne in clearly helped the actor to work wonders, because his performance in The Danish Girl miraculously eclipses his Oscar-winning work in The Theory Of Everything.

Rather than reluctantly being restrained by a debilitating illness and then having to try and communicate and act with tiny moments and glances, Redmayne has to portray a smorgasbord of emotions as Einer Wegender comes to terms with the fact that he wants to transition into a woman. Somehow, he doesn’t miss a beat in showcasing each and every one of these feelings, even when he has to emote several of them at once.

You can check out part of my discussion with the wonderfully cordial and engaging Eddie Redmayne below. He really is one charming bugger.

Some cruel individuals might make the comment that Lana Wachowski’s advice to Eddie Redmayne regarding his performance in The Danish Girl was the only positive thing to come out of Jupiter Ascending. The film proved to be a rather big flop for Warner Bros. OK, its failure might have been eclipsed by the woeful performances of Pan and Fantastic Four, but the sci-fi space opera only grossed $183.9 million from a $176 million budget. Plus, it was also rather savaged by critics too. Personally I found Jupiter Ascending to be flippant, camp fun, which didn’t take itself too seriously and had plenty of enthralling action set-pieces to pass as a worthwhile entertaining ride. But that's just me.

Eddie Redmayne will be hoping that The Danish Girl is received much more favorably by audiences when it is finally released on November 27.

To which girl is the title of Tom Hooper's delicate The Danish Girl actually referring?

Most coming to Hooper's biopic of pioneering transgender Einar Wegener likely are enticed by the transformation of Oscar-winning Eddie Redmayne (The Theory of Everything) from fey male painter into semi-confident female model, Lili Elbe -- who Einar realizes has been resting inside him all along. And Redmayne's transformation, and on-screen portrayal of Lil in particular, is every bit as astounding as his morph into genius Stephen Hawking was in Theory. For those who track that sort of thing (and yes, I'm one of them), Oscar attention should follow Redmayne as more begin to see The Danish Girl.

But it shouldn't be limited to Redmayne, alone. For just as many, if not more, will leave The Danish Girl raving about the soul-bearing emotional performance by Alicia Vikander, who gently wrestles Hooper's movie away from her male co-star and -- with Hooper's assistance, actually -- makes The Danish Girl as much a movie about her character, Gerda Wegener's journey, as much as it is about Einar's transformation into Lili.

It isn't easy on either of them. Beginning in Copenhagen circa 1926, Einar and Gerda are successful painters, though his landscapes receive more acclaim than her portraits. It is suggested that Einar has encountered feelings of confusion over his sexuality prior to when we meet him, but Hooper uses a specific event as a gateway into his identity crisis. One afternoon, needing to finish a half-done portrait of a gracefully beautiful dancer, Gerda asks Einar to slip into stockings and women's shoes. She places a lace dress over her already fey husband, and the light that shines behind the man's eyes grows brighter. They are artists. There is a legitimate excuse for this pantomime. And there is a delicate and beautiful way that Hooper conveys this awakening in Einar through the touch and feel of dainty fabrics. Gerda and an artist friend, Oola Paulson (Amber Heard), go so far as to dub Einar's female face Lili. They don't yet understand what they have given birth to.

The Danish Girl, from here, follows Einar's complicated efforts to shed his identity as Einar and fully embrace Lili. At first, Gerda goes along with the ruse. She helps her husband masquerade as his dual identity, who they introduce as Einar's cousin, so that he can attend parties and understand how a female is observed. Gerda also begins to sketch Lili -- and her revelation does wonders for Gerda's stalled professional career. Suddenly, Parisian galleries are eager to sponsor her, and everyone wants to know more about the stunningly beautiful but delicate and shy model. There's a lot to be said in The Danish Girl about how the body can be viewed as a canvas for expressing one's inner truths. Lili unlocks waves of emotions in both Einar and Gerda, and there are beautiful scenes of Redmayne posing in front of a mirror, exploring the body he has been given, and wondering if it's possible to achieve the body he would prefer.

There is a way, actually, and the second half of The Danish Girl follows Einar's path to experimental gender-reassignment surgery, and the complications it brings to his marriage, his health, and his life. Lucinda Coxon's screenplay raises several interesting threads about what happens to identity when an individual chooses to leave part of his or her life behind -- and also what happens to the people who were caught up in the wake of the conflicted party. Lili tells Gerda that Einar is dead. It's not really that simple, though, is it?

Tom Hooper, as expected, conjures stately compositions and makes beautiful use of both Copenhagen and Paris. He continues to show an incredible eye for period detail, and even learns how to pull his lens away from the deadly close ups that made his Les Miserables feel claustrophobic. But his voice is... detached? The Danish Girl plays more like an historical account of a groundbreaking life, rather than an intimate, emotionally charged and passionate exercise, which Lili deserved. It's staid, and it's safe, and it views the complicated proceedings through a pane of glass that we can't see, but we definitely can feel.

Whenever Danish Girl punctures through, it's because of the first-rate performances by Eddie Redmayne and Alicia Vikander, with the latter wringing incredible tension, frustration, anger, love and loss out of Gerda's predicament. Einar's conflict absolutely pulls at your heartstrings, but he makes the difficult choice to leave one life behind and embrace another. Gerda can't choose. She has to play with the hand that she has been dealt, and in that painful truth, Vikander unearths a beautiful and memorable turn.

This review was filed at the 2015 Toronto International Film Festival.

The Theory of Everything star Eddie Redmayne is wasting no time in chasing another Oscar. The Danish Girl trailer has arrived online, and its brief but lush look at the story of trans pioneer Lili Elbe will melt your heart. This is one to watch come awards season. Watch the trailer below.

Following his Oscar-winning performance as Stephen Hawking, Redmayne re-teams with his Les Miserables director Tom Hooper for The Danish Girl. It’s the story of Lili Elbe, who was born Einar Magnus Andreas Wegener. She is the first documented trans person to undergo sexual reassignment surgery, and she did it with the support of her wife Gerda Gottlieb, played by Alicia Vikander in the film. The Danish Girl is as much about Gerda as it is about Lili.

Based on the book by author David Ebershoff, The Danish Girl tells of their early marriage, both spouses making a living as prominent artists of the time. The trailer depicts how one day Gerda asks her husband to pose for her wearing women’s clothes, which visibly unlocks a revelation in Einar. Soon, they decide to dress him up as the woman in Gerda’s paintings, named Lili, and they set out on the town. Initially unbeknownst to Gerda, Einar feels at home in this new form and a stranger in his birth body. Though there’s some initial hesitance from Gerda, she ultimately loves Einar and helps him become Lili.

"The fact is, I believe that I’m a woman," Redmayne says as Einar. If you don’t gasp at the emotions running high when Vikander’s Gerda responds with, "And I believe it, too," you might want to get your tear ducts checked ‘cause, darling, you’re cold as ice.

On style note, this trailer flaunts the beauty and elegance of cinematographer Danny Cohen. He worked with Tom Hooper on Les Miz as director of photography, and there’s a similar tone and color palette to this footage. Though, it appears there’s more of a wide range of shots, as opposed to the close-ups in the musical adaptation.

Now that the LGBT community in America has achieved a major win from the Supreme Court with nation-wide marriage equality, more and more focus has been given to the "T." Thanks to icons like Laverne Cox from Orange Is the New Black and Bruce Jenner’s transition into Caitlyn Jenner, the trans community have been given celebrity voices and faces, and film and TV are beginning to reflect this. Eddie Redymayne, in turn, is progressing this dialogue with The Danish Girl. In a recent interview with Out magazine, he said,

The Danish Girl will hit theaters on November 27.

Well would you look at what project just won't die: The Danish Girl has come roaring back to life after laying dormant for years, and now it has a pretty starry combo involved in a couple of vets of Les Miserables. Can you hear the people sing for sex changes?

Deadline reports that Working Title has gotten The Danish Girl up and running, and the new combination of choice is director Tom Hooper and star Eddie Redmayne. Set in the 1930's, the true story recounts the struggle of Einar Wegner, who sought to become the world's first male-to-female transgender patient to honor the wishes of his wife, Gerda. The script was written by Lucinda Coxon, who has also written Guillermo Del Toro's upcoming Crimson Peak.

Just about everyone's been attached to this film. Some of the actresses who have considered the project include Marion Cotillard, Nicole Kidman, Gwenyth Paltrow, Charlize Theron and Rachel Weisz. This was also meant to be the English-language debut for director Tomas Alfredson, who went on to helm Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. His replacement, Lasse Hallstrom (Dear John) had also eventually departed the project.

You'll notice the names mentioned in the potential casts for The Danish Girl: Eddie Redmayne is the first male associated with the role. Originally, the production seemed set on casting a female actress and having her transition into a woman, playing a feminine male for the early portion of the film. Casting Redmayne poses its own challenges: now, the audience will be asked to believe that Redmayne could be feminine, that he could successfully transition from male to female. Redmayne certainly has very soft, feminine features, but that presents new and unusual commercial challenges, for reasons that should be obvious to the general public.

It's a bold choice for Tom Hooper, who is coming off a strong run of success. Obviously The King's Speech was a monster, winning him Best Picture and Best Director at the Oscars, grossing a spectacular $414 million worldwide. Oscar gold didn't follow Les Miserables, but the musical adaptation pulled in a whopping $441 million globally. When your last two films gross $855 million on a combined budget of $76 million, you get to do whatever you want. In this case, make a drama about the first ever sex change, something that isn't exactly going to play in the same Malls of America that greeted Wolverine and Russell Crowe singing their hearts out.

It's also a massive gamble on Eddie Redmayne's appeal in a lead role. The actor certainly made an impression in Les Miserables, but audiences aren't exactly banging down the door to see him take center stage. He's got a busy lineup of films coming up, including a role in this summer's Jupiter Ascending and a potential Oscar nomination in The Theory of Everything, a biopic of Stephen Hawking. He may have had the voice of an angel in Hooper's film, but will that translate to leading man stardom for The Danish Girl?

British helmer Tom Hooper has only four films to his credit, but thanks to The King's Speech and Les Miserables has already scored plenty of Academy Award notice as well as the Oscar for Best Director. But guys, I don't get it. Yes, The King's Speech was a crowd pleaser, but it was also painfully predictable. The most exciting element of the whole film was that the MPAA took issue with its use of four-letter words.

Then came Les Miserables, which polarized critics, even here at Cinema Blend with me and Sean hating it hard, and Katey singing its praises. Still, the Academy was gaga for this grandiose movie musical, giving it eight nominations and three awards. So, Hooper is obviously getting lots of tempting offers for his follow-up, including—as Deadline reports—the in-development Freddie Mercury biopic. And I can't think of a single possible project he'd be more wrong for.

I know lots and lots of people like Hooper's movies. I accept that. He's competent at crafting moments of crushing heartbreak and soaring victory. It's just that there's nothing unique about the way he does these things. My main issue with his adaptation of Les Mis is that it lacked imagination, rendering many of the layered characters I remembered from the Broadway show (that I can sing—poorly—from memory) into two-dimensional archetypes without souls. And the music of Freddie Mercury is all about passion and soul.

Every note the Queen frontman sang was radiant with emotion. A proper biopic about his life not only requires a lead who can capture that mad level of unrestrained charisma, but also a director who can make the whole film breathe with that energy. While I was initially thrown by the casting of Sacha Baron Cohen for the lead role, I've grown to appreciate this decision.

Yes, The Dictator was a miss, but it also took a lot of risks, and had a lot of energy. Cohen is a bold and risky performer, and he's got pipes as we've seen in Sweeney Todd and to a lesser degree Les Mis. But also in Les Mis, we saw that he needs a director who knows how to manage his ideas and energy. Because compared to all the ever-dour characters that surrounded him, Cohen's Thenardier came off as wildly out of place, like he'd stepped onto the wrong set altogether.

I've loved Queen since I was a child in awe of "Bohemian Rhapsody." (Thanks Wayne's World!) As a teen, my affection for the long dead-Mercury was an element that fueled my bond with my best friend as well as my flirtation with the boyfriend who later became my husband. I've listened to Mercury sing on long car rides over mountains, and sunny ambles on my own through Central Park. As a fan, I feel I own a part of his story, and I'm sure I'm not alone. But someone as unique as the man who became Freddie Mercury demands (and his fans deserve) a filmmaker to tell his story whose approach is similarly fearless and larger than life. That's not Hooper. There are plenty of big dramas out there he can sink his teeth into. I'm really hoping he doesn't make this one bite.

This poll is no longer available.

When all of those images from Tom Hooper’s Les Miserables hit the Web, we kind of figured a teaser trailer would be right behind them, but thought we’d have to wait until the weekend to finally get a good look at footage from the anticipated musical adaptation. Yet, less than 24 hours after the photos were shared, a trailer was posted on MSN. We’re sharing it with you below:

Brilliant. Start with a song, sung beautifully by Anne Hathaway’s put-upon Fantine. Offset it with spectacular images of the French countryside, photographed by cinematographer Danny Cohen. But it’s when Hathaway’s voice swells, explaining how the cruelty of life has crushed her dreams of a better way of living, that I realized how emotionally invested I was in this brief clip. It was more than enough to convince me that this Les Miserables is going to work.

Everything about it looks epic. It feels grand in scope. Hooper’s an excellent director, an Oscar-winning talent. And I think he has tapped the ideal cast for his stage-to-screen adaptation. In addition to Hathaway, Hooper has Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Amanda Seyfried and Eddie Redmayne. I didn’t see Helena Bonham Carter or Sacha Baron Cohen in the clip. Did you? It’s possible I just missed them.

When Hollywood nails the musical genre, the film industry can provide sweeping entertainment for the masses. It’s early, I know, but this outstanding trailer suggests that Hooper has something special heading to theaters later this year. As the trailer promises, the dream lives this Christmas.

Given that it's the first film Tom Hooper is directing since he won a pile of awards for The King's Speech, the upcoming musical adaptation of Les Miserables can afford to assemble the kind of glitzy cast that usually only exists in fantasy casting sessions. He's already got Hugh Jackman as the wrongfully imprisoned hero Jean Valjean, with Russell Crowe as the dogged Inspector Javert on his tail, and Anne Hathaway, Eddie Redmayne, and possibly Sacha Baron Cohen and Amanda Seyfried rounding out the cast in various other parts, all of them requiring the actors to sing their lungs out and fight the good fight of the French Revolution.

Back in December we heard that three more huge names-- Taylor Swift, Lea Michele and Scarlett Johansson-- were all up for the meaty role of Eponine, a woman caught in a love triangle during the Revolution. Michele seemed like a shoo-in for the part given her Broadway-trained chops, but Twitch reports that the role has instead been offered to Swift. Should she accept she'll wind up in a love triangle with Seyfried, who plays the abandoned orphan Cosette, and Redmayne, who will play their mutual object of affection Marius.

Hooper has made almost nothing but safe and glitzy choices in casting this movie so far, but Swift, despite her immense fame, represents maybe the first curveball. The country singer isn't exactly known for her powerful singing voice, and say what you will for her brief and bubbly appearance in Valentine's Day two years ago, but her acting talents are basically untested. Maybe she went in and nailed the audition and somehow bested a trained theater actress like Michele. Or maybe Hooper is enjoying getting people riled up, amping up the anticipation for his movie all the more. There are plenty of Broadway purists who are understandably furious at this news, but while we're stuck writing up casting announcements and almost a year away from the actual film, I'd rather have some oddball news to play with. What say you guys?

Here’s a novel concept: The actors Tom Hooper hired for his planned adaptation of the Broadway smash Les Miserables are being told they’ll have to sing their songs live on camera.

A source close to the production has told the Sun UK that, in order to attain the most authentic feel possible, the Oscar-winning King’s Speech director is requiring his cast – which includes Hugh Jackman, Anne Hathaway, Russell Crowe and Sacha Baron Cohen – to record their vocal live on camera during their scenes. Usually, cast members pre-record their vocal tracks in a studio, then lip-synch to the mixed and mastered songs while filming their scenes. Hooper, however, is taking his music straight to the source.

"First they have to learn the complex songs, then they'll have to get it right on set in front of the other stars and crew," the source confirms.

Which is exactly how they’d have to do Les Mis if they were attempting it on a theater stage, so perhaps Hooper plans a version of the show that replicates the Broadway experience (instead of removing the classic story from the confines of the stage and setting it in a broader, live-action setting). Truthfully, the move benefits Broadway veteran Jackman, a Tony Award winner for The Boy from Oz, while it might work against someone like Crowe, who relies on Method and likely needs the safety and comfort of a traditional movie set. Then again, Crowe did sign on for a movie musical, so maybe he’s trying his best to challenge himself as a performer. Will it work? Will audiences flock to Hooper’s Les Miserables? We’ll find out more next December when the musical reaches theaters.

News has been coming fast and furious about Tom Hooper's adaptation of the Broadway musical Les Miserables, which has Hugh Jackman and Russell Crowe starring in a cast of literally thousands. A lot of the key roles are still being cast, including the meaty role of Eponine, but word now has it that a much smaller part has been cast. The actor Matt Lucas, who you might know from Little Britain or as Tweedledee and Tweedledum in Alice in Wonderland, has tweeted for whatever reason that Sacha Baron Cohen has been cast in the film. Here's the tweet in question:

The information isn't quite as random as it seems-- Lucas played Thenardier in a concert production of Les Miserables last year, and presumably a fan had been hoping he would reprise the role in the film. Lucas's comment sounds like exactly the friendly thing you say when someone else has been cast in a part you could have had, and if he and Baron Cohen really are friends, it makes sense Lucas would know about it before the news was officially announced.

Granted, this is not official confirmation, and who knows what might change between now and when Les Miserables goes into production. But Thenardier, the villainous innkeeper who sings the big number "Master of the House" and with his wife is one of the only true bad guys of the play, sounds like an ideal role for Baron Cohen, showy but small-- not unlike his role as Perrelli in Tim Burton's Sweeney Todd. There's no guarantee that Baron Cohen will actually be playing the part, but from where we stand, it's a good choice. What say the rest of you?

Back in August we reported the rumor that Anne Hathaway was being considered to play Fantine in director Tom Hooper's upcoming version of Les Miserables. We were a bit skeptical at the time, but it turns out the rumor was right: today Deadline is confirming that Hathaway has signed on for the big-screen musical.

She's joining a top-notch cast in the adaptation of the classic novel by Victor Hugo. Hugh Jackman and Russell Crowe were already aboard the project, playing Jean Valjean and Inspector Javert, respectively. Director Tom Hooper made a big splash last year as the helmer of the Academy Award-winning The King's Speech.

Les Miserables has been adapted for the screen a half-dozen times, notably back in 1998 when Liam Neeson was in the role of Valjean. That version eschewed the singing side of things, so this new version should excite fans of the popular musical. Nor should anybody be worried about the singing chops of the three stars. Jackman is a stage regular. Crowe's musical proclivities are well known, including his amusingly named band, 30 Odd Foot of Grunts. And Hathaway sang a parody version of the Les Miserables song "On My Own" on the last Academy Awards, a version that skewered...guess who...her new Les Mis co-star Hugh Jackman.

This new Les Miserables is slated to hit theaters on December 7th, 2012, just in time for Oscar season. The script was written by William Nicholson (Elizabeth: The Golden Age). Now, here's Anne belting one out (and making fun of Hugh Jackman).

I've said it at least 3,000 times before and I'll probably say it at least another 3,000 times in the future: not every movie needs to be in 3D. While movies like Avatar and Tron Legacy work in the format, there's no reason why Baz Luhrmann should should be filming his adaptation of The Great Gatsby in the third dimension. Despite falling box office numbers, however, studios continue to put 3D where it doesn't belong. It turns out that may include the work of Claude-Michel Schönberg.

Hugh Jackman recently spoke with Collider and said that Tom Hooper's big screen version of Les Miserables could possibly be shot in 3D. "It’s in discussion," said Jackman. "Honestly, that’s probably gonna be part of what the tests are about, to see what that does." The Australian actor says that Hooper is going to consider how the technology works with character and emotion - the two things that Jackman says are the story's greatest strengths - and if it doesn't add anything they won't use it. "It is not like there are massive special effects in Les Mis, you know?" he added.

Also interesting, apparently the role wasn't actually offered to Jackman, rather he had to go through an audition process. About three months ago the performer had a 3-hour tryout that obviously ended with him getting the job. Production is scheduled to begin in March.

I can't speak for everyone, but I've never seen a film that has used 3D to affect emotions and characters; it's purely visual. With any luck Hooper will come to this same conclusion after he's run his tests.

With yesterday's news that Hugh Jackman could star as Jean Valjean in Tom Hooper's planned movie adaptation of the musical Les Miserables, the obvious next question is which actor would be able to hold his own against Jackman playing Javert, the police inspector who spends years trying to hunt down the falsely imprisoned Valjean. Deadline reports that the man to do it might be Paul Bettany, who has read for the role and sang some of the songs for Hooper and presumably the producers.

Bettany has spent more time chasing strange CGI creatures over the last few years, starring in the seemingly identical Priest and Legion, and it would be great to see Bettany return to the kind of prestigious work he was doing in the early 00s with a musical that's bound to get a ton of attention-- even if it weren't Hooper's follow-up to the Oscar-winning The King's Speech, it's an adaptation of one of the most popular musicals of all time. Bettany is a significant enough star to hold his own against Jackman, and his interest indicates there might be a ton of big names lining up to be part of the film-- something that's fine by me so long as they've all got the talent to back it up. Check out this video of the big number "Confrontation" for an idea of what Jackman and Bettany could be throwing at each other in the movie.

Following his huge win at the Director's Guild Awards, The King's Speech director Tom Hooper is the frontrunner to take home the Best Director prize at the Academy Awards on Sunday. Should it come to pass - and, frankly, even if it doesn't - Hooper is going to be hounded by studios trying to get him to make their next big film. Last year, Kathryn Bigelow, who won the prize thanks to her work on The Hurt Locker, received many offers, including the Spider-Man prequel, but turned them down in favor of her passion project Triple Frontier. So what projects are now on Tom Hooper's radar?

The LA Times recently spoke with "a person who has worked closely with Hooper," one offer put in front of the director was Iron Man 3, though he declined, making way for Shane Black to take the helm (is it now a requirement that Oscar nominated directors turn down Marvel movies?). But while Hooper may not want to fly around with Robert Downey Jr. in a gold-titanium alloy suit, another source says that he may be eying a film adaptation of Les Misérables. Unlike the 1998 version, which starred King's Speech Oscar nominee Geoffrey Rush, the new movie would be a big-budget musical. Since wrapping The King's Speech early last year Hooper has not accepted any other projects.

Whatever Hooper decides to do, let's just hope he moves quickly on it. After seeing her stock rise higher than ever before, we're still waiting on Bigelow's next film to go into production. If Hooper wants to keep his name in the trades he needs to strike while the iron is hot.

Ballots for this year's Academy Awards were turned in on Monday, which means it's too late for anything to change how things will turn out at Sunday's Oscar ceremony. Everyone behind the The King's Speech has got to be hugely relieved, then, that only yesterday did evidence emerge that their posh movie about British royalty was filmed on the same set as a gay porn. Yes, in that same torn-up room where Bertie and Lionel Logue practiced speech therapy, you can watch two men first play pool together, then really go to town. Relatively SFW photographic evidence is below (via Queer Click); for a distinctly NSFW clip of the porn, called Snookered, you can visit UK Naked Men. Seriously, you've been warned.

It's hilarious, yes, especially because director Tom Hooper and stars Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush have frequently joked that the movie is kind of a bromance between the King and his therapist. But it also raises some questions about the film's art direction, which could quite possibly win an Oscar for production designer Eve Stewart. At In Contention Guy Lodge has compared information he got from the manager of the historic house where both films were set, 33 Portland Place, to what Stewart said in an interview about creating that torn-up wall that's so heavily featured in the film. Did she exaggerate how much she actually did to change it? And did it really take a gay porn to reveal this?

None of this will affect how The King's Speech fares on Oscar night, but I dare you to ever even look at the film's poster again without thinking about gay porn. That's right, you can't.

[note: Our ongoing series of Oscar Rants continues with Eric's take on Best Pic nominee The King’s Speech. Watch for more Oscar Rants coming soon. Here's Eric…]

This weekend a movie called Drive Angry 3D will arrive in theaters. In the film, Nicolas Cage plays a man who comes back from hell to avenge the death of his daughter and rescue his granddaughter from an evil cult leader. The movie – even in its advertising – is fully aware that it will not receive any sort of award consideration come next February, but exists for the sole purpose of having huge explosions and getting Cage spit out one-liners while holding a massive gun. There are plenty of movies like this that come out every year, but there’s also a flipside.

I speak of the films casually referred to as “Oscar Bait.” These are typically heavy-handed dramas that exist solely to make voters in the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences openly weep as they hand the filmmakers dozens of Oscars. These are also occasionally known as “Prestige Pictures,” which makes me imagine studio heads who feel so incredibly guilty about the trash they pump into theaters during the rest of the year that the need a way to save face. There is a version of the Oscar Bait film every year, and in 2010 that film is The King’s Speech.

It’s somewhat incredible how many Academy-centric stereotypes Tom Hooper’s movie shares with previous Best Picture noms of the same ilk. First there’s the lead suffering from a disability, a la Rain Man, Forrest Gump and My Left Foot. Then there’s the fact it’s a British-set period piece similar to Shakespeare in Love, Atonement, and Howards End. There’s a heavy focus on the crown and royalty, much like The Queen, Elizabeth and The Last Emperor (all of which also incorporate biographical elements, which the members of the Academy wet themselves over). Hell, the damn thing is even set during World War II not unlike The English Patient, Gandhi and Schindler’s List. Is every film mentioned here an example of great cinema? Absolutely. But when you combine all of the elements it makes The King’s Speech look like it was contrived in a Best Picture processing plant.

Not making things any easier is that this year's Best Picture category is riddled with unconventional and new films that are absolutely guaranteed to scare off voters. Why give the highest praise in cinema to a film that defines the new generation of adults through rejection and hollow success when you can reward yet another story about a man overcoming a handicap? Why bestow the prize on a movie that beautifully captures our unending passion for life and survival when it’s simple to give trophies to the one about politicians talking about Nazis? Fuck those guys who are trying to put an original, cerebral spin on the heist genre, there aren’t enough British accents and it’s not set in the 1930s.

With less than a week left before James Franco and Anne Hathaway take the stage as the hosts of the 83rd Academy Awards, The King’s Speech is the heavy favorite to win Best Picture. This is a fact only made sadder by the realization that the Oscars have actually managed to ward off the likes of the temptress known as the annual Oscar Bait for the last few years. The Departed managed to take down The Queen in 2006; No Country For Old Men trounced Atonement in 2007; Slumdog Millionaire beat out both Frost/Nixon and The Reader in 2009; and The Hurt Locker succeeded over The Blind Side. Hooper’s film at the head of the pack is reminiscent of a five-year sober alcoholic eyeing a sweet, green bottle of Jameson Irish Whiskey.

Last year the Academy Awards expanded its Best Picture category to have ten nominees instead of five, something not done since 1943. This move made it possible for films with more populist appeal to get nominated in the biggest category without degrading the standards of the ceremony. But why was the move necessary? Because ratings were dropping due to the same kinds of films being nominated year after year. It’s never been about money – Titanic, Lord of the Rings: Return of the King, Forrest Gump, and Gladiator all made more than $600 million at the worldwide box office and won Best Picture – but rather about content. There’s no denying that The King’s Speech is one of the year’s best movies, but it’s so manufactured that the idea of it winning the top prize is just wrong. You should never fall in love with a prostitute.

[Read more Cinema Blend Oscar Rants right here and watch for more coming later this week.]

Last week I was - for lack of a better word - outraged when it was reported that Harvey Weinstein has intentions to censor The King's Speech in order to achieve a PG-13 rating. Without repeating myself too much, my rant included points about the film already making plenty of money at the box office, the ridiculous standards of the MPAA and how there isn't a single informed parent that wouldn't take their 13 year old to see the movie. Now director Tom Hooper has chimed in about the story and, surprise, surprise, he's none to happy about it either.

EW spoke with the director before the Directors Guild Awards this past Saturday (where he won the coveted top prize) and when asked about the possibility of editing his film. his answer was quite straightforward: "I wouldn’t support cutting the film in any way." He did, however, offer another possible outcome to the whole situation, which would see the curse words in the film bleeped out, though no decisions have yet been made.

Also at the event was actress Helena Bonham Carter, who has received an Oscar nomination for her performance. When asked about the possibility of the film being censored, she responded as any normal, rational person would.

I don't know about you, but if I was in a movie theater and all of a sudden heard a bunch of bleeps, I'd ask for my money back. It's fine when it's done for comedic effect, a la Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, but it would be absolutely ridiculous in a movie like The King's Speech. One would think that if the director and one of the film's Oscar nominated stars has a problem with the film being edited, that Harvey Weinstein would back off. Shame that's not the way the movie world works.

Tom Hooper already proved recently to audiences that he has a knack for telling historical stories with warmth, humor and humanity, directing the HBO miniseries John Adams to 13 Emmy nominations and universal acclaim, even from people who thought they'd seen enough of our Founding Fathers. Now he's back across the pond in his native England but doing it again as the director of The King's Speech, a film about England's King George VI and the debilitating speech impediment he overcame just as his country was on the verge of entering World War II. It sounds stuffy, sentimental and over-serious but The King's Speech is the opposite of all those things, a dynamic and frequently thrilling story about friendship and duty and a man who would have been ordinary except for the extraordinary circumstances of having to become King. George was forced to take the throne when his older brother David (played by Guy Pearce in the film) abdicated in order to marry the twice-divorced American Wallis Simpson; George's eldest daughter, Elizabeth, went on to succeed him as Queen after his death in 1952.

I talked to Hooper a few weeks ago, both in a 1:1 interview and a roundtable conversation later on, where he proved that it takes whip smarts, careful consideration of everything and a willingness to embrace humor to make a film as engaging and enjoyable as The King's Speech. Check out our conversation below, and see The King's Speech opening in limited release this Friday-- though, given the amount of Oscar buzz the movie has garnered so far, you'll definitely be hearing more and more about it in the coming weeks.

How do you access historical stories like this in a way that doesn't make it feel like history?

I don't see it as history. To me this story is pretty present. The writer David Seidler was born in 1937, still remembers these speeches during the war. David had a stammer as a child, and he used to listen to King George VI on the radio to assure himself he could overcome it. I've never thought they weren't human beings. I don't understand that there's a way to look at them apart from human beings. When I did John Adams I was aware that American children thought these founding fathers were so on a pedestal that they found it hard to imagine them as flesh and blood. Since I'm not an American I had the freedom to not be inhibited by that.

Were you more inhibited telling the story of the King then?

No, because we still don't know that much about him. And in some ways he's been a little neglected in the public consciousness. I certainly think, I was pretty vague about whether he had a stutter or not, and certainly no one knows about the story of the speech therapist. I appear to be drawn to iconic characters and what they reflect back to our cultures. It's not why I did it, but I certainly think it's interesting that the English are quite conflicted about the monarchy; on one hand they're revered and loved, they're like a national soap opera. On the other they enshrine an idea of class difference and privilege in a modern, progressive democracy. I think what's so fascinating about the story [in The King's Speech] is it debunks any simplistic notion of privilege. George VI's story properly understood is not a story of privilege; his upbringing was so nightmarish that he got a stammer as a result. When he became king, clearly that was a nightmare because of his stammer, because of the coming of radio as a technology. So if he's not privileged, the monarchy has to shift as a result. And you understand the current Queen if you understand her father, that sense of duty and that sense that it's the opposite of a hedonistic approach to power. It's very much about his idea of duty, which I don't think we have particularly strongly in our culture anymore.

How did you pick Colin Firth to play King George VI?

When I first met with Colin, my reservations were that he was 10 years too old. And Colin's a big strapping lad of 6'2, and the real king was smaller and more sickly looking. The more I thought about it and spent some time with Colin, though, the more the spiritual similarity was more important than the physical thing. Colin is nice to his core, and he's tremendously gentle, he's got a tremendous humility. And the real king, from my research, seems to be that. It's no surprise Colin isn't cast as a testosterone-fueled action hero. He doesn't get cast as the bad guy. It's not in his DNA. The physical side in a way came out of that. Thanks to Tom Ford he was the slimmest he's ever looked, and then I worked on his body language. We sat in a chair and he would shrink into it, collapse into himself. When he stood he stood in a more awkward way. I tried to get out of him his physical confidence in his posture. The most extraordinary day for me was the first day, the first day they meet, that long 10-minute scene that always plays so well in the theater. We'd had a three-week rehearsal, which is incredibly intense. To see Colin and Geoffrey inhabiting their characters from day one of the shoot. There's always that doubt wondering, "is he one of the greats or is he just very good?" That day I knew he was one of the greats.

And how about Helena Bonham Carter?

I fell in love with Helena in A Room with a View when I was a teenager. She's a great classical actress, and I thought it was sad that she hadn't done classical acting for so long. I thought people would be hungry to see her do that again. I grew up with a picture of her on a poster on my wall in A Room With A View, though I have to admit the photograph of the Panavision platinum camera, that was on the same poster, was far bigger than she was. And her research was amazing. Every time I went to her and Tim's house there would be another royal historian having supper with her. What's extraordinary is two minutes in you accept that she's the Queen Mother.

And what did Geoffrey Rush add to the cast?

He's great to work with because he's got this extraordinary enthusiasm. He's got the energy of a five-year-old child. You work with someone who's completely tireless in their pursuit of excellence We had a three-week rehearsal partly because Geoffrey called me up and said, "I"m not doing anything, why don't we get started?" All while his agent was defending him coming up only a week before. He wanted to get started. It was interesting working with these two men, because Colin is very funny but he's quite reserved, and Geoffrey has this great dynamism. There was such an energy going on. Geoffrey was there for four weeks and then he left to go do a play, and Colin was kind of in mourning. It was very sweet. Helena got very jealous, 'Oh, you're sad because Geoffrey's left.' She was making jokes that it was a love story and wasn't with her.

How did you work in the younger Elizabeth, and have those little reminders of her relationship with her father, and her becoming Queen?

If anything I lingered on it a bit more in the edit, I tested the film and particularly American people didn't make the connection, didn't realize it was the queen. I think it's a shame if you don't realize it's the queen, and I think it's a shame if you don't realize that's her father, because there's something interesting in being reminded that's her father. I just made sure the camera gave her more status and gave people that reminder.

Are we supposed to have negative feelings about Wallis Simpson at the end of the movie?

I wanted to connect with the story from the younger brother's point of view. If you're Elizabeth and Bertie, what David did was shockingly selfish. And we know from the history books that he never sat down to talk about his decision to abdicate in advance. I wanted to connect with the story from their point of view. Both men had these strong relationships with women who dominated them. With the Queen Mother I think the dominance was benign, and with Wallis it was a slightly darker flavor. Guy Pearce and I thought there was a strong driver there with the notion of sexual jealousy. The great mystery is why he had to marry her. I know that sounds strange, but Edward VII, his grandfather, had a string of long-term mistresses. So you kind of go, no one would have batted an eye if he kept Wallis as his mistress his entire life. The clue is that during the abdication process Wallis said, "Let's break up, it's crazy for you to do this," and that enraged him and made him more determined to marry her. Which suggests he wanted the kind of closure, to make her safe and to own her. That's my own reading of it, but I think of that famous shot of them in later life, and they look so sad.

The cinematography, and the way the camera is place and the colors, there's this interesting thing going on that I couldn't quite put my finger on. The way characters are placed within the frame, it feels less stuffy and in the past.

Well partly it's that I chose to shoot the close-ups in the consulting room and on Bertie on relatively wide lenses. Normally you shoot close-ups on these long lenses, in Hollywood. By placing the camera close, it's quite brutal on the actor. It's very forensic, there's nowhere to go. You have this sense that it's very brutal photography. You don't go long lenses, it's not romantic, it's not soft focus. I did it because I thought Colin's face should be framed in relation to negative face, and Geoffrey should be framed in relation to cluttered domestic backgrounds. In the first consulting room scene, Colin's up against this blasted wall, he's in the bottom left and the wall is dominant. His face is in dialogue with negative space in the frame, and that was because I wanted to find a way to talk about absence and silence. If you have a stammer it's about inhabiting these painful absences and silences. That would be a visual metaphor for what stammering is like. But when you go around to Geoffrey, he's got the fireplace and the chairs and the clutter and the pictures, and it's kind of cozy. Also shooting wide on people brings the environment constantly into the frame; people don't escape their environment. There's probably a modernity in that that I quite liked. I'm always trying to find ways of making this feel present tense to people. In John Adams there's lots of stuff, like the handheld photography and the roughness of the photography. I wanted the filmmaking to feel very not reverential.

R But in The King's Speech the framing is also very formal, and has well composed frames. Is that reflecting the royalty element?

You're right, there's a constraint in them. THere's a huge amount of intention in my farming. I frame things myself, and there's very strong choose made. And I liked putting Colin in these frames that felt decisive, because he's in this box himself.

What are your thoughts on the MPAA giving an R rating?

i think it's really bizarre. You can kind of go, "One fuck means PG-13, two fucks means an R." And they don't go "One guy shot in the head means PG-13, two guys means R." It's an argument that you can quantify language and can't quantify violence, and I find that highly suspect. Language is highly contextual, and here we've got the F-word being used in speech therapy. It's been used purely as a mechanism to free someone from a stammer. David Seidler, the writer, encountered this technique as a child in the 1940s. You think, OK, it was a OK in the 1940s for a kid, it's possibly OK in 2010.

Have you been able to soak in any of the early Oscar buzz?

Call me old-fashioned, but this still hasn't made a dollar at the box office. I'd like to get to the release, have it try and make sure people go and see it, and then worry about that next year. I've sat down in audiences, and it's such a fun film to see in a big group. I want people to see it in the cinema en masse as a common experience, and not wait for the DVD.

I really, really regret missing The King's Speech at the Toronto International Film Festival last week, not just because everyone I know who saw it loved it, but because it's suddenly been slapped with the "Oscar frontrunner!" label among the dozen or so media people who have seen it. If you doubt that can be true, take a look at the film's first trailer, which debuted today at Yahoo!. It won't even take you until the Nazis show up to realize this is one of those movies the Academy is going to go nuts over.

It helps that I hear the movie is actually good, because honestly, this trailer is so polished, sentimental and downright stuffy I'd otherwise be willing to write it off entirely. By all accounts Colin Firth is spectacular as the English King George VI, and Geoffrey Rush is his equal as the Australian speech therapist who helped the royal overcome his stammer. Helena Bonham Carter also shows up as the Queen, and it's at least a relief to see her playing something other than Harry Potter's Bellatrix Lestrange or whatever other monstrosity Tim Burton has cast her as lately.

Anyway, check out the trailer below and keep in mind that critics are loving this thing-- and not just the kind of critics who always love stuffy British period pieces-- before judging it. It won the Audience Award at Toronto, like Slumdog Millionaire before it, and therefore there must be plenty here that we're not quite seeing on the surface.