The Cat's Meow

The Cat's Meow

The Cat's Meow

Anything that might have been potentially interesting in this material is sunk in the first few seconds with a disclaimer that the events we're about to see can't ever be known and "This is the whisper [rumor] most often told" about one of Hollywood's most sensational "mysteries." Okay. So we're not getting anything new (and E!'s "Mysteries & Scandals" gives you a better foothold on the particular incident...and that's not much of an endorsement). What do we get? We learn that Hollywood is a nest of viper's and decadents. No big news there. More interesting we learn what a washed up director is willing to do to regain his position of power in the entertainment industry and/or political establishment. It raises the question of whether Peter Bogdanovich is speaking from his own experience through these characters. But what's told is so cynical and ugly and muddled, we're left feeling guilty for witnessing a bunch of hooey that passes itself off as history. The tone of the film has a curious madcap quality that I found more irritating than fun. We're not empathetic with anyone. And the great "Citizen Kane" polishes off the relationship between Davies and Hearts in a much more convincing way. In "The Cat's Meow" we're not ever sure of Davies motives for being with Hearst. As soon as we're told one thing, she's off doing the other. And are we to believe that Davies was the love of Chaplain's life? Or is he just trying to cockold one of America's most powerful--and apparently moronic--citizens. The film never makes it clear. What is convincing are the production values. There's a glorious recreation of the yacht and period costumes. I got more out of looking at the construction of some of the lapels on the men's jackets than following a story that libels many of the the most well-known personalities in Hollywood history. No one will remember that the screenplay is pure fiction. The disclaimers that frame the film only make it all the more tentative and unsatisfying. The performers can't be faulted, although Meg Tilly goes way past parody here. Kirsten Dunst never disappoints. She gives the most sincere performance in a sea of scenery chewing. Only Joanna Lumley rises above the material, but so much so that she seems to be distancing herself from the whole enterprise rather than narrating it. One of her first lines is, "I'm not here!" And I'm sure she wishes she wasn't. This isn't on par with Bogdanovich's trashy, so-bad-it's-good "At Long Last Love." It's perched on attempting something serious, but hesitates and stumbles chiefly because it's so full of bitterness towards "the beast" named Hollywood. This is "National Enquirer" filmmaking. And it not only soils the names of those who the film places on board the Oneida that weekend, but the audience gets pretty dirty as well.

Anyone who is a sucker for 1920s jazz, 1920s dress, the Charleston, and ultra-swanky yachts (e.g. me, on all counts) will want to like this movie. But the sad fact is that that's all there is. The plot is banal and obvious, the acting mostly either awful or playing to the farcical side of the goings-on, and when the whole thing's over there is not much left but the impression of mirrors and smoke. This is a beautifully made bad movie.

It`s impossible to watch THE CAT`S MEOW without being reminded of the much superior GOSFORD PARK . The two films are set roughly in the same time period and both deal with skeletons falling out of cupboards . However Peter Bogdanovich isn`t in the same league as Robert Altman when it comes to casting actors , and this is a major drawback when he insists on doing close up shots on the actors faces all the way through . The camera is supposed to read the characters mind and convey it to the audience , but this becomes a useless technique when all the actor can do is give a rather bland look . Cary Elwes is fairly good as Thomas Ince and Edward Herrman as WR Hearst is good in the scenes with Elwes . However Herrman isn`t much cop in the scenes without Elwes and the rest of the cast are either unimpressive or relatively bad . Worst performance is by Eddie Izzard as Charlie Chaplin . A pity Robert Downey Jnr wasn`t availible for filming THE CAT`S MEOW wasn`t the worst film I saw at the weekend - I`m still undecided if TIME SERVED or CODE RED gets that honour - but it`s by no means a good film either . If we`d had a better cast and a more cynical screenplay it might have reached the heights of GOSFORD PARK but it falls a fair way short

It begins with a funeral, for whom you don't know except who ever it is, he or she is getting quite a send-off to the tune of Aloha Nui played by a pair of musicians strumming ukuleles. Now if you have a photographic memory and can remember the faces of the hundreds of mourners, then perhaps it won't be a mystery as to who will be in the casket. You do know however, that someone invited to a lavish any thing goes party aboard William Randolph's Hearst's yacht the Oneida in the flash back that follows the funeral will. The movie seems to go nowhere for a while,mostly just watching fun and games of those lucky enough to be invited, even though you know the price one aboard that yacht is destined to pay for this trip. You almost forget the funeral and the mystery of what this movie is about – who is in that casket, but it is well worth the wait. Like any good mystery, the unlucky victim is one you'd least expect, though you'd think it would have been Charlie Chaplin , but we know he lived to a ripe old age. Until it gets to that point, you get to see another take on what William Randolph, child-like but likable and with some pretty quirky flaws, making one wonder how he ever became so rich. As most people have seen Citizen Kane, we already know about infatuation with Marion Davies bordering on an obsession, but probably don't know that a competition for her existed between Charlie Chaplin and Hearst and how this competition creates the mystery as to whoever is in the box got there. The epilogue of this film was probably the most interesting of any film I ever seen. Secrets had to be kept and Hearst was willing to pay any price to see they were kept, granting all who cooperated, and apparently all did, whatever wish (and he could do it) as any genie in any bottle. If you are looking for something different and willing to give this movie a chance, this movie is for you. This movie deserves better than the 6.5 of the IMDb and I give this movie a 7.5/10.

that involves jealously and murder. I didn't know what this movie was about before watching it. Afterwards I was impressed. This made a good movie because it is based on real life events that are still a mystery. I had never heard this story before, but it was very interesting. In the beginning, we get to learn about the cast of characters on the yacht and their relationships. This was well done and not boring like all the characters in Godsford Park. We see the jealously of RW toward Chaplin because Chaplin has an eye on RW's mistress, Marion. Then, RW does something he regrets and tries to cover it up from his other guests. Kristen Dunst was good as well all the actors. I liked the music and the outfits and hair styles. FINAL VERDICT: Not for action buffs. A good drama with interesting characters and good story.

I went to see this movie not expecting much but was pleasantly surprised to find it was a light gaudy slightly malicious but brightly told tale of the rumored murder of Thomas Ince, It was great fun to watch, beautifully shot, with some very sharp dialogue and tasty performances. I especially enjoyed Cary Elwes as the desperate, conniving Thomas Ince and much of Edward Herrmann's Hearst, the scenes with Elwes with their cat and mouse dialogue sparkled with wit. Kirsten I thought was quite lovable and good but still too young - I didn't believe she was Marion Davies, but more like a teenage version of Marion. Eddie Izzard was a charming, cunning, self assured Charlie Chaplin, but I didn't see the lechery that should have oozed out of him. Joanne Lumley was delicious as the jaded Elinor Gyn. I did notice a slight frustration with some of the scenes. I wanted a bit more emphasis or drama to accent some of them, they all seemed to play at the same intensity and some of the reaction shots could had more omfph. But still I thoroughly enjoyed it. Then the next day I started critique it more and noticed more flaws in the movie. The story didn't seem to gather momentum as it went on, but seemed too even in tone and pace. I imagined better ways to shoot some of the scenes and wished for a more mordant tone because the story is a pretty dark one after all. I thought, this seemed to have been shot with the budget and schedule of a TV movie, and was there no time or money to shoot alternative shots, or second takes for the actors? But then something about the ending made me go back and reassess many of the scenes. Perhaps because I was caught up in the sort of flappergirl feel of the movie, that I did not see that there were secrets and competitions, all sorts of hidden things going on below the gaiety. It's kind of like Memento, maybe you don't know quite what you are seeing. I wish I could watch it again, because I'm not sure if it's my imagination or if there is re

...is the only way to describe this movie about subjects that should be surefire: scandal, sex, celebrity, power. Kirsten Dunst grins her way through her role as silent movie star Marion Davies like she thinks she's in "Legally Blonde." The guy who plays William Randolph Hearst overacts to the point where you want to reach into the screen and slap him. Eddie Izzard is pretty good, except that he's playing Charlie Chaplin, and is about, oh, 125 lbs too heavy for the part? Hard to believe this hamfisted, uneven wreck was directed by Peter Bogdanovich, but then again, he hasn't made a watchable movie in, what? 30 years? Sometimes, there's just no coming back.