generationofswine
Yeah, I know it's a flawed film, I mean, I caught it one night, LATE at night, on cable TV when I was a kid. HBO to be specific and at an hour reserved for only failed and low quality films.In other words, I found it at a place where movies go to die. The equivalent of the bargain box at a toy store.But, I liked it. It wasn't the usual thriller and that's saying a lot given that thrillers, like action movies, all have relatively the same plot. They tend to be like the Harley Davidson store crowd as in they all dress the same and claim they are rebels. Cat Chaser was something different. The plot stood out. Peter Weller did as best a job he could. The cast did as best a job as they could.It was just, the director didn't really know what to do with the script, which was, I learned, (thank you IMDB) based on an Elmore Leonard novel...and that sort of says it all.The writer, Elmore Leonard, isn't exactly a literary great. He has an irritating vernacular. BUT, he also has a talent for creating unique characters and unique settings and situations and stringing them all together into a coherent plot.Leonard is a pulp writer, but he was a pulp writer that was original in his approach to just about everything and his stories are a pleasure to read.And, when, like this one, they are adapted to the big screen, that uniqueness carries over. Even in a bad film, as this one was--albeit a bad film with good acting--it becomes a story that you haven't really encountered before and you won't encounter again.So give it a watch, it's Elmore Leonard, you aren't seeing a great film, but you are going to see a story you haven't encountered before, and to me, that alone is worth 10 out of 10 stars.Don't rate it on it's cinematic prowess, watch it for the plot, it's new, it's original, and, even if its badly done, we need a lot more of that, especially now, when almost everything we see is exactly like almost everything else we are seeing.
grainstorms
This movie was beset by corporate problems which may account for its rough edges. Elmore Leonard is one of the best detective story writers today, but even as a co-script writer, he couldn't do much with this confusing picture, made from one of his books (a terrific read, incidentally). .Aside from the beautiful art direction, an excellent Chick Correa score that's never gotten much play, and a nicely edgy appearance by the late Charles Durning, the poor man's Sidney Greenstreet, "Cat Chaser," set in the sultry, tropical Dominican Republic, is like wasting away in Margueritaville, sans Margueritas. .One saving grace is the dialogue -- vintage Elmore Leonard, especially the lines given to Charles Durning's character. Leonard is at the top of his game here and Durning's delivery, in his patented New York Irish accent, doesn't let him down. Peter Weller and Kelly McGillis are as unfetching a couple as possible. Director Abel Ferrara has done much better work elsewhere.
WILL
Of all the Leonard stories put to film, this to me is the best. The voice-over along with the visuals carry the book's feel, both plot and dialogue. Peter Weller has a subtleness that breaks through his seeming deadpan, and Charles Durning couldn't be better at ambiguity. Kelly McGillis is more than a pretty and sexy figure. All the characters are mixtures of good and not so good, and as typical Leonard characters they work out the balances of their desires. The direction is great. It keeps you moving, wondering, and figuring out the mystery. The story has several components that mix well as they are revealed. And there is the basis of reality to this film. It helps to recall the invasion of the Dominican Republic and the practices of torture attributed to the head of police at the time.One of this films wonderful attributes is the score by jazz pianist/composer Chick Corea. It surprises me that no one has mentioned it.And lastly, let me say that the film is exciting. Viewing after viewing it holds up well.
Wizard-8
Despite having some notable people in the roles of writer, director, and actor, "Cat Chaser" was never given a theatrical release. It may have been because Vestron Pictures was always struggling when it came to releasing its movies since it never had as much money as the major studios had when it came to marketing and distribution. But I think the real reason for the movie going direct to video is that it isn't very good overall. Not everything about the movie is bad - the acting (especially by Charles Durning) is decent. But the movie ultimately sinks due to a combination of unspectacular locations (which are also flatly photographed) and a story that after the first twenty minutes makes very little sense afterwards. The trivia section says the rough cut ran 157 minutes - obviously A LOT of explanation was taken away in the editing room. If I ever get the chance to see the 157 minute version someday, I'll give the movie another chance. Until then, this is a movie to avoid.
AD
