How a $100 million musical adaptation became one of the most notorious box office failures.

Entertainment · Published 3 October 2026 Swipe more like this →

In short: Tom Hooper’s 2019 adaptation of Cats was intended to be a cinematic spectacle, but it instead became a cultural punchline. Plagued by uncanny visual effects, a troubled production, and scathing critical reviews, the film serves as a cautionary tale about the risks of prioritizing digital artifice over human connection.

The 2019 film Cats, directed by Tom Hooper, was based on the 1981 stage musical by Andrew Lloyd Webber. Despite an ensemble cast including Judi Dench, Idris Elba, and Taylor Swift, the project faced immediate skepticism. Production was marked by intense pressure, with VFX teams reportedly working 80-90 hour weeks to meet deadlines. Hooper’s insistence on full-render reviews rather than standard workflow, combined with his rejection of stage-musical veterans, created a strained environment that Lloyd Webber later described as a 'car crash' he had warned the studio about a year in advance.

The film's visual strategy relied on 'digital fur technology' to blend live-action actors with CGI bodies. This choice backfired, landing the film squarely in the uncanny valley. Critics and audiences were unsettled by the humanoid designs, which included glitches like a human hand appearing on a cat character. The production was so rushed that a modified version with improved effects was sent to cinemas on opening day—an unprecedented move in the industry. The film grossed only $78.4 million against a production budget of up to $100 million, resulting in an estimated net loss of $113.6 million.

Beyond the technical failures, critics lamented the lack of the emotional resonance found in live theatre. While Jennifer Hudson’s performance of 'Memory' received some praise, the film was widely panned as a 'dreadful hairball of woe' and one of the worst movies of the decade. The backlash was so severe that even the film's own stars mocked its CGI during the 92nd Academy Awards. Ultimately, the project stands as a rare example of a high-budget studio production that failed to connect with both critics and audiences, leaving a legacy defined by its bizarre aesthetic and disastrous reception.

General information, not professional advice. Spotted an error? Flag the card or see corrections and complaints.

Intellect Plus is a visual educational discovery platform for exploring fascinating facts and ideas. Brain Food, Not Brain Rot. What is Intellect Plus?

Related

• Why a film designed to be a total disaster became a box office flop
• How a Broadway phenomenon became the highest-grossing musical film adaptation of all time
• How the 2012 Les Misérables film broke the mold of traditional movie musicals
• How a high-budget fantasy adventure became a cautionary tale of Hollywood production woes
• Why a 2015 musical reboot became one of the biggest box office disasters ever
• The heavy, quiet weight of trauma and the kindness of strangers
• Why a 2004 heist film about children robbing a bank divided critics and audiences
• A 1933 Best Picture winner that became an unlikely favorite of Adolf Hitler
• The true story behind the film Catch Me If You Can is heavily disputed
• Capturing 32,000-year-old art required a high-stakes, high-tech heist
• A high-stakes diner standoff reveals the lethal cost of a criminal setup
• Why did critics think Woody Allen's 1998 film Celebrity felt like a hollow imitation?

More in Films · More in Entertainment · Latest · A–Z · All topics