Alright Party People?

So this week, it’s time to review ‘Cat Run’. This is a film at odds with itself, never quite sure what it wants to be, and never really succeeding in being anything. It’s titillating, a couple of jokes land, and it occasionally makes a decent stab at being the stylish action thriller it so clearly wants to be. But mostly, its cheesy, tacky and childish! It’s problems can largely be broken down into three points: it’s basic lack of cohesion; it’s characters; and it’s fundamental lack of quality or class. I’ll expand on all of those points after a quick plot summary (there will be spoilers).

Cat Run is a film that (ostensibly) follows the story of ‘Cat’, a sex worker on the run from organised crime after she witnesses the killing of one of her colleagues by the U.S Secretary of Defence at a party held by said mobsters. She is assisted by two young men in their early 20’s (I think) who, improbably, have set up a Detective Agency above a Porno Theatre. They try and stay one step ahead of the mobsters whilst attempting to expose the crime, hounded by hired killers. In the end, with the help of one of these hitmen (or rather, a hitwoman) they are able to expose the Secretary of Defence at a political gathering and in turn stop him from then killing all the witnesses. The lads’ detective agency booms, and one of them gets together with Cat who, along with her baby, is now safe. Oh, and the hitwoman who tortured and maimed people on screen for the better part of her role gets a happy ending too. For some reason.

Upon playing the DVD of Cat Run -which is, by the way, a silly title- I was first greeted by a screen saying ‘THANK YOU’. If you live in the UK, you probably know the one, it’s the one where the voiceover says: ‘Thank you, by buying this DVD you are supporting the Film Industry’ (or something along those lines). Well frankly, film industry, you’re glad I love you, or I’d be pretty annoyed at what you birthed back in 2011. Cat Run is bad. Offensively bad in places. And it all starts with the problem I alluded to in the opening paragraph: it doesn’t know what it wants to be. Imagine, if you will, a Pizza. Delicious aren’t they? Okay this Pizza is a cheap one with minimal toppings and a burnt crust, but it’ll do. Now imagine a Milkshake. Not thick enough really, and a tad too artificial, but once again, it will do. Now imagine the waiter in the restaurant you are sitting in serves you this Pizza and this Milkshake by pouring the Milkshake onto the Pizza, smiling at you and never breaking eye contact. That’s what watching this film is like. Maybe some execs wanted to ram a half-arsed love-story into the director’s budget-Guy-Richie flick. Maybe they felt like teen sex comedies would have been vastly improved with some torture. Who can say? Either way, this film does not know what the fuck it’s doing. It’s presentation is that of the aforementioned budget-Richie flick, with freeze-frames giving you character nicknames and bios, a violent British hitwoman who is, I think, supposed to be charismatic, and plenty of violence. But it’s watered down with the story of these two DEEPLY irritating wannabe detectives, who belong to a different film, a different genre, altogether! Their antics are the sort of horny adolescent slapstick you might find in a knock-off American Pie film, and the love story between the ‘smart’ one (Tony) and Cat is… hard to accept. This basic identity crisis runs through the whole film. There are sections where we forget the boys exist and, by the other side of the same coin, sections where we forget this film is supposed to be about Cat! Moreover, when the two parts do meet, the effect is pretty jarring. In one scene we’re treated to the same penis pump joke Austin Powers did fourteen years earlier -‘it’s not mine!’- and in another a woman quite graphically tortures someone with a drill. None of it gels and the fact that Cat and Tony feel like they belong in different films (not to mention the fact that they are totally mismatched individuals) make the love story feel crowbarred in.

Speaking of Cat and Tony, the second problem with this film is the characters. Or lack thereof. Let’s start with Cat. Cat might as well be a pair of talking breasts. Her character is wafer thin, the script giving Pam Vega nothing at all to work with. She is either being victimised, assaulted or using her body to distract a man. Perhaps I brought this on myself when I complained that The Martian War offered no ‘sex and violence’ but this is… not better. The only slithers of decency towards Cat is that she is never judged for being a sex worker, and she is shown to be quite capable at keeping the mobsters at bay, at least for a while. That is until the Sherlock Boners arrive. Cat is then, essentially, a sexy prop.

Of the two young detectives, it is hard to say who is the more annoying. Tony is one of those characters we are expected to believe is Smart. He works out that the mob must be involved by reading about the case in a newspaper! He won’t shut up about The Brothers Karamazov! He has a high IQ!* Problems is, the film tells, but doesn’t show. None of Tony’s behaviour is the behaviour of somebody smart. He ‘deducts’ that Cat is trying to steal his car when they first meet (by bending over to show him her arse while she takes the keys, naturally) but doesn’t… stop her? Until she’s already in the car? He starts a detective business with his goofball friend when neither of them have any training, contacts or experience? If you want us to buy Tony being ‘Smart’ Cat Run, don’t make his decisions so dumb! Also, he comes across as smug and a bit whiny, which is a hard combination to like! Vying for the title of chief irritant is Julian (Alphonso McAuley), Tony’s aforementioned goofy friend. Most of the ‘teeheehee I mentioned sex’ jokes come from him. He also likes to sing at seemingly random intervals! So there’s that. If you like your humour broad, he’s your guy! He shows us all his penis at one point! What a card! Finally, the fourth and arguably best of the main characters is Helen Bingham (Janet McTeer) who’s almost, ALMOST compelling. She’s a prim British lady who works as a hitwoman and says: ‘Do you need a moment’ before she kills someone. It’s her catchphrase. The filmmakers were obviously aiming for a Richie or Tarantino-esque ‘cool’ killer as she is incongruous with everything else, cold when committing violence, and has a sort-of anti-hero arc towards the end- though this seems a little forced. She’s kept from genuine cool-dom though by the lacklustre script and the fact that she goes from remorseless killer to ‘I guess we root for her now?’ at the apparent flick of a switch. The really telling thing is that, when she disappears at the end of the film, Julian says in awe: ‘she was cool’. We get it guys, but if you have to have a character announce it, it probably didn’t work.

((Content Warning: The next paragraph will mention an offensive portrayal of a disabled man and attempted sexual assault.))

Finally, the most broad of the film’s problems: a general lack of quality or class. I don’t know the budget of ‘Cat Run’, but it probably wasn’t very big. That in of itself is okay, and in truth a lot of the jet-setting and location shooting is convincing enough. The production is quit poor in other ways though. Some pretty ropey-looking explosions and car crashes happen, Ave Maria gets used early on and then recycled later in the film for an unrelated occasion (not helped by a character drawing attention to the song) and the Scanners-style head explosion is shocking, but not at all believable. The worst example comes, however, in the attempts to animate D.L Hughley’s character ‘Dexter’. Hughley might be the most famous person in this film, but is used sparingly. That may be for the best, however, as the use of his character is pretty offensive. Dexter is a multiple amputee, with one arm and no legs who interviews for, and subsequently is hired for, the job of the detectives’ receptionist. His disability is, of course, treated as a joke. To prove his physical capabilities during said interview, he leaps onto the table and stands on his stumps which are… unconvincing to say the least. Hughley is not disabled in reality, so CGI is used to animate him and it is very bad. Dexter also has their remaining arm cut off and is kicked across the room in ‘comical’ slow motion. The whole character is a staggering misconception and deeply offensive- given that Dexter plays almost no part in the plot, the film would have been better off without him. You wouldn’t get this (I sincerely hope) in 2020, but the film’s age is no excuse. We knew better than this in 2011. This, along with the film’s humour which was, I can only conclude, written by a teenager and its lurid sexual elements (including attempted rape) speak to a total lack of class. As I’ve mentioned before on this blog, mature themes and content are welcome, as long as the film justifies them. This film doesn’t even come close. Just cheap titillation and sniggering.

All in all then, Cat Run is Very Bad. I wouldn’t recommend watching it ironically or sincerely. I enjoyed exploring what I think didn’t work about it, but writing the last paragraph made me realise how egregious some of it was. I debated not giving it a star rating at all, but I think I’ll slot it in below Red Surf and The Martain War, which puts it firmly in the ‘would not watch again’ category!

1 star!: *

-Tom

*Those tests don’t even really work! https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/iq-tests-are-fundamentally-flawed-and-using-them-alone-to-measure-intelligence-is-a-fallacy-study-8425911.html