Baby Cat

To date I've found myself watching only a single film directed by David DeCoteau. It will be the last of his films that I watch, because it was almost certainly the worst thing I've ever seen, to the point that I refuse to even speak its name. I mention this because 'Baby cat' and filmmaker Scott Hillman operate on a level that's pretty much exactly on par with that unnameable DeCoteau production, different only for the ways in which it stumbles. The premise leaves the door wide open for any number of possibilities, and it sounds like it could be fun. But it's not. It's not fun. The most that this was able to achieve in ninety minutes was a single half-smile. This is simply not good, and I can't imagine ever recommending it.

If one were feeling generous to an unparalleled degree, one might suppose that this movie, as it presents, is one big joke, an exercise in bending all possible skill and intelligence toward making the worst thing that one can. I've seen such a picture before; James Bickert's 'Amazon hot box' reflects an effort to make total schlock, and it is a success in that regard, though since it's not actually enjoyable the whole affair is called into question. However, this 2023 feature illustrates incompetence and an absolute lack of capability, in so many ways, that assuming any greater measure of cleverness from Hillman is akin to expecting the Earth's rotation will suddenly reverse. In fairness, there are ideas in the writing that come close to being amusing, had any care been taken to genuinely develop the screenplay. Two of the actors - exactly and only two, Fawn Winters and Socks Whitmore - illustrate real skill at this point in their careers (though misused here); the rest, well, I earnestly wish them luck in their future endeavors, and growth in their abilities. These are the only points of "praise" that I have to offer for 'Baby cat.'

With the fleeting exceptions of only a scattered handful of lines, the dialogue is probably the worst I've ever heard; some of the scene writing is acceptable in concept, but falls flat for how little active energy was poured into the endeavor. There are workable ideas in the narrative, but they were treated astonishingly poorly, and the connections between story threads are all but absent - not strings tied together, but at best strings loosely laid on top of one another. Most of the writing is barely sensible on a baseline level - and this is to say nothing of what comes across as abject transphobia (made all the more perplexing since Hillman also specifically wrote in a trans character that is no more than a secondary supporting figure, not meaningfully attached to the plot), and other lines and notions that would seem to be mocking liberated, progressive values. Any attempted humor is far too random and detached to carry the wit that would allow it to land, so there's not a single laugh forthcoming. Both the cinematography and the editing, of sound and image alike, are without question the sloppiest examples of either that I've ever seen. The latter disadvantages extend as well to the effusive use of a green screen, employed to a flummoxing extent even for the most mundane of interior or exterior locales (including any visualization of the world outside when the protagonist opens her door), and which is further used to project stock footage in the background of a scene. I can appreciate that Hillman was obviously working with meager resources, but there's "low-budget," and then there's "not even trying." Hillman was not even trying.

With the exception (in my opinion) of Winters and Whitmore, the acting is some of the most unprofessional and unconvincing I've ever witnessed; The Asylum has nothing on this. Hillman's direction is flailing, and the fundamental delivery of dialogue and execution of scenes is often all but lackadaisical. And then there's the central conceit. Before watching I tried to mentally prepare myself for every contingency of what 'Baby cat' might portend: lesbian representation, human-animal companionship, riffs on bestiality, furries, maybe something else entirely or some combination thereof. What I think the filmmaker was actually trying to do was weave together the "catgirl" trope, particularly common in Japanese media, and lesbian rep, with an outrageous B-plot appended. What's most baffling of all is that I can't tell if this storytelling effort was sincere - where the protagonist and the cat are centered, it seems so - or underhandedly mocking and derisive, as suggested by those overt moments that come off as sardonic, thinly-veiled reactionary spitefulness. Whatever Hillman's intent was, I'm not sure if it matters, since as both writer and director his skills are so amateurish and inept that the end result completely flounders.

I'm at a loss for words. I could continue, but first I would need to spend a considerable amount of time gathering my senses after they were obliterated by so gawky and hapless a film. Whatever sliver of a fragment of a kernel of subjective value this might all so rarely claim is overwhelmed by what is otherwise a demonstration of what are possibly the least skills that anyone has ever dared to demonstrate in a film-making capacity and thereafter propagate for mass consumption. I don't know if I should feel bad for those involved or despise them. I will watch almost anything, anything at all, no matter what the genre or what the anticipated level of quality, and nevertheless I have substantial regrets about wasting time on this. Whatever it is you think you'll get by watching 'Baby cat,' I implore you to look elsewhere. I hope that everyone who participated in this will some day get another chance to shine and show that they've moved on from this profound low, and that might be just about the most kind thing I can say.

A woman falls in love with a female who acts and dresses like a cat??!!!

Let's break down how I got to 6 stars:

Special effects - 0 stars. I've never seen worse green screens.

Plot - 2 stars. It actually made more sense (which is saying absolutely nothing) as it went along

Actors - 8 stars. They owned their roles, no matter how outlandish they might be. And it takes a special kind of courage to:

A. Dress and act and "speak" like a cat for an entire movie

B. Pretend to fall in love with a person who dresses, acts, and "speaks" like a cat for an entire movie.

Honestly, I could have stopped 10 minutes in and not think I missed anything. But the longer I watched, the more I appreciated what they we're trying to do.

Also, extra stars for the Lisa London appearance.

If you can look past the worst green screen work I've ever seen, the acting, script, nonsensical dialog , and non-story...you may enjoy this "movie" . There's a hot actress as the "cat" and that's about the only redeeming factor. If its meant to be a softcore porno, it's def not that...its more like a mishmash of scenes that make little to bo sense.

All the bad editing and sfx are soo distracting and if it was done slightly better it would make up for this.

Clearly a production with no real experience or eye for filmmaking...I would avoid this unless your having a "bad movie night" then it may be just right!

That would be a better name. Because the final cut of this movie is so bad.

• They (probably the editor) zoomed very noticable in on de material in some shots. That's just not done. Because you lose your quality. As is seen in this movie. The zooming was done so bad, you'd think the editor accidently fell asleep on the keyboard en never noticed what he just did.

• Than the keying. Are there even application that don't have an instand key-effect in the effecten bin. (Drop on clip and select color.)

In one instance they open a door and there is something going in the shot wich could have easely been prevented by a simple mask.

• The most amateurish is the fact that the editor left a flash frame. Around the 17th minute.

• And never use a moving background when you a going to key a shot over that (moving) shot.

So why did I watch the whole thing and why the two stars?

The two main girls. They were great. In their own way.

This film will make you question your sanity.

Dana (played to perfection by Natalie Cotter) moves into her new apartment and adopts the neighborhood cat.

Except it's not an actual cat but a scantily clad young woman dressed as a cat.

Meanwhile, her job is a joke, she's broke and her love life is . . . Well, okay, her job is only a joke because her boss holds meetings with invisible employees and her co-worker doesn't try to explain it.

And then she falls in love with the cat. And it's hot sapphic passion at first but falls into the trap of ordinary couples--is there more to this relationship outside of sex? Does Lori, the cat , want to get married or have kids? The telegrams she mysteriously is able to send before having such a conversation tells very little about her feelings. But it does explain the goings on in the neighborhood.

Trust me.

There's also a drug war going on that Dana sees on the news and apparently some mysterious being is responsible for taking out the notorious drug cartels. I won't spoil that connection, but it did make me clamor for a big budget remake starring Amy Schumer and Anna Kendrick with stunt choreography by the John Wick team.

But Hollywood needs to keep their hands off this one. It's the low budget weirdness, down to the moving chroma key background that really makes this story work.

And props to a groundbreaking performance by Socks Whitmore as a transitioning non-binary person, played perfectly straight, no pun intended. Lisa London also shines as the mom.

This is the kind of film that Cinema Epoch had been known for in its inception from Mad Cowgirl to Blue Dream. Hope they keep it up!