---
title: "Catwoman"
year: 2004
kind: "film"
canonical: "https://film.one/film/catwoman"
fi1m_score: 34
critics_score: 34
critics_reviews: 14
published: "2026-09-16T14:53:23.567691+00:00"
updated: "2026-09-16T14:53:24.028050+00:00"
region: "US"
licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL."
---

# Catwoman (2004)

Directed by Pitof · 1h 44m · MPA PG-13 · Action, Fantasy, Crime

**Fi1m score: 34** · Critics 34 from 14 reviews

*In a sentence:* Halle Berry gets superpowers; the camera would still rather inspect her wardrobe

> Halle Berry brings some warmth to *Catwoman*, but this is a poor superhero film. Pitof’s restless direction makes the digital action tiring, and the script gives its heroine little to do with her new confidence.

## Synopsis

Patience Phillips (Halle Berry) is a timid office worker who acquires cat-like powers and begins a second life as Catwoman. Her transformation brings a new confidence, but also danger as a cosmetics conspiracy takes shape. Around her are Tom Lone (Benjamin Bratt), Laurel Hedare (Sharon Stone) and George Hedare (Lambert Wilson). Patience has to make sense of the change while negotiating the competing demands of her ordinary life and her new abilities. Romance and crime complicate an identity she is only beginning to understand.

## Review

Pitof’s *Catwoman* wants to turn a timid woman’s discovery of power into a playful mixture of romance, fantasy and action. It has a willing lead in Halle Berry, and there is nothing inherently unpromising about placing this transformation inside a cosmetics conspiracy. But this is a poor superhero film, with too little interest in the woman undergoing the change. The effort goes into making her look striking, then making everything around her move.

Halle Berry gives Patience Phillips a vulnerability that makes the early timidity bearable, then finds some pleasure in Catwoman’s greater assurance. We can see why some critics have enjoyed her performance: she is prepared to play the silliness without apologising for it. The difficulty is how little she gets to explore between these extremes. Acquiring powers ought to change how Patience Phillips thinks and chooses, but the film is much more attentive to how she presents herself.

Thierry Arbogast’s photography supplies the slick finish that this approach requires, although the relentless emphasis on style soon becomes tiring. Sylvie Landra’s editing gives the action little chance to establish a clear physical rhythm, and the digital effects make movement look plastic. We were bored by the action because we could not feel the weight or danger of what the bodies were doing. For a heroine whose appeal depends partly on feline grace, that is a substantial failure.

Bill Brzeski’s production design pushes the artificiality further; the surroundings feel so fussed over that they become distracting. There is some pleasure in the excess, and Angus Strathie’s costume design gives the heroine a silhouette we can recognise at once. Yet the attention paid to her outfit makes the thinness of her character harder to overlook. Klaus Badelt’s music adds to the busy presentation without giving it much shape, so the soundtrack offers little help in deciding when to relax and when to expect danger.

The screenplay credited to John Rogers has a workable subject in the cosmetics business, where anxiety about appearance is already part of the transaction. It does little with that opportunity beyond furnishing a criminal plot. Sharon Stone’s Laurel Hedare can accommodate the exaggerated tone, but Benjamin Bratt’s Tom Lone and Lambert Wilson’s George Hedare remain difficult to care about. The characters need motives with some force behind them; the plot’s strained logic makes their behaviour feel arranged to keep things going.

A superhero film can be ridiculous and still persuade us to worry about somebody getting hurt. For camp to be funny, the actors need time to let us enjoy their absurdity, and Pitof keeps interrupting them with another burst of visual activity. The romance and comedy might have provided some breathing space, but they are too weakly developed to do the work. At 104 minutes, the film feels longer than its story can support.

Halle Berry’s willingness to commit is the reason to stay, should curiosity get the better of judgement. There are brief glimpses of the lighter, more amusing film her performance might have carried, and we would not dismiss the effort she puts into them. Come for her if necessary; do not expect the action to compensate when the writing fails.

*Fi1m score 34, published 16 September 2026.*

## What the critics say

Most critics find Catwoman a poor superhero film, with eleven of the fourteen reviews negative. The complaints centre on a clunky, illogical script, thin characters and digital action that offers little excitement or feline grace. Halle Berry attracts the most consistent praise, with several critics finding charm and screen presence in a role that gives her little substance. Even some hostile reviews allow for moments of silliness or visual interest, though few find enough to sustain the film.

The sharpest division concerns Pitof’s flashy direction and the film’s camp humour. The Los Angeles Times finds the style sophisticated and the pace brisk, while The Hollywood Reporter enjoys the kitsch despite reservations about the script and effects. These are distinct minority positions in a wide spread of verdicts. Most critics find the visuals exhausting or artificial, while Berry’s performance also divides opinion: The AV Club finds her unconvincing.

### Reviews we read (14)

- **Los Angeles Times**, Kevin Thomas (75/100, inferred): The critic finds the film swift, light on its feet, and stylish, with technical razzle-dazzle that never overshadows Halle Berry's fun, dual-personality performance as the mousy office worker turned glamorous superhuman. He singles out Pitof's sophisticated take on comic-book camp and romanticism for praise. [Read](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-jul-23-et-catwoman23-story.html)
- **The Hollywood Reporter**, Kirk Honeycutt (70/100, inferred): The critic finds the film campy fun rather than a total disaster, praising Berry's appealing performance in a kitschy role while criticizing the illogical script and overreliance on digital effects. [Read](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/catwoman-review-movie-2004-1226110/)
- **The New York Times**, A. O. Scott (50/100, inferred): The critic describes the film as a howlingly silly but moderately diverting exercise in high, pointless style that achieves the unlikely feat of making one prefer Bill Murray over Halle Berry in a cat role. He singles out its sleek, hissing, whip-cracking aesthetic and Berry's performance for note while dismissing the plot. [Read](https://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/22/movies/film-review-not-so-cuddly-cat-this-one-cracks-a-mean-whip.html)
- **Evening Standard**, Derek Malcolm (40/100, inferred): The film is not very good, with a clunky screenplay and special effects that make Spider-Man II look classic, but Halle Berry is the one redeeming feature as a beautiful dominatrix. The director's flashy style soon palls and the vulgarity is remorseless. [Read](https://standard.co.uk/culture/film/halle-rescues-the-cat-7381784.html)
- **Screen Daily** (40/100, inferred): The flashy but uninvolving Batman spin-off features uneven performances and a clunky script that fails to develop its themes. Pitof's stylised visuals dominate, but the film lacks the darker edge and moral ambiguity associated with the character. [Read](https://www.screendaily.com/catwoman/4019479.article)
- **The Guardian**, Peter Bradshaw (40/100, inferred): The film is a broad action-comedy that fails to deliver on its promise of a saucer of cream, offering only semi-skimmed UHT instead; it features some alluring silliness around the heroine's cat-like powers but lacks real claws in its cat-fight and overall execution. [Read](https://www.theguardian.com/film/News_Story/Critic_Review/Guardian_review/0,,1276885,00.html)
- **Empire**, Roberto Sadovski (30/100, inferred): The film is a formulaic and silly wannabe blockbuster with shallow characters, dull plastic action scenes and a logic-starved plot about a cosmetics conspiracy. Berry's screen presence cannot save the unintentional laughs. [Read](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/catwoman-review/)
- **Time Out**, NB (30/100, inferred): The film awkwardly mixes diluted feminism with teen blockbuster elements, resulting in a misguided address to career women. Its visual style and effects are chaotic and plastic, with Halle Berry's performance offering only fleeting promise amid broader aesthetic failures. [Read](https://www.timeout.com/movies/catwoman)
- **Variety**, David Rooney (25/100, inferred): The critic calls the film a mangy misfire and dim popcorn inanity that lacks any real sense of fun, with a diluted script and frenetic music-video aesthetic that fails to deliver thrills or emotional payoff. He singles out the over-designed universe and poorly fleshed-out characters for complaint while noting the arresting opening titles. [Read](https://variety.com/2004/film/markets-festivals/catwoman-1200532062/)
- **RogerEbert.com**, Roger Ebert (20/100, inferred): The critic calls the film a dismal letdown that focuses almost entirely on Halle Berry's looks and costume while neglecting character, story, and action sequences, making it tired and dated compared to better summer fare. He singles out the lack of any meaningful exploration of what it feels like to become a catwoman for complaint. [Read](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/catwoman-2004)
- **Slant Magazine**, Ed Gonzalez (20/100, inferred): The critic faults the film for exoticizing rather than deepening its heroine, an identity crisis in its visuals and soundtrack, and an overall confused, inhuman aesthetic. [Read](https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/catwoman/)
- **The AV Club**, Nathan Rabin (F): The critic deems the film a complete failure that fails to learn from prior misfires like Batman & Robin, mocking its excessive camp, poor comedy, and Berry's performance as unconvincing. [Read](https://www.avclub.com/my-year-of-flops-case-file-75-catwoman-1798212745)
- **The Times**, Dominic Wells (10/100, inferred): This is the stupidest and most incompetent superhero movie in years, with lifeless plots, direction towards the exit, and CGI that fails to convey feline grace; it is particularly damning next to superior films like Spider-Man 2. [Read](https://www.thetimes.com/world/us-world/article/catwoman-12a-q0hj2gz5w93)
- **Eye for Film**, David Haviland (10/100, inferred): The critic declares it the worst Hollywood film of the year so far, with almost no creative ideas and poor execution across the board. The story is nonexistent, focusing excessively on origins and Berry's appearance rather than substance or stakes. [Read](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/catwoman-film-review-by-david-haviland)

## Details

- **Director:** Pitof
- **Director:** Pitof
- **Screenplay:** John Rogers
- **Writer:** Rita Hsiao
- **Story:** Michael Ferris, Theresa Rebeck, John Brancato
- **Cinematography:** Thierry Arbogast
- **Editor:** Sylvie Landra
- **Music:** Klaus Badelt
- **Production design:** Bill Brzeski
- **Costume design:** Angus Strathie
- **Producer:** Denise Di Novi, Edward McDonnell
- **Cast:** Halle Berry as Patience Phillips / Catwoman; Benjamin Bratt as Tom Lone; Sharon Stone as Laurel Hedare; Lambert Wilson as George Hedare; Frances Conroy as Ophelia; Alex Borstein as Sally; Michael Massee as Armando; Byron Mann as Wesley
- **Runtime:** 1h 44m
- **Certificate (MPA):** PG-13
- **Release (the US):** 23 July 2004
- **Genres:** Action, Fantasy, Crime
- **Budget:** $100 million
- **Box office:** $82 million
- **Trailer:** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFSLz4elnTE

## Where to watch in the US

- HBO Max: streaming
- Amazon Prime Video: add-on
- The Roku Channel: add-on, hd
- Hulu: add-on, hd
- Apple TV: rent $2.99, hd
- Amazon Prime Video: rent $2.99, hd
- Apple TV: buy $6.99, hd
- Amazon Prime Video: buy $9.99, hd

*Checked 2026-09-16.*

Also available in: AR, AT, AU, BE, BG, BR, CA, CH, CL, CO, CZ, DE, DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, GB, HK, HU, ID, IE, IL, IN, IT, JP, KR, LT, MX, MY, NL, NO, NZ, PA, PH, PL, RO, SE, SG, TH, UA, US, ZA. Add `?region=XX` to this URL for another country.

## Awards

- BET Award for Best Actor & Actress 2005: BET Award for Best Actor & Actress (nominated)
- Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Actress 2004: Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Actress (won)
- Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Director 2004: Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Director (won)
- Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Picture 2004: Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Picture (won)
- Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Screen Couple/Ensemble 2004: Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Screen Couple/Ensemble (nominated)
- Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Screenplay 2004: Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Screenplay (won)
- Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Supporting Actor - Razzie Award 2004: Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Supporting Actor - Razzie Award (nominated)
- Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Supporting Actress 2004: Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Supporting Actress (nominated)

## If you liked this

- *Batman Returns* (1992), Fi1m 81: Another Catwoman, with room for anger, desire and a personality beyond the costume. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/batman-returns.md)
- *The Mask* (1994): A timid lead discovers impossible powers, and the physical comedy does the explaining.
- *The Heroic Trio* (1993): Three heroines, extravagant costumes and action with a much firmer sense of fun.
- *Daisies* (1966): Female rebellion played for disruptive comedy, with far less concern for good behaviour.
- *A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night* (2014): A dangerous nocturnal heroine whose stillness makes the threat feel worth taking seriously.

---
© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Canonical: https://film.one/film/catwoman