I enjoy the stage version, and it is Cats in the pure form. However, the stage version does a poor job of telling the (albeit thin) story. The movie develops the story better with Victoria as a central narrator, but overall the movie is deficient in in the musical/dance numbers. Rum Tum Tugger, what can I say, except his screen agent should be fired (he's barely noticeable!) Overall, a newbie to cats may prefer the better plot development in the movie, but I find the stage version (now that I know the story!) to be better.
One more thing: When "popular" singers are used in place of those with strong stage voices you get less good singing. The clarity and diction of singing in character was (at best) barely average for a stage performance. So be it, and it is one of the warts that comes with a screen adaptation.
Regarding the Phantom comments above, I thought the movie was good. Not as good as the stage version, which (when well done) is a true masterpiece of music and performance. That is also one of the problems with Cats - which is trying to be worthy of comparison to the stage version. So it fell a little short, and I think it became trendy for the critics to pan it. Regardless, the music is still good. Skimbleshanks has a great number. It is what it is, and there are some silver linings. Enjoy it for what it is, don't hate it for what it isn't.
