I wonder if Cats really deserved the fait it wrought. You have to wonder if it was universally seen to be terrible, or if a couple of early opinions led a wave of negative opinions. Tough to really know.
The original musical was just as weird and creepy and lacking in any sort of coherent plot. But that was a big part of its appeal.
The musical came out at a time when you couldn't tweet to the world about how you were damaged for life by seeing something you deemed creepy, and then watch everyone else pile on. It was also before the concept of "furries" was well known, and I guess now everyone wants to make sure everyone knows they aren't into that sort of thing.
I'm sure when it premiered on the West End in 1981 the audience was in on the joke.
Monty Python had a grand time with all their Panto references. This skit could be seen as a predictor of Furry culture (even if that wasn't the intent at the time).
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2uwxiz
Lastly, this is my favorite Panto reference. In the context of the movie it's heartbreaking. Mel Brooks gave the director of Eraserhead control over this movie, and we got this. David Lynch was American but he clearly "got" was Panto was all about.
If they were going for "furry" they would not have done the faces that way.
I think that these scene actually removes confusion as it clearly establishes that they definitely can wear fur coats over their natural fur. I don't get how it's different from humans, we also have skin-colored clothes.
However, were the original characters in the Cats play actually humanoid cats? Or were they just humans dressing up as cats and the audience was meant to suspend disbelief that what they were looking at were just regular cats?
I ask because obviously a play can't get "live talking cats" without human actors but a movie can easily do so with CG.
Why did they decide to go with humanoid cats instead of regular cats with voice actors? Was it just to match the aesthetic of the play? Or does the plot actually involve the cats being canonicaly humanoid?
The musical is based on an existing work, a correction of amusing poems about actual cats by T S Eliot.
Probably the movie just shouldn't exist. An animated movie of the poems using some famous songs from the musical could have worked for example, but that's not what this is.
They were asking what specifically the costumes represent. They weren't confused about the concept of costumes in a play.
The cats are anthropomorphized somewhat, or they wouldn't be having proper conversations with each other. This already requires suspension of disbelief, accepting that it's a fantasy world. The question is how far that anthropomorphization goes, in the internal logic/canon of the play.
The article notes that it had a rating of 18% on Rotten Tomatoes. That's very low, even among bad movies.
Beyond that I'm quite a bit sceptical of choosing Cats for a movie adaption at all. It's nowhere near 'Phantom of the Opera' in terms of popularity, and the last (2004) movie of that musical didn't do particularly well at the box office.
Alas, Tom Hooper has a habit of retaining stage musical-like elements when he makes movies based on stage musicals. He shot many scenes in Les Miserables in a way that felt more like a stage production than a cinematic one; the difference is stark if you compare it with, say, The Greatest Showman -- which is a movie about a stage production! But Les Miz wasn't too bad, it was just a bit awkward. This time it seems Hooper has gone one step too far, though.
No need to wonder. See it for yourself and form your own opinion.
Perhaps the time or money necessary to satisfy the question is worth more than the answer.