PUSS IN BOOTS Review

Featured Critic; St. Louis, MO
Sign-In to Vote
PUSS IN BOOTS Review
After being milked as second banana to a farting ogre in what seems like umpteen "Shrek" movies, Antonio Banderas' popular Puss in Boots has strayed into a movie of his own. Considering how that franchise has supposedly come to a close, this spin-off is, yes, a crassly commercial method of Dreamworks Animation continuing to generate green from green. But there's a good reason the cat came back to the silver screen in a film all his own as opposed to, say, The Gingerbread Man, Donkey, or Princess Fiona.
Puss in Boots is part Eastwood-ian Man With No Name, part Latin lothario, but all cat. Early in the film, we witness our dashing lead character in action as he coolly takes command of a bar stocked with looming louts and thick-necked thugs. Self-satisfied, he struts out into the night, only to be confronted with an old world equivalent of a zippy laser pointer beam - one with his name on it! And just like that, all that cool warriors' self-assuredness falls away as Puss instantly becomes nothing but what he's been all along - a cat. In this case, a cat frantically trying to catch an uncatchable beam of light - an uncontrollable compulsion for any feline, real or computer animated.

And there you have it, the primary universal joke of the character. His very essence, his very being, is his weakness. Puss in Boots, for all his valiant swaggering and swashbuckling, can be, on the fly, reduced to a common house cat. It is at once simple, obvious, hilarious, clever and universally relatable. After all, who among us has not been done in on occasion by the flaws of our own intrinsic humanity? This is the fundamental concept/conceit at the heart of Puss in Boots, and the key to any continuing viability and appeal of the character. Thankfully, it's something that this movie (boasting executive production credits for Guillermo del Toro and Andrew Adamson, among others) is smart enough to run with.

"Puss in Boots" falls just short of the original "Shrek" in terms of overall solidity, but avoids the pit of pop culture reference overload that the franchise fell into with the admittedly fun "Shrek 2", and never climbed out of. It's sharp and witty enough for adults and children to enjoy alike, even if the comedy takes a backseat to a barrage of nursery rhymed action movie tropes in the final reel. (And there's at least one joke for grown-ups (a quick, veiled pot joke) that may cause parents to squirm just a little.) It's an uneven film that gets off to a great start only to be sidetracked by a lengthy flashback sequence. I've seen it happen to worse movies, ones that couldn't boast such wonderfully plush and colorful animation.

Banderas dominates as Puss in Boots, a character who's skin he lives in quite comfortably. It's a perhaps rare pay-off to Dreamworks Animation's troubling tendency to stock their films with celebrity vocal talent, many of whom have no business being within fifty feet of that recording booth. (We're looking at you Cameron Diaz.) The same compliment, however, cannot be said of female lead Salma Hayek, who, for the first time in her career, is completely flat. No joke, she cannot deliver a joke. On the other hand, professional jokester Zach Galifianakis (in an almost joke-free part) does a respectable job as the dubious Humpty Dumpty, whose great fall was more of a moral one in this universe. Even executive producer del Toro gets in on the action, voicing the important but smaller part of the mustached Comandate.

After stinking up the litter box with a lot of crap features in the past decade, Dreamworks Animation seems to have finally landed on its feet this year, as evidenced by this film and the even better "Kung Fu Panda 2". They're still not in the league of Pixar, but this is credit given where credit is due. "Puss in Boots" is an exciting and clever ball of yarn, even as it makes absolutely no attempt to even resemble the French fairy tale it takes its name from. But it also has the good sense to avoid any gratuitous cameos from other "Shrek" characters, thus allowing "Puss" to stand on it's own two legs as much as possible. It's not purr-fect, but it's also not mangy.

- Jim Tudor
Sign-In to Vote
Screen Anarchy logo
Do you feel this content is inappropriate or infringes upon your rights? Click here to report it, or see our DMCA policy.
hiroaki.jOctober 31, 2011 11:04 AM

I think Dreamworks has been doing pretty well for themselves these last few years.

While it's not the popular opinion, I thought How to Train your Dragon was better than Toy Story 3. And surprisingly poignant at the end. Where as pixar has given us TS3 (not nearly as good as the first two) and Cars 2 (merchandizing monster drek.)

I have high hopes for Brave though.

Jim TudorOctober 31, 2011 11:49 AM

Good point about HTTYD, especially in relation to CARS 2, which I didn't get to review here, but did see. CARS 2 is the (maybe inevitable) heart-breaker in terms of Pixar finally having made a sub-par movie. I am a huge fan of TS3 (see my Best of 2010 list... #1!), and am not as high on HTTYD as a lot of others were, but it was certainly better than CARS 2. High hopes for BRAVE here as well. Thanks for reading!

bewarethemoonNovember 1, 2011 8:53 AM

While Pixar has the aura of royalty about everything it does, the proof of the pudding is with the eating, Kung Fu Panda and How to Train Your Dragon have been worn out by my 2 year old ( kids eh?! they grow up even faster these days!) and HTTYD I'd put on a par with anything Pixar have released. Cars 2 was just OK, my son who loves palying with cars, just got bored, Toy Story 3 was pretty good,
Personally, I'd prefer to sit thru HTTYD and KFP on repeat than anything Pixar/Disney have made ( don't tell my wife though, she works for Disney.. shhhhhh!)

Sameera December 7, 2011 12:23 AM

Puss in boots an excellent movie and a story was of thrill and suspense and looks excellent in 3D the characters were good looking and I'll give it 3.5 Star.