The True Story of Puss'N Boots (2009) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
34 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
2/10
Very disappointing
anouk774 January 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I was disappointed to find out that I didn't get to see Puss In Boots but I decided to give it a chance anyway because I love fairy tales. I was curious to see what the makers of this movie had done with the original story of Puss In Boots.

The characters look horrible and the music is awful. The princess annoyed me from the first moment when she started to sing and dance because she's not very good at either and I couldn't stop staring at her giant hips. The king sleeps all the time and might as well not have been there and the queen sounds like a drunken Roseanne Barr throughout the entire movie. The interaction between the villain and his helper was meant to be funny I guess in an Igor/evil doctor sort of way but it completely fails at it.

As for the story; that really disappointed me as well. I had hoped it would be more like the original fairytale. Why are there palm trees, a parrot and ostriches when the story is set in northern Europe? In the original fairytale the ogre is a giant who is a powerful sorcerer and the cat tricks him into changing himself into a mouse so he can eat him and free the people from its evil. I think it's an important part of the story which has completely disappeared in the movie.

Perhaps it works better in French but I highly doubt it.
9 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Truly Confounding
storyteller-ryan29 November 2012
There are elements to this movie that are very pretty. Many of the visuals are stunning, excellently deep textures throughout. The characters by and large good but their movements can be very strange at times.

The real problem is the murkiness of the story. A narrator would have been an excellent improvement. Without an internal monologue or narration the cat seems to be crazier than you would guess. The setting is perplexing with random elements from Spanish, Middle Eastern, and French styling with no clear rhyme or reason. Also for no clear reason a school of ghost fish come to life near the end. yep.

The voice acting was also painful. Namely Shatner's cat voice is something to truly despise. The monkey is Jamaican? Most disappointingly is that they didn't get a quality singer for the princess.

This last point sticks out because there was a lot of music in this movie. It has a charming American Indie vibe including stripped down percussion and on occasion a ukulele. But her voice fails to be either traditional or suitably indie.

Also the Ogre is inexorably dumb and useless as a villain.
8 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Wow, this French, bizarre animation film is buried in a lot of kitten litter. It really smells!
ironhorse_iv13 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
This European adaptation of the original French fairy tale, 'The Master Cat, or Puss in Boots" by Charles Perrault wasn't that good. Made for the sole reason, to capitalize on, DreamWorks Studios success with the character. The French version of the character was somewhat more annoying than the one, we, Americans got in DreamWorks 2011's version. (Voiced by Richard M. Dumont in the English version/ Jérôme Deschamps in the French version) as the lead cat, this adaptation fells to tell an accuracy story of Puss N' Boots, a cat known to uses trickery and deceit to gain power, wealth, and the hand of a princess (Voiced by Holly Gauthier Frankel in the English version/ Louise Wallon in the French version) in marriage for his penniless and low-born master, Pierre AKA Peter (Voiced by Arthur Deschamps in French/ Daniel Brochu in English). Without spoiling the movie, too much, I have to say, while researching this film directed by Jérôme Deschamps, I found out that a lot people often mistake, William Shatner as the voice of Puss N' Boots, instead than Richard M. Dumont. I can understand why. The movie is now market, as if William Shatner was originally the star. In truth, William Shatner had little to do with the original English dubbing phrase. His name was a last minute, add on, when he show, some interested late into the English distribute process. In the later copies of the English version of the film, the main lead was often redub with his voice, instead of Richard M. Dumont. So, even if you did, a chance to find a copy of this film. It's a 50/50 chance that you might get the William Shatner's version. If not, you find yourself, with Richard M. Dumont's version. I have to say, the William Shatner's version is much, much worst. His hoarse, shaky voice and constant non-verbal noises, makes the film, so unwatchable. He sounds like Winnie the Pooh with a coke addiction. I have to say, regardless, whom voicing whom; the movie story isn't that compelling. It's often very boring with very few flat jokes. It mostly dull exposition dialogue and pure filler. The characters are often portray to be unsympathetic. One of the bigger problems for the film is how the G rated film feels a little too dark for children. I really don't like how the good-guys, royals in this film threaten other characters, by grinding their bodies into meat and then feeding them to liars turn toads. It doesn't help that most of the characters, act out of character as well. A good example of this, is the Jamaican sounding talking chimp, Doc Marcel (Voiced by Mark Camacho in the English version/ Hervé Lassïnce in the French). Why does he act like a racism stereotype who plays music that isn't from that era? Why does the Princess dance around in a ballet dress, all the time? Also, why is the Jester (Voiced by Rick Jones in the English version/Voiced by Philippe Leygnac in the French version), so unfunny and stale, while the over-the-top chamberlain (Voiced by Arthur Holden in the English version/Voiced by Jean-Claude Bolle-Reddat in the French) is so cartoony and strange. In the most bizarre part, of the film, an Ogre (Voiced by Alain Goulem in English version/ André Wilms in French) acts like Cthulhu, whenever he get angry. It really comes out of nowhere. It also doesn't help that he wants to turn into a swan, for no reason. I really don't get it!? Not only does, most of the characters don't make sense. The character animation is kinda ugly-looking and weak. People moves in the film in such an awful slow and non-fluid motion. Visually, the look of the character isn't well done. The characters looks like pus in dirty boots, than Puss 'N Boots. I really couldn't stand looking at them. I do have to say, at least, the background animation wasn't that bad. The surrealism fantasy setting was perplexing interesting, with its random elements taken from both Hebrew, Spanish, and French culture. However, they come with little to no clear assonances. Another problem with this movie is the music, and the songs, they used. They really do butcher, many of the classic music, I love, hearing, such as Beethoven, Mozart, Verdi, Wagner and others. Even modern pop culture are awfully done by them. Overall: I have to say, after seeing many of mediocre films try to piggy-back on the publicity of a major film with a similar title or theme. This movie is one of the worst. This poor attempt of mockbustering, clearly took too much catnip. I don't recommended at all.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
English dub version - horrible.
oldkingsol4 May 2013
I'm sure my impression of it would have been much better had I listened to it in the original French. But William Shatner was a horrible, horrible, HORRIBLE choice for the voice of the English version. His raspy, shaky voice and constant non-verbal noises he kept making just utterly ruined it. In the prior release, for English-speaking audiences, I suppose we were spoiled by Antonio Bandaras' as the cat. Shatner's Puss was just plain nails-on-chalkboard awful. Totally ruined any potential enjoyment I might have been able to get out of it. The story itself was okay, though definitely a bit on the "silly" side - but it doesn't seem to be geared towards an adult audience, so that's okay.

I can't really comment on the French version, though surely they had to have a better voice than Shatner. If you're listening to it in English, just don't expect an experience even remotely similar to the original movie release. This movie was nothing like it. At. All.
10 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hard to watch
sd-10618 October 2011
Claims that this is trying to cash in on the Shrek movie may be true, we thought that was what we were renting. Still, when we realized, we were not disappointed and were willing to give it a try...

Only to be severely disappointed. The story is not compelling, the characters are unsympathetic and ugly in both visage and voice. The animation is weak and odd (and not in the cool good way). We waited for it to get better but it just trundled along in mediocrity. I fell asleep somewhere a little after halfway despite giving it my best. The survivors reported it was as bad through to the end.

I was intrigued to find out it is from France as it did have that vibe that used to come from several foreign-produced cartoons when I was younger (Dogtanion, around the world in 80 days etc). I think it's the way they try and cram the English language into French-animated mouths. Indeed, this may have succeeded more as a traditional cartoon, possibly a series.

To sum up, not worth watching. Go track down the Christopher Walken live-action version. I stumbled on it by accident one day and ended up watching it all the way through, spellbound.
13 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Not interesting
ubertu4 February 2011
This animation movie is really useless. Not for smile, not for learn, without a useful moral. Graphics is banal and similar to other movies, does not add anything new to the gender. Also the soundtrack is not related with the supposed audience (I think this film was supposed for young guys, lessthen 10 year) since the song are mostly dance music. I think the writers of the tale supposed to tell a funny rearrangement of Puss'n Boots, but they dramatically fails. This kind of animation movies must be different from that movie. I think the director could work better than now. I can't find any reason to see this movie, only the title is appetizing, but this is a virtue of the marketing.. :). Not recommended.
16 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Aghhh! Make it stop.
This film is not fit for the American viewing audience...(pause while I vomit....regain my composure). What am I hearing?...a middle schooler's impersonation of a crazy grandmother? No, that's William Shatner trying to disguise Captain Kirk's voice. Let's not compare this to other movies with cats that wear boots. Let's judge it on it's own merits. For starters, never dub a movie. Not even a cartoon. It is horrifying to watch lips that don't match the audio. Subtitles would have been more bearable. Secondly, the plot is so boring my wife has banned my Red Box privileges. To watch paint dry is more entertaining than this film.
13 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
You thought you had problems with this movie?
Ephraimf22 August 2012
I feel bad for everyone that mistakenly saw this movie, but your problems were nothing compared to what I went through. I live in Israel, and my son asked me to order this movie for him on pay per view for the whole family to watch together. We had some problems with our cable TV, so we sat two hours talking to a moron tech from the cable company. She was an idiot, and I was screaming and shaking for two hours. After two hours of hell, it finally worked, and lo and behold, it was this French catastrophe, AND it was dubbed in Hebrew!!!!!!!!!!!! My head still hurts. Tomorrow morning I will demand my money back AND a free movie for the damage to my physical and mental health.

BTW....There was no mention of the year the film was made, or the country.
6 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Don't touch
extrema-231 December 2011
Based on the cover of the DVD, my children and I honestly thought we were renting the new Dreamwork's movie "Puss and Boots" already out in time for the holidays.

I don't understand what is happening here. The DVD was on the "New Releases" shelves of our video store, but the released date is 2009... Is this a new re-release in order to mislead people into buying or renting this dreadful movie ? They obliviously designed a cover picture to look exactly like the beloved Shrek character. Dreamwork should sue them our of their misery.

Stay away from this movie.
7 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Not Disappointed- a Colossal Disaster for the Ages
drmildlyinconsiderate2 April 2016
Warning: Spoilers
My viewing of this film left me in some considerable agony. My sides ached, and spots floated before my vision. My voice was hoarse from my exultant shouts of derision. I expected nothing in the way of quality or craft, and got gloriously less. I would not miss this film for the world, despite its best efforts to confuse and disgust me.

This film is a masterpiece of insanity. Featured within are such delights as amateurish yet fetish-driven character models, an alternately worthless and disruptive supporting cast, and the star of the show Puss 'n' Boots himself, played by one William Shatner who goes to great lengths to avoid recognition or, indeed, approval. The musical numbers are not to be missed for any price. Oft during the film, such provocations as a chance meeting in a bar, the passing glance of the household toucan, or someone walking through a doorway would fling the characters into insane fits of vocalization and rhythmic conniptions, almost mistakable for song and dance. This was my favorite part during which to vomit.

If you have been bereaved since exhausting the traditional list of masterwork films which features Troll 2, Plan 9 from Outer Space, and Flash Gordon (1980)¸ you shall be delighted to know that pieces of the same illustrious stock are still being produced. This gem hails from the year 2009, over 5 years after Shrek 2 popularized Puss, but it still boasts the cover art and pedigree needed to follow up on that handsome-cab of success and to scoop up the droppings of its horses. Gather your friends who most enjoy a good Schadenfreude flick, and let rip.

I.E.'s RATING OF QUESTIONABLE SIGNIFICANCE

The absolute value of the difference between this film's quality rating (0-10) and the mediocrity reference score of 5 is

* 5/5: An intense and memorable experience, well above/below the norm. *

This gem must never be forgotten, however much you may like to.

Mentions of certain characters follow hereafter. POSSIBLE LIGHT SPOILERS lurk beyond!

Puss 'n' Boots was the sad offspring of a fetish and a fart, springing about in inane antics and generally disrupting the flow of the film by his absurd tendency to be the subject of it. Shatner's delivery for this character's voice was one-of-a-kind. It showcased that kind of weak falsetto Granddad uses to voice Ridinghood's grandma for the hundredth time, interspersed with the pained hisses and growls which Shatner emits as the few remaining tatters of his dignity are pincered from his soul. The fact that this final devolution and wreckage of a star is caught on tape will be one of the enduring legacies of our age.

The writer now must note: The film had a multi-million dollar budget. We can assume that a good bit was spent on the animation, which after all is overall fairly unimpeachable. We must deduce that the remainder of the budget went directly into Mr. Shatner's pocket, his name being the sole redeeming element of the cover and credit reel. By all indications, the director of this film accepted whatever William deigned to provide: no human being could have possibly envisioned the resulting voice track as the one perfect characterization of Puss. So must we assume that Shatner pocketed *several million* for a single, lazy take.

The reviewer therefore retracts any aspersions relating to the good name and dignity of Mr. Shatner. He acted after that ancient dream of man's deepest heart: to gain fat stacks in return for one afternoon's (minimally effacing) goofership. Good money if you can get it, and more power to him.

A protagonist exists. He is called Peter, and he owns the titular Puss. His goal in the story is to do whatever the cat tells him. He eventually develops the perfunctory interest in the perfunctory princess, yet essentially keeps his perpetually morose eyes locked on his feet as if trying to find out where they're taking him, and why along such sparkly boot-prints.

The wondrous non-hit "La La La etc." is our introduction to the princess, whose physical shape is the product of a very desperate concept artist considering a viola for too long. Her propensity to commit wanton singing, her deep and abiding contempt for the protagonist, and her toleration of the subtle and sympathetic villain (gag) combine to form one of the most aggravating characters conceivable within the limits of a sane mind.

The Villainous Court Chamberlain reads like a book, making the film easier to comprehend for audiences other who lack the benefits of being young children. The Chamberlain is jealous of the princess, is physically unattractive, and has very stupid hair. He is otherwise nearly visually indistinguishable from this reviewer. Oddly, no character ever explicitly mentions that he is, in fact, a bloodthirsty goblin. This is not the only case of either mass blindness or lack of essential discrimination: At no point in the film does a character think it amiss that the protagonist's cat is a perverted, irritating, lying, manipulative guttersnipe.

The Court Jester: The princess's confidant is a horrible little imp with an incongruously soft, babyish face. He idly climbs columns and capers atop items as a monkey is wont, but always with the same somber judgment in his eyes, preventing any hilarity at his antics. His involvement in the film's affairs is mostly aimed to the perpetual virginity and enhanced haughtitude of said princess. The jester is more terrifying a monster than I have ever imagined.

Quotes:

The Villain, in conversation: "DO YOU LIKE TOADS? GIGANTIC, OOZING TOADS?"

Peter, long after it had become the sole driving force in his life: "I can't tell the truth; I promised my cat!"

The villain, and me the next time I find myself at a loss: "I HATE YOUNG MEN!"
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Puss!?
marijaradetic10 August 2018
Puss in the boots is one hell of a good story and you made it difficult to watch!
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
One of the Original Stories - A European adaptation
perrin19761 April 2012
A great reminder of the original European Fairy tales. I loved it, kids loved it and watch it over and over. They care for the stories & entertainment which were written centuries ago, not the profit money making studios.

This films portrays one of the most ORIGINAL stories back from the 17th Century. NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH DREAMWORKS SHERK. Dreamworks have created a great entertaining masterpiece & brought together a memorable array of characters which date back over centuries, however lets not loose the authenticity of where all those characters originated from and the tales that were created.

I would be disappointed if the kids grew to know Puss in Boots based on just Sherk.. I mean, isn't Lord Farguaad suppose to be the love child of the princess from the Princess and the Pea & grumpy?? A twist designed for adult entertainment.
6 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
NOT "Trying to Cash In on Puss In Boots"
alphaweb16 March 2012
So, just to start... this movie is obviously not the newer Puss In Boots that was attached to the Shrek movie franchise. This is a whole different movie and, not, as some on here would have you believe, trying to cash in on the Shrek movie... mostly because this movie came out two years before the Shrek movie.

That said, this is an odd film. My kids turned it on via Netflix streaming and when I joined them for a minute, I couldn't turn away.

For starters, you can tell it's Shatner doing the voice of Puss quite easily, so there's a little mind eff going on almost immediately. The way he carries himself, you expect him to break into Rocket Man at any moment.

Then, the animation is a little, um, different. It really looks like the very non-fluid movement that you see in the Korean news animations that have become popular lately, but with better developed characters. Plus, it's not that the characters are "dirty" or anything, but, you do see a little more cleavage than you would in, say, a Disney flick... or a Shrek or any other US created movie.

The story is also a bit more, um, European, I guess. It's hard to describe. Growing up watching US cartoons, you don't realize how weird some of the old fairy tales really are in their original form. This story is more like the old stories and has some visual elements that would probably be really enjoyable if you were on various mind-altering substances.

All that in mind, the kids ate it up and actually ended up watching it again the next day. So, give it a watch, be prepared for the weird, and use your friggin' head when you think it's a "rip off" of something that came out two years later.
16 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A Lesson in Reading Fine Print
kmueller8831 December 2011
WARNING: This is not the real Puss n Boots. Admittedly, that seems like an obvious statement, but for this reviewer (and the unfortunate souls that watched it with her) it was not immediately apparent. We made our way to the local Redbox to grab a movie we thought everyone would like. Then we spotted Puss n Boots. Perfect! The reviews had been surprisingly positive and we thought it looked fun. So we went home, popped in the movie, and settled in for some animated entertainment. After bizarre previews and a random introduction by William Shatner, we got to the actual film. Strange, but okay. Then it started. The first thing we noticed was the terrible graphics. I said they looked like something from a Nickelodeon children's show; my brother said he had seen better quality on his video games. The characters were horrendous, the dubbing was a failure ... It wasn't until Puss showed up in pink boots that we finally realized something was terribly wrong. Turns out, we rented the wrong movie. Cleverly disguised as the Antonio Banderas version was truly awful thing that's not worthy of being called a film. It's poop on a reel. And you'd need a magnifying glass to read Redbox's fine print. Renter beware.
3 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
What a Boring Rip-Off
simplymare30 September 2011
This film is dreadful. I had rented a copy of the movie "The True story of Puss 'n Boots" because I thought it was by the same people who did the Shrek movies; the Puss on the DVD cover looked just like the one in Shrek. Instead, it was a horrible, badly animated regurgitation of the fairytale that looks like it was done in Belgium and is over-dubbed in English. It supposedly contains voice-overs by William Shatner, but you can find him among the other noise in the dialog. And many of the characters are just plain ugly: the drunken queen, the obese king, and the Fright-Night-Evil-Clown of a chamberlain may play overseas, but here in the US they're just awful in what is supposed to be a film for children. It was such an ugly, boring mess I turned it off after about 10 minutes. The Shrek people should sue these folk for false advertising, and anyone who rents this should be aware that it's NOT what it pretends to be.
14 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Really Shatner?
nerfgeek13 July 2017
I've just finished watching this film in school and if I were to say possibly the worst things about the film is that one, the animation is terrible especially for 2009 standards, the characters all move in rather odd motions (not suggestively) and the main antagonists appearance is like comparing a Pixar film to Foodfight, two, the soundtrack is ear grating and annoying like the love interest of the movie's singing; it's unbearable to listen to, three, William Shatner voices Puss who is incredibly annoying plus when see that the title is focused on Puss; he isn't even the main character; instead we get the embodiment of angst who's soul purpose in this film is to marry the princess like any other fairy tale flick, overall it's not the worst animated movie as there are much worse out there, it only escapes being a less score as the voice acting is kind off good but a bit overacted at some points, I would definitely not recommend this to anyone who is a fan of the original story or animated films in general.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Juampi's Review : The True Story of Puss'n'Boots
ingomacujpajpa13 August 2015
I saw this movie on a DVD that contains 4 movies. I never watched all of them, I only watched 2 and they were all crappy. The True Story of Puss'n'Boots was one of them.Unlike the other movie ( Legend of the Sea ) it was the "boring" kind of bad. Seriously ! The're more cons than pros for this movie PROS : + Has a little bit of character development CONS : - All the characters are annoying ! Especially the cat, the monkey, the chamberlain and the queen.

  • It is too unrealistically looking to be called THE TRUE STORY of Puss'n'Boots - Doesn't catch at all the spirit of the original fairy tale. This is the biggest example that I can get. The ogre transformations True Story The Movie Lion and mouse Squid and duck My rating : a 3 out of 10 don't watch it
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Kitten litter is more appealing
TheLittleSongbird9 October 2017
Just to make things clear, as has been indicated already, 'The True Story of Puss n Boots' is not a rip-off of the DreamWorks film 'Puss in Boots' as it has been mistaken to be. Not only is it clear from the advertising that the quality is vastly inferior to even the lesser DreamWorks efforts and has a different title, it also came out two years before 'Puss in Boots'.

The title itself is misleading somewhat. This is not the true story of 'Puss in Boots', nor is it a particularly faithful adaptation. It feels more like an independent effort. Right now, 'The True Story of Puss n Boots' will be judged on its own terms, and, while there are worse animated films, it is very poor quality and as said in the review summary kitten litter is more appealing in comparison (and in reality kitten litter looks and smells horrible).

Its least bad asset is the music, as music itself it has moments, when it isn't inappropriately dark and discordant, when it is characterful, nicely orchestrated and has its charms. It's the way it's performed that's the problem, with the princess' singing being some of the most painful that can be found anywhere in any media and even in life.

Everything else is executed disastrously. The animation has a few nice details but this is wasted by flat colours, static movement, sparse and less than meticulous backgrounds, haphazard editing and especially hideous and unintentionally creepy character designs. The script constantly sounds awkward and is inconsistent tonally, with scarily grotesque darker elements that juxtapose abruptly and jarringly with childish humour that will make even younger children wince and over-the-top and poorly animated action.

Story-wise, 'The True Story of Puss n Boots' fares the most problematically. The original story itself is a simple and easily digestible one, the story here is the complete opposite. Children and adults will find it hard to follow and there is no heart and charm to be found anywhere, it's just all mean-spirited and ugly. Things happen too randomly for no reason, lots of pointless things happen, a lot feels underdeveloped or unresolved, structurally it's all very disorganised and some of the characters appear at random and disappear just like that for no reasons given. The modernised elements are very out of place here when there was no attempt to update everything else.

On top of looking hideous, none of the characters have likable personalities and are either dull (most), irritating (the title character and the princess) or useless (the Ogre). The voice acting is poor, William Shatner on paper sounded like he would be completely wrong and it is exactly that effect here. Shatner is one of the hammiest actors ever to exist and he brings no subtlety or charm whatsoever, making for the single most annoying Puss ever and one of the most obnoxious in animation perhaps. The princess similarly irritates while the rest either overact or phone it in, disconcertingly too the queen constantly sounds drunk.

In conclusion, very bad. 2/10 Bethany Cox
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
"Awkward." That's How I'd Describe This.
MisterSisterFister23 October 2018
Seriously, this whole movie is flat out awkward. The voice acting is beyond cringe-worthy, especially William Shatner's exceptionally irritating voice as Puss in Boots. The character designs are disturbing to say the least and it just seems like the only purpise to this movie's existence is simply to annoy all of those who come across it. Avoid like the plague.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Where did the $25 million budget go?
RogerBorg11 January 2016
It didn't get spent on the animation, which would have looked jerky and puppetish in the 1990s, featuring those nightmarish, lumpy, last-potato-in-the-sack faces that Le French consider to represent character.

It certainly didn't show through in the English script, which was about as pedestrian, plodding, basic and unimaginative as it's possible to be. Was that a deliberate protest by Le Writers? You can do better, much better, in the language of Shakespeare.

Editing? I doubt there was any: every frame of what passes for animation made it on screen.

Cast? Well, they spoke their lines comprehensibly, but every voice actor picked a single intonation and stuck with it resolutely through every scene. They may have literally phoned it in.

The music? It's the highlight, if the smug, repetitive nasal yowling that passes for French artistry is your thing.

Ah! Wait, there's a monkey! Who has an awful interpretation of an Afro-Caribbean voice, because of course that's where monkeys come from. It's definitely not casual French racism. No, sir, the thought never crossed my mind.

It's a underwhelming mess from start to finish. A six year old in the room was happy enough to howl along with the singing, but eight and nine year olds were past it, and it was unremitting torture for the adults.

Avoid if at all possible.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Finally nailed down which version I was was watching
pureabsolute21 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
First, I didn't realize there is a french version -- I'm glad I found its page. Turns out the Shatner version doesn't come up with a IMDb search. I didn't try to hard, so feel free to reply with a link. But that version was done I think in 2011, which is why HULU says that. But that is also when the Banderas version was done. Which *is* findable on IMDb.

The plot is very simple -- with the main character being lead along and just reacting to what the cat does. And the cat has a plan.. but always depends on luck to make it happen. Like taking a castle from an octopus / squid mage who can shape change but is brought back to ogre form by music.. which he is getting sick of. But he really wants to be a swan. Which allows the new Marquis to claim the castle for himself? The boy refuses to lie, but also refuses to tell the queen the truth, and is situationally saved every time. I suppose the way out there plot might be OK for very young kids..

Acting / voice wise.. Shatner was horrific. I kept thinking that Mr. Boots needed adjustment time, and he'd become suave by the end. But no -- his horrific singing and 'acting' closed out the movie. The princess wasn't much better, but she was a much smaller part, and actually hit notes while she sang. The Ogre's character didn't make sense. The queen was boorish (was that Rosanne Bar?), the king a lump. The chamberlain cartoonishly evil and ugly., but not in a good way.

Eh. I'll have to wait a little to digest this one, but I look forward to the Banderas version.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A subversive masterpiece.
lefthandedleftist5 December 2023
This movie changed my life. I used to be a drug addict, I used to drink entire bottles of Vodka to drain pain away. That was until I found this movie in my local CEX. This movie has a profound commentary about the human condition, and the class struggle between princesses and millers. I knew from when I heard the magnificent kazoo theme probably recorded on an iPhone microphone that I was in for a delight. My life was changed when I first layed eyes upon the biggest, most voluptuous, juiciest gyat Ive ever seen in a kids animated movie. The princess was so curvaceous, it put pixar moms to shame. For the entire movie, I didn't even notice the janky animation because I couldnt stop looking at her BBL. My favourite part is when the queen said "I love to hanky panky" and there 30 solid minutes of graphic love-making involving the entire cast. I loved seeing the princess shaking her gyatt alll over the millman, jiggling like a water balloon. The moment the credits rolled I fell to my knees sobbing. I threw away all my drugs, I blocked my plug on Snapchat, I started a new life for myself. Now I'm married and have 5 kids, all because of this inspiring movie.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Good movie! And NO it's not the NEW puss "in" boots movie...
mlndhjs21 February 2012
To the other reviewer, Really.... You thought this was the new movie? Come on.. Try READING next time you buy a movie.. This came out in 2009..

I liked it just fine and my 2 year old loves it. The colors are really fun and bright! Also, the movie comes from France. People should remember that we Americans tend to forget that a lot of our movie ideas come from all over the world. So the idea for the new Puss in boots film could very well have been sparked by this one. You never know! At any rate it's very cute and whimsical and if you don't watch it thinking you are getting the new movie you just might like it!
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Puss Lost His Boots
ineszzzzz4 April 2020
A very bad perfomance by an excellent and convincing actor (that worn a grammy already) - the puss. With that being said, i am for now long a dog person.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Ignore those who insult this fine film.
ipiblo4 October 2011
This film was the perfect casting of the Cat character, he is clever, and kindhearted, in spite of his initial error of being deceptive, he soon learns that honesty is the best policy.

The Cat wins, as he should, unlike the many incessant dog movies whom are always vilifying the cat.

This film is a breath of fresh air compared to the many films out there that are always casting the Cat as either the enemy or an annoying sidekick to be just that kicked around and discredited.

I will not drop any titles, I believe that those of you reading this will know what I am talking about.

There are many films and television shows that depict harm to cats and try to pass them off as "comedy" whilst always making the dog out to be the hero.

I credit Mr. Shatner's directing of this film to its success.

I highly recommend this film to anyone with a soul.
11 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed