Puss in Boots: Review By slysnide

{Probably in the litter box}

Written in 1695 by Charles Perrault, the 1697 publication in "Tales of my Mother Goose" {also by Perrault}--which included 'Cinderella,' 'Sleeping Beauty,' and 'Little Red Riding Hood'--became an instant success, followed by its english publication in 1729 where it once again became an immediate success. The tale recounted how a cat uses deceit & trickery to win the marriage of a princess which would grant him power & riches for the benefit of his penniless master.

While Puss' motives were partly the same in this film, virtually no other elements from the original story survived the adaptation, unlike those other tales listed above. Rather than being the sly & slick thief who achieves wealth, fame, a princess, and massive fortune, this Puss would much rather stroke his ego by facing off against kitty burglars and dancing the night away at the '(G)Litter Box.' Sure the attitude is there, but he's all talk. Only when he's trying to charm someone do you get that classic Puss. But when it counts, he never employs any such charm or trickery to achieve his goals. This is mostly because his goals aren't nefarious in any way, even if they are for good reason as Puss also wishes to help his master here.

The story by Tom Wheeler, Brian Lynch, and David H. Steinberg is what convoluted this movie to ruins. You'd think someone, hell anyone would be familiar with the bare bones basics of the story which I've just reiterated here. But apparently not, for instead of flying solo like a legend, his goal is merely to kidnap the golden goose from the giant's castle via some magic beans provided to him by the mischievous Humpty Dumpty in order to achieve riches. Hardly a tale of deceit and trickery. Sure those are there, but they're supposed to be employed by Puss in his quest, not by the villain.

On that note, there are no real fairy tale villains in the original story. Likewise, there really isn't one here, well, sort of. For I wouldn't count the vicious highway robbers Jack & Jill as villains, but more like a minor issue to overcome in the quest for the golden goose. And such a quest you'd think would overtake the story, but rather it comprises the second act of the story with virtually no real obstacles to overcome along the way. Or at least nothing which poses any major threat. The fact that the original story is about a fiend who lies, cheats, and steals his way to the top of the town is the problem here. Why? Because it's totally absent. Puss has been reduced to some nice guy kid living a fantasy rather than embracing it as in the original story. He's more like a kid playing with friends using his own imagination, in that he thinks he's a super sly kind of guy, but really isn't since you know, it's just kids playing pretend. So you'd think that changing gears completely and turning this into a quest would require Puss to employ such tactics to achieve his goals, albeit they'd be justified since he's trying to outwit nefarious evil doers (which there are none) along the way, since apparently making a whole film about a clever fiend from his perspective in which the audience would be taking his side is too much for Dreamworks to handle.

When everything goes to hell, this typically indicates the middle of the film. But here it indicated the climax. After a prolonged prologue with flashbacks, the quest is nonchalant and not nearly as long, leading directly into a rushed climax, like when all of a sudden a villain jumps out from behind the curtain and yells "Aha!" and the outwitted hero must break out of jail to stop the fiend and rule the day. Well, that's sort of exactly what happens here, except that usually comes after a long adventure in a story that's not really about heroes and villains. Granted this isn't that kind of story either, the severe lack of 'adventure' up to this point practically calls for it as they've already train wrecked the character, so why not go all the way to still come out with a halfway decent film yes?

Well, no, they didn't do that either. While Antonio Banderas may sound really cool, and his voice matches that character, you don't get that same level of cool from the original story, nor from the few 'Shrek' films he appeared in either. Those had lots of adult humor which Puss played into. Granted there's a lot of adult humor here too, you'd think if Puss is being made out to be the hero they'd go the Zorro route. So the characterization ultimately feels bizarre. Same goes for Zach Galifianakis in the role of Puss' best friend Humpty Dumpty who was more mischievous than Puss when it should be the other way around entirely. I couldn't help but think of the film "Due Date" (2010) seeing as Zach is kind of the same enthusiastic character seeking support from his buddy on the long journey, whereas his ride along pal is too distracted by other things to really get into it, or in this case, distracted by the kitty burglar (Salma Hayek) whom accompanies them on the way. And on that note, this film also sorely lacked strong supporting characters. They were very shallow cause Puss was the main character, and given all his aforementioned faults, he really needed such supporting characters to give the story a fighting chance.

So overall, straying from the source material and forging a hackneyed plot out of an adventure-less ride which lacked that extra steroid of the 'Shrek' films while still having the character talk the part made for a very downer film which doesn't live up to expectations set way back in 2004 when we first met the slick cat fiend and learned of an impending spinoff.