Puss in Boots

I don’t know what critics are thinking? How can this film be so well received when its story was so predictable and badly written? There was no drama because little attention was given to the story plot points that are typical of the kind of motif found in “Puss in Boots”. I think my theory concerning “Cars 2” must be correct: critics just couldn’t wait for Pixar to mess up. Pixar released a moderate film by way of “Cars 2” and all critics point their fingers and say “Shame!!!” because they want to and can get away with it. “Puss in Boots”, on the other hand, is created by a studio that is known for releasing hits & misses. Therefore, critics are more inclined to tolerate DreamWorks’ flops. This film is even worse than “Shrek Forever After” because the story people on “Puss” did not create sincerity out of the story motif they chose. The film was overly convinced about itself that it was cool instead of winning over its audience honestly.

The best way I can explain my reservations about “Puss in Boots” is to compare it with a film that has a similar story pattern: “Atlantis: The Lost Empire”. In that Disney film, our hero is recruited to go on a great adventure. All the characters in that film were established as appealing characters. You like them. Half way through the film however, it is hinted that the two characters that lead the adventure may have a secret plot to betray the others. There are other silent point points that also hint to some kind of sinister plan but you can’t figure out exactly what that plan is. Then comes the big reveal on “Atlantis” and you find out that everyone except the protagonist is in on the secret plan. It is a shock because you liked a lot of these characters. This appeal towards these supporting characters however is essential because our protagonist tries to make his friends see reason and he succeeds. We need to believe their repentance. The climax then involves foiling the two leaders that first informed the audience that something foul was taking place. The filmmakers on “Atlantis” took the time to create drama and surprise in their story. When you watch “Puss in Boots”, it feels as though the filmmakers constructed the story from a checklist. Instead taking the time to create sincerity and drama, the filmmakers focused on impressive animation and flashy scenes that are pleasing to the eye. These elements however did not serve the story because the story itself was badly made. For example, the first dance fight between Puss and Kitty was neat but it felt unnecessary. One could say that the dance fight was all part of Humpty’s plan to recruit Puss but personally, I didn’t feel any heart watching it. It could have been edited out of the film and you wouldn't miss it. Instead of being cool for the sake of being cool, scenes in a movie should achieve charisma because of subtext or drama.

A major problem with the story of “Puss in Boots” is that the back-story of Humpty & Puss should have been at the very start of the movie. We are all familiar with the character of Puss from the Shrek movies and now that he has his own film, we need to emotionally connect with him more so than ever before. Had the origin story taken place at the start of the film, it would have been more fun to watch. How powerful would “Up” have been if we watched Carl and Ellie grow up by way of a flashback? Because the origin story takes place in "Puss" when it did, its purpose becomes to understand the relationship between Humpty & Puss and their pass. We are not relating to Puss as much as would could because of the focus of the flashback is not on Puss. At this point, I would like to indicate that the relationship between Humpty and Puss makes no sense. From the start, we do not trust Humpty because Puss doesn’t trust him. The flashback only adds to this feeling of mistrust because Humpty is revealed to be quite the opposite of Puss in terms of character. Puss has honor where as Humpty does not. I do not believe the nature of their friendship because they have very little in common. I therefore find it a little discomforting that Puss gets his name from Humpty. We really do not blame Puss for leaving Humpty on the bridge to be arrested. The writers would like to have us feel otherwise as if this abandonment by Puss was the wrong choice and required restitution. On the contrary, Humpty is a bad egg and deserves to have his freedom taken. The only way for Puss to prove his innocence is to flee. An important goal of Puss’ that was established in the flashback is that he has to prove his innocence. This is not resolved by the end of the movie in my opinion and I will explain later. Puss’ relationship with his mother is a good story anchor but an anchor must always be lowered at the start. Because the flashback takes place when it did, the relationship between Puss and his mother is neither as strong nor important as it could have been. The fact that Kitty sleeps during this flashback may be viewed as just a funny joke but it does portray a bad message. It makes the flashback less important than it should be. We come to find out later that the reason why she falls asleep is because she already knows this back-story thanks to Humpty. Regardless, to have her asleep at the end of this scene is not good storytelling and Kitty comes across as a slightly unappealing character in the movie and that isn’t good.

When Puss finally agrees to join Humpty and Kitty on the quest for the magic beans, Humpty’s reaction is selfish in nature. Story-wise, there were too many such hints that there was something foul about the quest. Another example is in the clouds when Humpty gives a look to Kitty that seems to say “Back off.” “Atlantis” contained less hints to the true nature of the antagonist and thus we had drama. The hints in “Puss” were also quite obvious in nature as opposed to subtle. If the filmmakers were trying to hide Humpty’s intentions, they were doing a bad job of it because of all these obvious hints. If they were not trying to hide Humpty’s intentions, then why use small hints here and there throughout the adventure? The film should then have contained a scene between Kitty and Humpty that revealed much of their plot to the audience but not to Puss. In relation to all this, I have a problem with the scene where our main characters steal the beans from Jack and Jill. It was way too elaborate of a ruse. If Jack and Jill are in cahoots with Humpty then why did they put up such a dangerous battle? Again, the filmmakers were all about show and not about storytelling. If you are desirous for more evidence of the irresponsibility of the filmmakers then what is it with the high-pitched talking. It comes out of nowhere and then is gone once the team enters the castle. How is the air pressure different inside the castle than outside? Is it magic? Why wasn’t that said then? The high-pitched talking was only a distraction from the story that was taking place. It was there just to get a laugh and without a credible reason, it wasn't funny to me. Also, the bonding moment between Kitty and Puss could not be taken seriously as a result. “Puss in Boots” also has plot holes such as how they cut down the beanstalk and where Puss got that horse to chase after Jack and Jill towards his hometown. Then comes the “reveal” even though we already could sense that it was coming. The only thing that we learn that we didn’t guess before was that Jack, Jill and the bar thugs were all in on the task to recruit Puss. Our response is a mild “Oh. That makes sense.” However on “Atlantis”, the audience’s response is “I totally did not see that coming but it does make sense.” The difference is genuine drama. On “Atlantis”, there are characters that we like who are revealed to be on the side of the antagonist. The same can be said about the twists on “Titan A.E.”, "Toy Story 2" and "Monsters Inc." On “Puss”, we never had emotional connections with Jack, Jill or the bar thugs. Yes, Kitty is revealed to be part of the conspiracy but we already knew that. Also, it is obvious that she has guilt and will repent. It is too predictable. The last person I expected to change his tone however was Humpty himself. I found that way too easy how Puss changed Humpty’s mind. This guy, or rather egg, has always been selfish and without honor. His change in the movie is completely unrealistic because there was no allusion that he would change. Another plot problem is Jack. He reveals important info to Puss but then he is gone for the rest of the movie. That is lazy storytelling. The death of Humpty was also handled wrong. Why is he a golden egg on the inside? What important message is there in that? It cannot be his inner worth, I will tell you that. As mentioned, an important motivation for Puss that was set up in the flashback is that he needs to prove his innocence. The end of the movie does not resolve this. In the flashback, Puss saves the Comandate’s mother and is viewed as a hero by all. The Comandate is very grateful but after Humpty’s robbery in the flashback, he is convinced that Puss is not a hero. This all needs to be resolved in that Puss must be proven innocent of the robbery and become a hero once again in the eyes of all who live in his hometown. In the end, the Camandate is still out to arrest Puss. This lack of resolution bugs me. As a final note that “Ohhhhh” cat would have been funny if he had not been in the trailer.

The focus of the film was Puss and how cool he is but we already know that for heaven’s sake! The filmmakers clearly felt that with Puss as their star, they could do no wrong. They showed an apparent lack of storytelling responsibility and others in the film industry apparently do not understand it either. “Puss in Boots” didn't deserve its Oscar nomination for Best Animated Feature and I was so glad when it lost. The film was way too self-insistent that it was a great movie. Even though Antonio Banderas and Salma Hayek did well as the voice actors, the story they acted out was not well done. It is not easy to take a supporting character and make him a lead protagonist. In my opinion, Puss belongs alongside Shrek and Donkey. He worked amazingly well on “Shrek 2” but because of a lack of care, his spinoff bombs.

1.5 Stars