Puss in Boots Movie Review

 

2011, directed by Chris Miller

Reviewed by Tim. S

I didn’t know what to expect from Puss in Boots; I’m wary of any film that involves anthropomorphic CGI animals, one-liners and spin-offs, and I was certainly skeptical in approach, but I think there’s something in this film that grants it leniency. It’s probably not going to win any “Film of the Year” awards, but I walked away from this one feeling a little warmer inside. Like a lot of kids, I’d grown up on the story of Puss in Boots, and though I’d felt certain elements of my childhood should stay in the past, I'm pleased to say this was a fun, albeit partially flawed view.

The plot of Puss in Boots is essentially a story of retribution, revenge and redemption. The film begins with Puss, presently an exile of his home town San Ricardo, returning to set right the wrongs of the past. From there, he learns about the magic beans (which prompts him to reveal that he’s searched “half his life for them”). Shortly thereafter Puss joins forces with his old ally, Humpty ‘Alexander’ Dumpty, and newcomer, Kitty Softpaws on a quest to retrieve the fabled Golden Goose to restore his honour in the eyes of the people of San Ricardo, something lost years before in a deceptive heist by his former comrade.

The prime elements of the film are essentially a composite of various fairy tales, including the titular Puss in Boots, Jack and the Beanstalk, Jack and Jill, Humpty Dumpty and the Golden Goose, all mashed together in fantastical Renaissance Spain. With characters recast as clear-cut protagonists/antagonists. The narrative of the film is somewhat predictable given the fairy-tale premise, yet with a few liberties taken here and there for the purpose of dramatic tension.

Aside from referencing numerous fairy tales, there’s a momentary Fight Club reference in a pact known as ‘Bean Club’ between Puss and Humpty when they first start collecting beans in hopes of finding the magical ones, they agree on rules, namely “The first rule of Bean Club you do not talk about Bean Club, the second rule of Bean Club is you DO NOT talk about Bean Club!”. It was a great little moment of cinematic reflection, and something of a precursor to the film’s ongoing allusions of deception, tested loyalties, and ultimately redemption.

Humpty ‘Alexander’ Dumpty is resigned to morally dubious bumbling sidekick and part-time inventor; flashback scenes show a younger Humpty experimenting with flying machines, though the extent and origins of his inventor persona are never fully explained. The character of Kitty Softpaws feels at times somewhat unnecessary, and feels like she exists more for the purpose of having a dual male-female lead in the film, rather than possessing a solidly rooted presence in the overarching plot.

The ‘murderous outlaws’ Jack and Jill were the colourfully recast owners of the stolen magic beans, and the film’s bumbling, comical antagonists; they’re essentially a minor thorn in the side of the protagonists and never amount to a significant threat, so they see out most of the film as the comic relief. They do however take part in a great chase scene with the protagonists, which was probably one of the most fun parts of the film. There’s no singular antagonist throughout the film, and it seems like the entire world is against them at points (the local authorities, bounty hunters, outlaws, the “Great Terror”)

The script and voice acting felt lacking at points; the strongest contender I felt was Humpty, voiced by Zach Galifiankis (The Hangover), whose delivery highlighted his character’s edgy, nervous and eccentric persona. Antonio Banderas gives a solid performance as Puss, while some of Kitty’s (Salma Hayek’s) lines felt a little lacking, at times due to the script, and at others due to the delivery.

In terms of the less sensical elements of the film, the story contained a betrayal/forgiveness element, which felt disproportionate to the magnitude of betrayal involved. Though the audience is never clearly positioned to sympathise with the character of Humpty, the fact that Puss so willingly forgives him after he is not only betrayed (again), but is conclusively denounced as a compatriot and ‘brother’ felt irrationally implausible. It made no sense that Puss took him back as his ‘brother’, however I feel this choice was made more to teach younger audiences the virtue of forgiveness over rationality and self-preservation: when grudges are put aside, the path is opened to achieve bigger and better things. However it feels so hastened (as it’s all packed into the film’s final quarter) that it never fully sinks in, and washes off shortly after viewing.

Various sexual undercurrents run through the film, though they hover below the surface so the film never really feels beyond ‘PG’, and it works to good effect in keeping the film relatively tasteful. One scene shows Humpty getting undressed off-screen as the other characters comment on his lack of underwear; I was somewhat perplexed at this scene, as my first thought was questioning the anatomical fidelity of this accusation; does an egg even have anything to hide underneath underwear? Sure, he’s anthropomorphic, but in the Puss in Boots universe, there seems to be a lot of inexplicable stuff going on, maybe this was just another one of those moments.

Even in the film’s opening scene, it opens with a slow pan across the bedroom floor of a middle-aged sleeping man, showing an empty milk bottle, a fish skeleton and a sleeping female cat, while Puss quietly creeps away and gets dressed in his trademark boots and hat. Coitus is strongly implied here, as Puss is chased out by the unnamed cat’s owner, she sits there and sighs, watching Puss run off over the horizon, blowing kisses back to her. Shortly afterwards, there’s an extremely phallic shot of Puss’s boot while he’s sitting in the bar with his feet up.

Not pictured: Subtlety.

There’s a scene about halfway through the film where Kitty Softpaws makes a comment on the golden eggs: “Can you imagine laying one of these? Ouch!” Puss also refers to himself at a couple of points as ‘The Furry Lover’ and a ‘lover of beautiful women, a great, great lover’. Certainly these are concepts not completely understood by the film’s target audience, though likely to garner a chuckle from the parents or older siblings.

Overall this was a fun, though not particularly memorable view. It was interesting to see the back story of one of the most memorable Shrek 2 characters, even if it didn’t entirely live up to the hype. Puss in Boots is a fun, one-off view, sanitary enough for younger audiences, with a few chuckle-inducing innuendo-moments for older viewers.

This review is brought to you courtesy of Hoyts Cinemas Australia.