The True Story of Puss 'n Boots (2009)

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

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 SIGNIFICANCEThe 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!"

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.

The sole purpose of creating films like these is to attempt to fool consumers into renting the wrong movie. Yes, looking really carefully on the cover can help avoid this sometimes (assuming you know what the "real" one actually looks like, and take the time to check in detail), but the companies that produce these kinds of films are just looking to make a quick buck. These movies are constantly released through outlets such as Redbox.Second, the movie is dull, extremely shallow and poorly written, that any Saturday morning cartoon is far superior to this rubbish. I will rarely criticize a movie on visual/technical qualities, but for ones that do a terrible job at the most basic story-telling I have little tolerance. Many of the sequences for even annoying and silly.