Cinematic Smackdown: Puss in Boots

Puss in Boots - 3/5
(dir. Chris Miller)

Whew... Dreamworks kind of dodged a bullet on this one. They've been trying for nearly fifteen years to carve out a niche and keep pace with the Pixar powerhouse: where Pixar cast a broad net that won over pretty much everybody, Dreamworks went into edgier, more "adult" territory. (We're not talking Heavy Metal-adult, but just compare Antz to A Bug's Life, and you'll see the difference.) Their biggest success, of course, was Shrek, a series which became ubiquitous in the early party of the century: four movies in nine years, nearly $3 billion in domestic/international box office, and God knows how much in advertising and toys. Each sequel, however, produced diminishing returns, and the critical response was becoming less and less enthusiastic... Dreamworks Animated needed a shot in the arm. Puss in Boots may not be the creative surge that will suddenly put them on par with Pixar, but it's at least a step in the right direction.

That's the prologue. Now onto the main issue: is the movie any good? I'm happy to report: yes, it is good. It is not great, nor does it compare to the Pixar titles with which it so desperately wants to compete, but it is entertaining enough in its own right and well worth your time.

The film is superbly animated, with lush colors and a vivid landscape. The settings range from non-descript saloons, Western vistas, and Spanish villas to legendary castles, clouds, and a giant of fairy tale vegetation. A few shots were definitely designed to take advantage of 3D technology, but otherwise I feel that the option is unnecessary.

Antonio Banderas does great character work, playing the comedy straight and laying the machismo on thick. The script is not as good as his performance, but he makes up for it. The supporting characters, unfortunately, are less inspired. Salma Hayek is the saucy femme fatale, playing Banderas's love interest for the sixth time in their careers. Her work is serviceable, but she is not given as much to work with. She's always been more beauty than actress, so casting her in an animated role reveals her limitations. Then there's Zach Galifianakis, whom I've never been a fan of, as Humpty Dumpty. He gets a few good laughs, but is unfortunately trapped in the predictable, melodramatic role of sidekick-turned-villain-turned-sidekick-again. The best gags exploit the absurdity of him being a talking egg, yet acting like an over-the-top villain nonetheless. Rounding out the cast is mostly forgettable work from the likes of Billy Bob Thornton and Amy Sedaris.

The main problem is that the film simply tries too hard to give Puss and company more depth than they need. He's an anti-hero cat - do we really need all the excessive flashbacks to his lonely childhood, or the misunderstanding that made him an outlaw? ... Or virtually the same flashbacks and backstory to flesh out Humpty Dumpty? A film like this should feel Go, Go, Go! - instead it feels padded, as though the filmmakers were required to fill ninety minutes despite not having ninety minutes of material.

I'm not trying to say it's a bad movie; on the contrary, I'm saying that Puss in Boots manages to be a good and very entertaining movie despite these drawbacks. I already mentioned the animation, but there are a plethora of great, inspired gags which I won't dwell on too extensively because the surprise is half the fun. Suffice to say the film's action-epic sensibilities work in its favor, and the biggest laughs come from the pitch-perfect balance of satire and seriousness. There are rousing action scenes involving all manner of medieval weaponry, horse chases, heroes and villains alike swinging from ropes, tempting their fates - all involving cute and cuddly animals.

The movie has its fair share of problems, but most of these are in the script. If you just sit and watch and not worry about issues with the plot or tenuous circumstances and get in touch with the kid in you, you'll have a good time. Enjoy.