CommentsXp
Best movie ever!
Ceticultsot
Beautiful, moving film.
AnhartLinkin
This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.
Solomon Terra
I'm sure my impression of it would have been much better had I listened to it in the original French. But William Shatner was a horrible, horrible, HORRIBLE choice for the voice of the English version. His raspy, shaky voice and constant non-verbal noises he kept making just utterly ruined it. In the prior release, for English-speaking audiences, I suppose we were spoiled by Antonio Bandaras' as the cat. Shatner's Puss was just plain nails-on-chalkboard awful. Totally ruined any potential enjoyment I might have been able to get out of it. The story itself was okay, though definitely a bit on the "silly" side - but it doesn't seem to be geared towards an adult audience, so that's okay.I can't really comment on the French version, though surely they had to have a better voice than Shatner. If you're listening to it in English, just don't expect an experience even remotely similar to the original movie release. This movie was nothing like it. At. All.
Ryan Merten
There are elements to this movie that are very pretty. Many of the visuals are stunning, excellently deep textures throughout. The characters by and large good but their movements can be very strange at times.The real problem is the murkiness of the story. A narrator would have been an excellent improvement. Without an internal monologue or narration the cat seems to be crazier than you would guess. The setting is perplexing with random elements from Spanish, Middle Eastern, and French styling with no clear rhyme or reason. Also for no clear reason a school of ghost fish come to life near the end. yep.The voice acting was also painful. Namely Shatner's cat voice is something to truly despise. The monkey is Jamaican? Most disappointingly is that they didn't get a quality singer for the princess.This last point sticks out because there was a lot of music in this movie. It has a charming American Indie vibe including stripped down percussion and on occasion a ukulele. But her voice fails to be either traditional or suitably indie.Also the Ogre is inexorably dumb and useless as a villain.
extrema-2
Based on the cover of the DVD, my children and I honestly thought we were renting the new Dreamwork's movie "Puss and Boots" already out in time for the holidays.I don't understand what is happening here. The DVD was on the "New Releases" shelves of our video store, but the released date is 2009... Is this a new re-release in order to mislead people into buying or renting this dreadful movie ? They obliviously designed a cover picture to look exactly like the beloved Shrek character. Dreamwork should sue them our of their misery.Stay away from this movie.
classifieds2000
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.
