IMDb > Puss in Boots (2011) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Puss in Boots
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Puss in Boots More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 2 of 14:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]
Index 137 reviews in total 

20 out of 34 people found the following review useful:

The Shrek franchise is getting quite overdone.

Author: david-sarkies from Australia
9 December 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This is one of those films that as soon as it started it irritated me. I cannot really put my finger on it but to be honest with you, I really did not like it. For those who don't know, Puss in Boots (as played by Antonio Banderas) was one of the characters from the Shrek films (I believed that he first appeared in the second one). Now, I actually quite liked the character in Shrek, but this film seemed that it was pretty much attempting to capitalise on a franchise that is pretty much getting done to death.

Now, while Shrek is set in some fairy tale fantasy land, Puss in Boots appears to be set in Mexico. However, the odd thing is that at one point they suggested that it was Spain, however I do not believe Spain has any deserts with large mesas in it. While Spain appears to be a dry temperate country (much like Greece), the setting simply seemed to get to me. I did not seem to make sense that the character, who originally appears in some fairy tale, is suddenly in some sort of Mexican hero type movie, and bringing Humpty Dumpty (Zack Galifianakis) and Jack and Jill (as ugly looking bad guys) made the setting even more unbelievable. Okay, this is a cartoon, but if the whole purpose of a movie is to suspend ones disbelief, this film failed to do it.

We hear the back story of Puss in Boots in this film, but then the whole back story is irrelevant when one considers Shrek. Puss in Boots was a great character in Shrek, but did not work here, even though the whole film is based around it. The story is that Puss was an orphan dropped off in an orphanage, and there he meets Humpty Dumpty, and Humpty sets him up when he steals a heap of gold from the bank. They flee, but Humpty is caught, and Puss deserts him, not out of selfishness, but because Humpty betrayed him. Later, Puss meets another cat, Kitty Softpaws (have no idea who she is supposed to be, but I guess she is just a character created for the film) when he is trying to steal some magic beans, the same magic beans from Jack and the Beanstalk. I guess all I have to say is that and you can then work out the rest.

Seriously, attempting to bring European fairy tales into a Mexican setting really didn't work for me, but then I might work well for others. My brother enjoyed it, but then he has simple pleasures, and it might quite appeal to kids, but in the end, it really didn't appeal to me.

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 13 people found the following review useful:

A rip roaring good time.

Author: Steven from Columbus, Ohio
29 October 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I went into this film, wanting to see it but with mild expectations. The director of this film is Chris Miller, whose most recent film as a director was Shrek the Third, which I thought was the worst one of that series. He has redeemed himself here. Something I noticed on this film was that Miller relied more on the story in the film, rather than put in too many pop culture references.

Antonio Banderas comes back from the Shrek series to voice Puss in Boots, once again. Banderas shows that there is no other actor who can voice this cat. In his own film, Banderas makes Puss into a much more lovable character. In the story, Puss is an outlaw in his hometown of San Ricardo. If seen, he will be arrested and put behind bars indefinitely. He has a mission to find magic beans.

Immediately, he has an unknown rival who is also after the same magic beans. After a long series of chasing and fighting, we find out that it is Kitty Soft Paws, voiced by Salma Hayek. Hayek does great a voicing this sassy cat with no claws, and can steal from one without that one realizing it.

It turns out that she was working with an old friend turned nemesis of Puss named Humpty Alexander Dumpty, voiced by Zach Galifianakis. Zach does an excellent job of becoming this socially awkward egg, who needs Puss for a job involving the magic beans. However, Humpty has a secret of his own.

These magic beans are heavily guarded by a husband and wife bandit couple named Jack and Jill, who are voiced by Billy Bob Thornton and Amy Sedaris. They are after the same thing Puss and Humpty are after, and want the rewards all to themselves. Thornton does a bit of a mix of his own regular voice and the voice he used when he was Karl Childers in his film Sling Blade. Sedaris made Jill sound like an angry hick.

The story is fun as it is about who Puss in Boots was before he met Shrek and Donkey. The five main characters were all well developed and well played. The visuals in this film are stunning. The animation was spectacular as the scenery is amazing. The music is great as it feels part spaghetti western, part modern day swashbuckling tale.

As for a family film. the kids will enjoy it. The parents will be able to sit through it and enjoy a good story for themselves. Even those who are not kids or parents, like myself, will enjoy watching this film.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Cute movie and surprisingly had an actual plot

Author: Crystal S from Ohio
1 November 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I wondered how they would make an entire movie of Puss In Boots, but I loved him in Shrek so I wanted to see this movie. It starts off kind of boring but when you see the plot develop it gets good. I like the introduction of a worthy opponent who of course is a female feline. Humpty creeped me out the entire movie but I felt justified at the end as to why I never warmed up to him. Kind of reminds you of Rumplestiltskin in the last Shrek. It's a mixture of action, sad flashbacks, cuteness (seeing Puss as a kitten is adorable!) and I guess you could call it tragedy but not too much as of course movies like this always have a happy ending. Also the references to fairy tales was enjoyable as in the Shrek films. I would see this movie again, it's not a riveting, thought-provoking film by any means but for what it was and what I was expecting it did pretty well!

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

Not as good as I had hoped.

Author: peakcrew from United Kingdom
8 January 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I'd been looking forward to seeing this for some time, but hadn't been able to go to the cinema due to confounding circumstances.However, I wish I'd waited to see it on DVD. There is very little imagination of the type I loved in the Shrek films - overall, it seems lazy.

Something else that annoyed me is that the bad guys are very one-dimensional, with no ludicrousness to take the edge off their nastiness. Jack and Jill are just awful people, and the pig thing just didn't take. Humpty is just a psychopath with no redeeming features. I might have been able to overlook this more if Puss and Kitty had been strong characters with things to like, but they weren't.

The only time I raised a smile was during the dance-scene in the Glitter Box - and that was because of the patrons of the place, who I would have liked to have seen much more of.

So, beautifully filmed, exquisitely animated, but lacking in fun or imagination. I could have done something much more fulfilling with my afternoon.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

The Cat Came Back

Author: Chris_Pandolfi from Los Angeles, CA
28 October 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

If you were to ask me who my favorite character is from the "Shrek" films, I would have to say Gingy, the Gingerbread Man. Apart from getting a kick out of his hilariously exaggerated voice, I've always had a certain fondness for him; he's so small, and yet he's capable of doing big things, like defiantly telling Lord Farquaad to eat him and then spitting into his eye. And believe you me, no other character could have delivered the line, "We're up Chocolate Creek without a popsicle stick!" But don't get me wrong, I like Puss in Boots a great deal. How can anyone not like him? He's an adorable orange cat with a cool swashbuckling getup and a magnetic Spanish voice. It's no wonder to me that he's the star of his own spin off film. While it gave me nothing new as far as family-friendly animated comedies go, "Puss in Boots" is bright, beautifully rendered, and just plain fun.

I used the word "bright." Let me make it clear that I'm referring to the film's tone. Had I been smart and seen it in 2D, then maybe the word would have had double meaning. But no, I had to see it in picture-dimming 3D, which was not immersive so much as it was assaulting. It begins the instant the film starts; the boy on the DreamWorks Animation logo takes his fishing rod and swings it around like a whip, causing the line to snap directly at our faces. There are many moments like that in this movie, which may account for why it contains more than its fair share of action. One sequence has Puss running across rooftops, through windows, and between alleyways; the problem is that much of it is seen from his perspective, so the objects that constantly zoom past do nothing but blur our field of vision.

But I'm just rehashing my usual complaints about the 3D process, which I'm sure you're tired of at this point. Let's move on. The CGI is impressive, the characters are appealing, and the plot is serviceable for both children and adults alike. Although the location has shifted from the forests of Far Far Away to a costal Mexican village, making it more of an animated western parody, the film is very much a fantasy, and like the "Shrek" films, it pokes fun at characters from nursery rhymes and fairy tales. There is, of course, Puss (voiced by Antonio Banderas) – suave and seductive, less a figure of children's literature and more a feline reboot of Zorro. Exclusive to this story: Humpty Dumpty (voiced by Zach Galifianakis), who must supply at least one egg-related pun ("I'll tell you this: It ain't over easy!"); and Mr. and Mrs. Jack and Jill (voiced by Billy Bob Thornton and Amy Sedaris), murderous thugs built like hulking trolls. The idea of them procreating is just shy of nauseating, hence the joke that they always talk about starting a family.

The story involves Puss and Humpty reteaming after years of being apart. I will not divulge the specifics of their separation, except that they were raised as brothers in a local orphanage. Together, they plot to steal three magic beans from Jack and Jill, climb the gigantic beanstalk to a castle in the clouds, and find the Goose That Laid the Golden Eggs. Tagging along is a new character, Kitty Softpaws (voiced by Selma Hayek), a master pickpocket and Puss' inevitable love interest. They meet under circumstances common in action films: He fights under the incorrect assumption that she was a man. Well, that isn't quite true; they don't fight so much as dance competitively. Only in a cartoon world can you successfully blend martial arts with flamenco.

Apart from the bold visual style, I took notice of Henry Jackman's score, skillfully composed in the style of Hollywood westerns. You probably know the sound I'm talking about – trumpets, castanets, Spanish guitars, and whistling comprise the bulk of the orchestra throughout much of the movie. I found it very infectious, especially during the aforementioned dance sequence. More dancing is reserved for the start of the end credits. You'll appreciate this if you're a cat owner, as I am; rows of cats "dance" by playing with spots of light moving on the floor in perfect unison. I can personally attest to the fact that cats are very easily distracted by random points of light. God help me if I use a flashlight or laser pointer in my house.

I digress. I cannot sit here and say that "Puss in Boots" is the year's best animated film, because it most definitely isn't. But the long and short of it is, it achieved everything it wanted to achieve, and I certainly enjoyed watching it. Here is a film children won't mind watching and parents won't mind taking them to see – provided, of course, that they can save the extra money and see it in standard 2D. I wouldn't blame them for making that decision. If they're paying your way in, they deserve the privilege of a bright picture, bold colors, and scenes that don't have swords and cats flying out at you. I would wager kids would like it better that way, too. And now that this film has been made, I think it would be a good idea for the "Shrek" people to tell a story based on Gingy. I just love that guy, don't you?

-- Chris Pandolfi (

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

"Puss in boots" use to be funny!

Author: martinrobertson300482 from United Kingdom
25 January 2012

Like most, i thought the "Shrek" movies were OK. "Shrek 2" was the best off the bunch by far, and this was partly (maybe even mostly) due to Antonio Banderas stepping in as the hilarious "Puss in boots." A spin off with him as the lead seemed like a good idea, but really, this just felt like "Shrek 5" this.

The Problem with the movie is that side characters tend too be way funnier in small doses. "Puss in boots" was the funniest character in the other movies, but here he feels over-used. I was expecting this film too be hilarious, but it really doesn't feel like their trying too make this a comedy, more another mish mash off different fairy tales. There just aren't that many funny jokes, and many off the gags are recycled or worse. I hate puns, and this film is full off them. Not only cat puns (a bar the cats in the flick go too is called the "G"litter box, get it? Litter box? Sigh!) but "Humpty Dumpty" being in the movie leads too a number off God awful "egg" puns as well. Plus a lot off characters trousers seem too randomly drop down. Is this really such a great gag they feel the need too keep doing it?

Granted this was a hard one too pull off, and does have some amusing moments, but more focus has been put on the story than the humour. Trouble is, I wanted gags, and the plot is just a few classic fairy tales thrown together. Wasn't the original idea off "Shrek" too make fun off these classic "Disney" style stories. Feels more like this wants too be one, than a spoof off them. Disappointing!

Was the above review useful to you?

21 out of 38 people found the following review useful:

Better than expected, but far from greatness.

Author: chris-massa from United States
4 November 2011

"Puss in Boots" is a perfect example of a movie I absolutely never would have seen if I hadn't gotten a pass to a free screening. And if I had gone to see it — and, to reiterate, I wouldn't have — there's simply no way I would have seen it in 3D. But it was free, so I did. I guess you could say I had low expectations.

Some background: I loved "Shrek", I basically couldn't stand "Shrek 2", in part because I found the Puss in Boots character more annoying than charming, and I never bothered with the other "Shrek" sequels. Life is just too short. So I expected "Puss in Boots" to be, at best, tolerable, stupid, and intermittently funny. Imagine my surprise when I found that it was somewhat better than tolerable, more than intermittently funny, and actually kind of clever.

The story, as should be expected from a member of the "Shrek" lineage, plays fast and loose with fairy tale characters, plot points, and conventions. Puss, an orphaned cat now branded as an outlaw, joins forces with Humpty Dumpty, an egg of questionable intent, and Kitty Softpaws, a feline fatale, to steal the magic beans from Jack and Jill, grow a magic beanstalk, and find the golden goose of legend. Naturally, things don't go according to plan, and the plot thickens. It's pointless, but fun.

There are instances of real invention here. The first is the setting, which is sort of a medieval spaghetti western, although the western card was played better in "Rango". There are several great visual gags, like what happens to Humpty's covered wagon, and a dance fight that is easily the best part of the movie. Without giving anything away, I'll also say that, the more you think about the identity of the "monster", the funnier, and the more fitting, it becomes. However, the storytelling is sloppy at times. There's at least one plot point that is dispensed with far too quickly, and the fate of one character simply doesn't make sense. Still, it all kind of works, and the good parts are good enough to help you forget the shortcomings.

Ultimately, the movie is saved by its pacing and its animation, which, as much as I hate to admit it, is absolutely stunning in 3D. I can't recommend paying the 3D up-charge, but I will say that those who do will probably not be disappointed. This isn't a cheap, gimmicky use of 3D, but one that actual adds depth and detail. There was one particular scene, a chase that, oddly enough, reminded me of "Honey, I Shrunk the Kids", where I found the use of 3D really creative. Would I pay for the 3D? Probably not, but for those looking for a 3D experience, you could do a lot worse.

"Puss in Boots" also raises the question of whether or not it's worth it to have major stars as voice actors. Actually, I take it back. This movie doesn't so much raise that question as answer it, resoundingly, with a no. As much fun as Antonio Banderas is as Puss, I'm not convinced that he brings anything to the role that a lesser known actor couldn't have brought. Salma Hayek and Zach Galifianakis are completely wasted as Kitty and Humpty. Billy Bob Thornton is a good choice as Jack, but that's largely because of the clever writing. Understand what I'm saying: I'm not being critical of these actors' work. I am being critical of the decision to cast them in a picture like this, where the most clever aspects of their characters come from the animation, not from the vocal performances. My suggestion would be to save the money needed to hire such big names, and use lesser known actors, perhaps from Broadway. That way, it would be easier for "Puss in Boots", a movie that many people will approach with a deserved amount of skepticism, to make money, and struggling actors will find more work. Believe me, the movie won't suffer from it.

This isn't high art. It's not nearly the equal of "Shrek", and it doesn't have one iota of the heart of most Pixar films, or of DreamWorks' "How to Train Your Dragon". But at the same time, it's not bad for what it is. It's clever, witty, well-made, and fast-paced. It's nothing like a masterpiece, but as far as diversions go, it's quite diverting.

Was the above review useful to you?

40 out of 77 people found the following review useful:

Below average but enjoyable

Author: Scottles from Australia
15 December 2011

Here's the good news: the artwork is outstanding, and the kids will love it for the most part.

Here's the bad news: the story is cobbled together and confusing - children used to strong story backbones like the Pixar films may find their attention wandering. I mean compare this to Up - it's chalk and cheese.

This comes across as an idea (money making opportunity) looking for a real story to carry it - it will be enjoyable for kids, so shouldn't be avoided, but it will hardly be remembered in a few years time.

For some reason IMDb likes 10 lines to make it a legitimate review! - strange because this film doesn't need 10 lines to get to it's gist!

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Good movie, really annoying when thought about

Author: altair2478 from Australia
21 June 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

It's a good movie, it was enjoyable and well animated, if it was a stand alone film (as in Shrek didn't exist) then it would be even better. But that is why I only gave it a 5 because it has one of the biggest plot holes I have ever seen in a film.

The premise of the movie is that Puss was wrongfully labelled a criminal and then became an outlaw, and he spends the movie trying to right his wrongs and let everybody know that he is a nice, law abiding cat. So if this is all a prelude to Shrek, and Puss really is a nice guy and doesn't want to break the law and tries so hard to prove his innocence, why does he then become a hit-man? A sellsword if you will?

In Shrek 2, The King hires Puss to kill Shrek, as Puss is the only one who could manage the job. This means that he has been in the industry for quite a while. Meaning that he isn't actually a law abiding cat. This is why I didn't end up liking Puss in Boots.

It was a good film, and as an independent film it would be marvellous, but I just cannot look past this problem, it's like the creators either didn't care enough about their movies to realise this problem, or knew about it but just couldn't care enough to bother changing it.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Beautiful and fun

Author: wildwesth from United States
5 November 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

A fine, fun adventure for kids and their parents. I saw it in old-fashioned 2D and a couple of scenes knocked my socks off. First and foremost, the acting was superb. Antonio Banderas is a remarkable voice actor. His acting, and his comedic timing, combined with one incredible scene have made the film forever memorable.

And that scene is the scene when the magic bean stalk grows. There are only a very few motion picture sequences in the history of cinema that are so beautiful, amazing and filled with spirit they touch you down to the toes. I was awe struck.

We remember such cinematic and artistic genius in scenes from Gone With the Wind, Citizen Kane, Lawrence of Arabia, Bambi, 2001's light show sequence and a very few other films that have gone on to become classics.

The only film in the last five years that had such a stunning shot was in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, when we are flown onto the workshop floor where whole planets are being made. The scene pulls you in with such artistry and beauty that your jaw drops and you realize you are seeing something truly magical and wondrous.

That is the best way to describe the scene in Puss In Boots when the main characters are caught up into the sky and playing among the clouds in that most remarkable sequence as the beanstalk shoots upward in graceful vines exploding lyrically with life. It is sure to become a part of motion picture legend, as legendary as the scene in Bambi when winter first arrives and Bambi and his friends play in the snow and on the ice; or the scene in Star Wars where we are whisked into hyperspace for the very first time, or the Millennium Falcon is pulled into the death star.

The whole film is just great. But this is the greatest moment and nails the entire film as a contender for becoming a classic.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 2 of 14:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history