Puss in Boots (1999) User Reviews (7)

If you're 'feline' in the mood for fun, this is the movie for you!

[steve-mayall · 9 January 2004]

Everybody knows the story of Puss in Boots - where the downtrodden and neglected farmers cat leaves home in search of fame and riches in ancient london town, only to discover that there is actually nothing better than a saucer of milk by a warm fire. Well thats this film in a nutshell. But Judge Reinhold brings a warmth and charisma to the whole tale that's unique. Fans that were a bit surprised to see him take on a more cut-throat persona in the Beverly Hills Cop series of films will take heart from the return to form which we saw in such films as Vice-Versa and Ping!

The moment Reinhold, as Gunther. realises that he has been milking his cat for all its worth just to please the Princess is pure magic. Michael York is ok as the cat but for me, this is Reinhold's film. A perfect Christmas Day treat.

Not the worst animation I have seen - wait, yes it probably is

[chmollo · 2/10 · 2 May 2022]

My youngest child took a liking to this film which we had lying around the house for some inexplicable reason. Graphically and sonically it is appallingly bad. Most scenes are shades of red. As if that weren't enough to induce a headache, wait until you hear Judge Reinhold's singing. I give it 2 because it's so bad you can kind of enjoy it. The song "why won't you marry me?" is kind of catchy, but often the vocals and music don't seem to relate to each other. Quite an experience. Michael York's performance as the very annoying cat is also quite reasonable, in a film where the king's great dramatic line is "oh dear oh dear". You have been warned.

Worst Animated film ever!

[the_only_eddyc · 1/10 · 8 May 2008]

This film totally blows.

It's simply an embarrassment to the animated fairytale genre. The characters are animated about five times and then just move over the background, the dialog reeks and the music sounds like it was written by a 7 year old.

Admittedly I did not rent this one for myself but sat down and watched the first 20 minutes with my 3 year old son. It was one of those films that made me cringe everything about it was off putting, in fact one of the songs was so ludicrous it actually made me laugh at just how bad it was. If anyone is thinking about watching this film, don't your money and life will be wasted.

worst tale ever seen

[nb0000 · 1/10 · 5 December 2006]

I do not recommend anyone to view this movie. Awful graphics, awful music, awful texts. The figures are drawn maximal three times, and these are moved in front of a stupid background. Probably the original language is somewhat better then the Hungarian version. You can do anything and be better entertained as you would watch this tale. If i were the author, i did not publish this peace of work, when i saw the final version. It's simply horrible. I don't wish to see this film even not for my enemies. It could be a punishment to have to see the tale more than 5 minutes at once. There is nothing more to say about this film, if it even deserves this title. It should be just called motion picture.

This just felt like it was lacking a lot.

[Angels_Review · 1/10 · 26 December 2013]

WHAT THE HELL IS THIS? You take a look at it and tell me that this doesn't look like the stupidest thing in the world! The animation is poor, the story is messed up, and the script is pissing me the hell off! THIS IS NOT HOW YOU MAKE AN ANIMATION! THIS IS HOW YOU GO UNDER FAST! It circles around one rather whinny boy and his rather strange talking cat. The characters are rather flat characters with no depth to them. They say what they think and nothing more to their character. Just… There is nothing much to say of this! Alright, who really thought that this was actually good animation to have realistic images and almost still like animation? It's like it was created in flash instead of being made in an actual studio. The mouth movements are overly exaggerated and the face seems to bounce awkwardly. Characters seem to squash and stretch without reason. They just look like flat planes that bend in and out of frame when walking. This is not how to make an animation! This is the laziest show I have ever seen now! Not to mention that most of the characters don't have any shading too. I can't tell where the hell the lighting is to this show.

The singing and voice acting is pretty lack luster, the characters feel like they are forcing the emotions and/or act as though there is no emotion to them. I mean so much of this feels unrealistic in the writing. There are way to many jokes that make no sense at all and are way to pushed in that I can't take any of this seriously. Just… no… Don't watch this show.

A hilarious & unusual rendition of this fairy tale!

[mouseleaves · 9/10 · 22 March 2017]

By "today's standards," I guess I can understand why other user reviews might be so disdainful. However, compared to the "canned" and typical story lines of most kids' movies, this version of Puss 'n Boots was (and still is) a nice change-of-pace. Yes, it would be nice if the female characters had more input/spunk, if there were no reference to "being nude," and no violence. Despite those drawbacks, it is still a pretty good film.

I used to work with Kindergarten - 2nd-graders (in an after-school/daycare setting), and this was one of their FAVORITE movies to watch. The clever irreverence of Puss is juxtaposed against an exaggerated simpleness/ignorance of the human characters, making it clear who the "Hero" of the story is. The ways he "solves" problems is James-Bond-esqe (complete with music alluding to this reference). While it is true the characters are not superbly deep/complicated, that is exactly why the kids liked this movie so much -- it spoke to THEIR sense of humor, spunk, and desire for "adventure." Character depth, in an animated kids' movie, is a relatively new phenomena (probably intended to keep the accompanying adults entertained). The "lack" of it does not indicate a poor-quality movie, given its INTENDED audience...

The animation IS different -- deliberately so. The mix of typical cell animation with computer digitization offers a visually intriguing style that doesn't have the typical run-of-the-mill appearance. All the kids I watched this movie with liked the colors used, and the "blocky/wavy" appearance of the characters. It WASN'T what they were used to seeing, so it caught (and kept) their attention.

Over the course of seven years (2000-2007), this movie continued to be one of the top favorites of the kids I worked with, despite all the new-style Disney films available. Sure, they liked those too. But this particular one (in addition to "The Scarecrow," 2000) had a "vibe" that kept the kids asking for it again and again.

I would caution those (adults) who are giving it bad reviews -- please remember that this was created and intended for a CHILD/young audience. Every child I observed watching this movie REALLY enjoyed the experience. Note, of course, these were school-aged children. Not sure it's really intended for toddlers (who have a notoriously short attention span...)

Hilarious, fun and wildly underrated!

[samanthabrinn · 10/10 · 12 November 2022]

I remember loving this movie when I was young and now watching it as an adult I love it just as much. This take on the "Puss in Boots" fairytale is nothing more than a fun ride, which is why I think it is so hugely misunderstood. It's witty, random and just so weird in the best way! At no point does this movie take itself too seriously. The only "complaint" I would ever have is the poor animation but even that I think adds to the quirky nature of the film. If you have an open mind then I would highly recommend taking just one hour out of your day to sit down and watch this movie... maybe after a few drinks too. ;)