El gato con botas

This animation movie is really useless. Not for smile, not for learn, without a useful moral. Graphics is banal and similar to other movies, does not add anything new to the gender. Also the soundtrack is not related with the supposed audience (I think this film was supposed for young guys, lessthen 10 year) since the song are mostly dance music. I think the writers of the tale supposed to tell a funny rearrangement of Puss'n Boots, but they dramatically fails. This kind of animation movies must be different from that movie. I think the director could work better than now. I can't find any reason to see this movie, only the title is appetizing, but this is a virtue of the marketing.. :). Not recommended.

Claims that this is trying to cash in on the Shrek movie may be true, we thought that was what we were renting. Still, when we realized, we were not disappointed and were willing to give it a try...

Only to be severely disappointed. The story is not compelling, the characters are unsympathetic and ugly in both visage and voice. The animation is weak and odd (and not in the cool good way). We waited for it to get better but it just trundled along in mediocrity. I fell asleep somewhere a little after halfway despite giving it my best. The survivors reported it was as bad through to the end.

I was intrigued to find out it is from France as it did have that vibe that used to come from several foreign-produced cartoons when I was younger (Dogtanion, around the world in 80 days etc). I think it's the way they try and cram the English language into French-animated mouths. Indeed, this may have succeeded more as a traditional cartoon, possibly a series.

To sum up, not worth watching. Go track down the Christopher Walken live-action version. I stumbled on it by accident one day and ended up watching it all the way through, spellbound.

This film is dreadful. I had rented a copy of the movie "The True story of Puss 'n Boots" because I thought it was by the same people who did the Shrek movies; the Puss on the DVD cover looked just like the one in Shrek. Instead, it was a horrible, badly animated regurgitation of the fairytale that looks like it was done in Belgium and is over-dubbed in English. It supposedly contains voice-overs by William Shatner, but you can find him among the other noise in the dialog. And many of the characters are just plain ugly: the drunken queen, the obese king, and the Fright-Night-Evil-Clown of a chamberlain may play overseas, but here in the US they're just awful in what is supposed to be a film for children. It was such an ugly, boring mess I turned it off after about 10 minutes. The Shrek people should sue these folk for false advertising, and anyone who rents this should be aware that it's NOT what it pretends to be.

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.

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.