Reading/Watching Log
In which I finally catch up with three movies that everyone else saw at least two years ago: Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides and Puss in Boots.
Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows
Well, first things first: they killed Irene Adler. THOSE BASTARDS!
2011/12 was not a good year for Irene. As conceived by Arthur Conan Doyle back in 1891, Irene Adler was an opera singer and adventuress who fell in love with a dishy lawyer and wanted to leave her past behind her. Harangued by a semi-obsessive ex-lover who was paranoid over the existence of several photographs of the two of them together, she managed to realize that Sherlock Holmes was on her trail, outwit him by a stint at cross-dressing, and leave the country a free woman with hubby and photograph in the bag. At no point did she give a shit about Sherlock himself, though he came to hold her in the highest regard.
And yet her two most recent appearances involve her:
a. working alongside Moriarty in his capacity as a consulting criminal, trying to blackmail the British government with the information she tricks Sherlock into decoding, being outsmarted by Sherlock because she let her feelings for him get in the way of her work, and ends up a hostage of a terrorist cell on her knees, about to be beheaded, when she’s rescued by Sherlock
b. working as an agent of Moriarty, getting in way over her head, and eventually being assassinated by her boss since, in his words: “you’ve succumbed to your feelings for [Sherlock].”
So basically, Rachel McAdam’s Irene is Stuffed in the Fridge, and Lara Pulver’s ends up a Damsel in Distress, and both of them are undone by their uncontainable feelings for Sherlock Holmes. Apparently a female character that isn’t a love interest and/or totally obsessed with the male protagonist is clearly unfathomable to writers these days.
Look, I can understand that source material has to be changed to a certain extent in various adaptations, but if you’re going to start tinkering with the basics, then at least make your finished product BETTER than what you started with. If you’re going to take a fab character and simply cover her in all the femme fatale/ disposable woman/ love interest clichés you can muster, then why the hell bother?
Okay, rant over. I’ve got my eye on Elementary, for if anyone is going to get Irene Adler right, it’s these guys. Casting Natalie Dormer is a good start, though she’s very much known for playing sexpot characters. That’s not a bad thing in itself, but not really what Irene Adler was ever about. And I’ve no doubt that they’ll try and pull a romantic angle with her because it seems that Irene has been completely integrated into this role, but hopefully they’ll avoid the other pitfalls that have recently plagued her character.
Right - back to Game of Shadows.
Plotwise, it bore no real resemblance to anything in Arthur Conan Doyle’s canon of deductive mystery stories (at least, not until their take on the Reichbach Falls) though I wasn’t particularly fussed by this. It was essentially an action movie starring a hero that uses the Sherlock Scan as a superpower, with a bit of a buddy-comedy and a steampunk vibe thrown in for good measure. Guy Ritchie keeps up a frenetic pace, and though the Adrenaline Time can get a bit much at times (the run through the winter forest was completely self-indulgent) there were a lot of really nice set-pieces: Moriarty clearing the restaurant with a clink of his glass, the inverted tarot-card reading between Sherlock and Sim, and that split-second moment between Holmes and Watson when the latter comes through the balcony door and locks eyes with Sherlock just as he topples backwards over the edge.
The Holmes/Watson dynamic was amusing to watch, and it’s interesting to note that it’s a complete flip of the relationship as it's written on the BBC’s Sherlock. There Sherlock is an arrogant self-diagnosed “high-functioning sociopath” with Watson trundling after him like a long-suffering puppy dog, whilst this Watson is an independent, well-respected doctor that Sherlock seems borderline obsessed with. There was some total pandering going on what with the two of them dancing, Holmes throwing newlywed Mary from the train and later telling Watson to “lie down with me,” but the way Jude Law and Robert Downey Junior bounce off each other keeps the story rolling along.
I was surprised that Moriarty was introduced so early; not only in the sense that Jared Harris reveals himself rather quickly, but that Sherlock is already fully immersed in their self-described “game of shadows.” For the most part I really enjoyed Harris’s take on the character as a professor (as in, a genuine professor who lectured and studied at a university) and who retained a calm, collected demeanour throughout. He was mercifully far, far, FAR less manic than Andrew Scott’s version - in fact even putting the word “manic” in a sentence describing him is absurd, and as such he ends up a lot more intimidating than his television counterpart.
Also along for the ride is the gypsy Simza, who appears to be a replacement female character for Irene, but with far less to do. She’s essentially a tagalong to the boys - a very fetching tagalong who partakes in a couple of neat action sequences, but a tagalong nonetheless. It’s a bit of a waste of Noomi Rapace, but at least no shoehorned-in romance pops up between herself and Sherlock (or Watson for that matter).
But despite what happens to Irene and what doesn’t happen to Simza, the film does wonderfully well by Mary. There’s no question that she’s a pretty cool lady (at no point whatsoever does the narrative throw her into the role of shrewish wife/unwanted third wheel) and between grabbing the gun from her husband to point at the would-be assassin and handling Moriarty’s notebook when Sherlock sends it to her, she plays a fairly crucial part in the proceedings. And Sherlock does in fact send it to HER, trusting that she’ll know what to do with it. At the end there are two subtle but lovely scenes in regards to her relationship with Sherlock that speak volumes, first when Moriarty doesn’t just threaten Watson’s life, but Mary’s as well (at which point she has grown enough in Sherlock’s esteem that a threat on her life has a negative impact rather than a “yay!” reaction) and second when Mary tells her husband: “I miss [Sherlock] too, in my own way,” demonstrating that she bears no ill-will toward Sherlock but knows she can’t possibly miss him to the same extent Watson does.
In any case, what we get here is the remarkable sight of a canonical het romance “interfering” in a canonically intense male friendship, in which the woman a) isn't written as a shrewish interferer, b) doesn't have a go at Sherlock unless he does it to her first, and c) is completely confident in both her relationship with her husband and Sherlock’s place in their lives. Her reaction to the state Watson finds himself in on their wedding day is beautifully played by Kelly Reilly: mild exasperation, but ultimately no big deal. If you’re going to write quasi-love triangles that pit bromances against romances, then please do it like this.
As for the rest of the cast, they more or less function as extras: Stephen Fry plays himself playing Mycroft Holmes, Mrs Hudson and Inspector Lestrade have exactly one scene each (not counting their silent presence at the funeral) and Constable Clark turns up for a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it moment.
There were a few odd bits and pieces, such as why Moriarty bothered with bombs when his back-up plan of using poisoned darts were so much more effective and subtle, and that there was no sign of the much-vaunted wireless-control-mechanism that Irene went to so much trouble to steal for Moriarty in the first movie, but for the most part it’s an enjoyable film - and was successful enough to warrant a third outing.
(Oh, and buy the way, if you were impressed by all mental fist-fighting that Sherlock and Moriarty get up to, check out Hero. I’m pretty sure it’s where Guy Ritchie got the idea).
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
So, is it like a rule now that any plot of a Pirates of the Caribbean film has to be as indecipherable as possible? I can follow something complex or twisty, but these films (barring the first) are a whole other ballgame. I spent the entirety of World’s End wondering just what the heck was going on, and though this was not quite as convoluted, there is still WAY too much plot for what should just be a simple treasure hunt with a couple of fun twists along the way.
Maybe the trouble is that most of the exposition is given whilst people are sword-fighting or running around out of breath. Trying to learn the plot rules regarding what the characters need to get to the Fountain of Youth, how Blackbeard controls his ship and his crew of zombie pirates, how they're meant to drink the water once they have it (with the two chalices), and the whole prophecy regarding the circumstances of Blackbeard’s death whilst you can barely hear the characters speak is a bit of a challenge. The fact that many of the action sequences felt obligatory instead of organic didn’t help either.
Likewise, in the first film the screenwriters wrote a pirate, and it was Johnny Depp who really created Jack Sparrow with all those zany characteristics. Since then, it’s felt as though the scripts have been written to accommodate Sparrow’s idiosyncrasies instead of an actual story. Plus, I have what I fear is a stupid question: was this is a sequel or a prequel? I get the feeling it was the latter, but I could never be too sure and I suppose there was no real reason for it not to be either one. I missed the rest of Sparrow’s crew sans Gibbs, and I couldn’t recall whether Barbossa had a wooden leg last time around or not. So based on all that, I’m going to say...prequel?
Still, there was one scene of pure magic that made up for the rest of the confusion, and that was when the pirates went hunting for mermaids. It was eerie and atmospheric and spine-tingling, and I actually gasped as the men turned to see the first mermaid unexpectedly leaning on the side of the boat. What a striking, unexpected, unnerving moment. Their singing was haunting, the camera panning down from their torsos to their lower-halves inspired, and the chaos and claustrophobia of the ensuing fight extremely well shot.
I can only imagine fandom reaction when it became apparent that Penelope Cruz would be joining the Pirates cast as a potential love interest for Jack Sparrow, but it turns out that she and many of the new characters (Blackbeard, Philip, Syrena) were just too impossibly bland to really care about. In regards to Angelica’s motivation, I have no idea why she wanted to play saviour to her father or what exactly her feelings for Jack were - okay, it’s fine to have a little ambiguity regarding her true intentions toward both men, but when you end the film and still don’t have much idea of what she wanted, it becomes a problem.
That goes same for Philip and Syrena, whose love story is told entirely in stares and bad lines. Again, I never really got a fix on either of these characters or why (for example) Syrena chose to save Philip’s life. According to her: “you’re different.” According to him: “you’re different.” Mmmkay. To their credit however, they are the only human beings alive that give Puss in Boots a run for his money in regards to giant puppy-dog eyes.
It was rather sad to see Richard Griffiths as King George in light of his recent death, though Judi Dench’s little cameo was fun. And if nothing else, the film has inspired me to replay Monkey Island.
Puss in Boots
Now, this is more like it. A smooth plot that managed to integrate a lengthy flashback without slowing things down, action sequences that were creative and organic, and surprisingly deep characterization for its protagonist and the supporting characters. Plus, I’ve always loved the design of the Shrek franchise, for even when the movies in the original series began to go sour, there was a real creativity in how they reimagined the host of familiar fairytale characters and the world in which they inhabited, which always looked so lush and colourful. That’s no exception for Puss in Boots which is visually gorgeous, melding elements of Jack and the Beanstalk and a typical Spaghetti Western together to create a story that also deals with themes of betrayal, redemption and filial love.
Wow, that’s quite a feat considering the last Shrek film was just It’s a Wonderful Life.
Again, I’m left unclear whether this was a prequel or a sequel, though I’m leaning more heavily towards a prequel since it more or less explored Puss’s origins - though that doesn’t explain how he goes from a loveable outlaw to an assassin-for-hire in Shrek 2. But the thing is that I often found Puss to be a little superfluous in the Shrek films. This was apparent as early as the second film (his first appearance) and the more so in the two sequels. It was as though the writers had come up with this fantastic idea for a character - and yes, Puss in Boots as a tiny swashbuckling bounty-hunter/assassin/mercenary that uses his big dark pleading eyes as a superpower and is voiced by Antonio Banderas is a FANTASTIC idea for a character - but had very little clue of what to do with him.
So in that regard, he was an obvious choice for a spinoff movie, and he actually ends up with more depth and resonance than Shrek himself (yeah, I said it) what with his devotion to his adopted mother, his struggle to do the right thing, and the complex relationship he has with his brother. Humpty Dumpty is another brilliant character, both in design and characterization. Voiced by Zach Galifianakis, he is a complex character on many levels. Bullied as a child for being - well, an egg, he also goes down a very dark path in his teenage years, which - combined with his tangled feelings for Puss (a mix of brotherly love and jealousy) gets him in a lot of trouble with the law. Once the flashback catches up with present-day events, we find that Humpty wants to make amends for his crimes, and it’s quite difficult to pinpoint whether or not he’s being sincere.
Either way, he provides interesting insight into the theme of “nature versus nurture” and the fact that darkness can exist in a person’s soul despite a powerful imagination, big dreams, a fairly solid upbringing and a loyal friend. He and Puss make great foils for each other in regards to their life choices, their final decisions and their innate goodness, and (as with many other Shrek characters) Humpty’s character design is fabulous. In this case, much is made of his physical restrictions - he’s either lumbering along on his two feet, or he’s rolling on his side (either by his own volition or because he’s been pushed/fallen over) which comes complete with the inevitable listing to one side that you’d expect when you roll an egg-shaped object. It’s gorgeous attention to detail.
I was somewhat less keen on Jack and Jill, who were here portrayed as a redneck couple with a steampunk cart pulled by warthogs, and Salma Hayek as Kitty Softpaws is to this film what Puss in Boots was originally to the Shrek franchise - a lot of fun, but somewhat superfluous. There is an attempt to give her a little bit of depth by having her share that she’s been declawed by her owners, but this doesn’t really add much and for the most part she’s there to give Puss someone of the opposite sex to bounce off of. (In this, she’s rather like Angelica in Pirates).
HOWEVER, I would definitely hesitate to call her “just a love interest” (urgh, I’m really starting to hate that phrase - it’s up there with Mary Sue as the new way of passive-aggressively critiquing female characters with something that sounds vaguely like a feminist argument) as she’s given a unique set of skills, there’s a fun running-gag in which she swipes various articles of clothing/other objects from other characters without them noticing, and she doesn’t in fact end up with Puss. The film ends on a “catch me if you can” note, and I could easily see her handling her own spinoff somewhere down the track.
There were a couple of false notes in the world-building; not only does it seem like a huge disappointment that the giant at the top of the beanstalk was long-dead, but the fact that it was the baby gosling and not the mother goose that was pushing out large golden eggs was decidedly strange. A baby laying eggs? Really? Why not just have our thieves steal the gosling after realizing that the eggs are far too heavy to carry, knowing that the baby will grow up to be a layer? This would have also avoided the inevitable havoc done to San Ricardo’s economy after they start handing out solid-gold eggs to the population.
And finally, I’ve always loved the little bits of absurdist humour present in the Shrek franchise, whether it be Humpty Alexander Dumpty, the random cat that went “oooh!” after anyone else did/said something cheeky, Antonio Banderas’s manly voice emerging from Puss’s kitten form, or the continual reminders of Puss’s inherent cat-like nature (lapping milk from a shot glass, getting distracted by moving lights, or reverently bringing a dead bird to his mother). There’s a silliness to it all that’s played with such earnestness and unself-consciousness by the characters that it makes it all the funnier.
***
So, had a lot of fun with these three movies (some more than others) and am more than happy to add them to my DVD collection. Don’t you just love bargain bin sales? You end up owning movies for less money than you would have paid to see them on the big screen.
Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows
Well, first things first: they killed Irene Adler. THOSE BASTARDS!
2011/12 was not a good year for Irene. As conceived by Arthur Conan Doyle back in 1891, Irene Adler was an opera singer and adventuress who fell in love with a dishy lawyer and wanted to leave her past behind her. Harangued by a semi-obsessive ex-lover who was paranoid over the existence of several photographs of the two of them together, she managed to realize that Sherlock Holmes was on her trail, outwit him by a stint at cross-dressing, and leave the country a free woman with hubby and photograph in the bag. At no point did she give a shit about Sherlock himself, though he came to hold her in the highest regard.
And yet her two most recent appearances involve her:
a. working alongside Moriarty in his capacity as a consulting criminal, trying to blackmail the British government with the information she tricks Sherlock into decoding, being outsmarted by Sherlock because she let her feelings for him get in the way of her work, and ends up a hostage of a terrorist cell on her knees, about to be beheaded, when she’s rescued by Sherlock
b. working as an agent of Moriarty, getting in way over her head, and eventually being assassinated by her boss since, in his words: “you’ve succumbed to your feelings for [Sherlock].”
So basically, Rachel McAdam’s Irene is Stuffed in the Fridge, and Lara Pulver’s ends up a Damsel in Distress, and both of them are undone by their uncontainable feelings for Sherlock Holmes. Apparently a female character that isn’t a love interest and/or totally obsessed with the male protagonist is clearly unfathomable to writers these days.
Look, I can understand that source material has to be changed to a certain extent in various adaptations, but if you’re going to start tinkering with the basics, then at least make your finished product BETTER than what you started with. If you’re going to take a fab character and simply cover her in all the femme fatale/ disposable woman/ love interest clichés you can muster, then why the hell bother?
Okay, rant over. I’ve got my eye on Elementary, for if anyone is going to get Irene Adler right, it’s these guys. Casting Natalie Dormer is a good start, though she’s very much known for playing sexpot characters. That’s not a bad thing in itself, but not really what Irene Adler was ever about. And I’ve no doubt that they’ll try and pull a romantic angle with her because it seems that Irene has been completely integrated into this role, but hopefully they’ll avoid the other pitfalls that have recently plagued her character.
Right - back to Game of Shadows.
Plotwise, it bore no real resemblance to anything in Arthur Conan Doyle’s canon of deductive mystery stories (at least, not until their take on the Reichbach Falls) though I wasn’t particularly fussed by this. It was essentially an action movie starring a hero that uses the Sherlock Scan as a superpower, with a bit of a buddy-comedy and a steampunk vibe thrown in for good measure. Guy Ritchie keeps up a frenetic pace, and though the Adrenaline Time can get a bit much at times (the run through the winter forest was completely self-indulgent) there were a lot of really nice set-pieces: Moriarty clearing the restaurant with a clink of his glass, the inverted tarot-card reading between Sherlock and Sim, and that split-second moment between Holmes and Watson when the latter comes through the balcony door and locks eyes with Sherlock just as he topples backwards over the edge.
The Holmes/Watson dynamic was amusing to watch, and it’s interesting to note that it’s a complete flip of the relationship as it's written on the BBC’s Sherlock. There Sherlock is an arrogant self-diagnosed “high-functioning sociopath” with Watson trundling after him like a long-suffering puppy dog, whilst this Watson is an independent, well-respected doctor that Sherlock seems borderline obsessed with. There was some total pandering going on what with the two of them dancing, Holmes throwing newlywed Mary from the train and later telling Watson to “lie down with me,” but the way Jude Law and Robert Downey Junior bounce off each other keeps the story rolling along.
I was surprised that Moriarty was introduced so early; not only in the sense that Jared Harris reveals himself rather quickly, but that Sherlock is already fully immersed in their self-described “game of shadows.” For the most part I really enjoyed Harris’s take on the character as a professor (as in, a genuine professor who lectured and studied at a university) and who retained a calm, collected demeanour throughout. He was mercifully far, far, FAR less manic than Andrew Scott’s version - in fact even putting the word “manic” in a sentence describing him is absurd, and as such he ends up a lot more intimidating than his television counterpart.
Also along for the ride is the gypsy Simza, who appears to be a replacement female character for Irene, but with far less to do. She’s essentially a tagalong to the boys - a very fetching tagalong who partakes in a couple of neat action sequences, but a tagalong nonetheless. It’s a bit of a waste of Noomi Rapace, but at least no shoehorned-in romance pops up between herself and Sherlock (or Watson for that matter).
But despite what happens to Irene and what doesn’t happen to Simza, the film does wonderfully well by Mary. There’s no question that she’s a pretty cool lady (at no point whatsoever does the narrative throw her into the role of shrewish wife/unwanted third wheel) and between grabbing the gun from her husband to point at the would-be assassin and handling Moriarty’s notebook when Sherlock sends it to her, she plays a fairly crucial part in the proceedings. And Sherlock does in fact send it to HER, trusting that she’ll know what to do with it. At the end there are two subtle but lovely scenes in regards to her relationship with Sherlock that speak volumes, first when Moriarty doesn’t just threaten Watson’s life, but Mary’s as well (at which point she has grown enough in Sherlock’s esteem that a threat on her life has a negative impact rather than a “yay!” reaction) and second when Mary tells her husband: “I miss [Sherlock] too, in my own way,” demonstrating that she bears no ill-will toward Sherlock but knows she can’t possibly miss him to the same extent Watson does.
In any case, what we get here is the remarkable sight of a canonical het romance “interfering” in a canonically intense male friendship, in which the woman a) isn't written as a shrewish interferer, b) doesn't have a go at Sherlock unless he does it to her first, and c) is completely confident in both her relationship with her husband and Sherlock’s place in their lives. Her reaction to the state Watson finds himself in on their wedding day is beautifully played by Kelly Reilly: mild exasperation, but ultimately no big deal. If you’re going to write quasi-love triangles that pit bromances against romances, then please do it like this.
As for the rest of the cast, they more or less function as extras: Stephen Fry plays himself playing Mycroft Holmes, Mrs Hudson and Inspector Lestrade have exactly one scene each (not counting their silent presence at the funeral) and Constable Clark turns up for a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it moment.
There were a few odd bits and pieces, such as why Moriarty bothered with bombs when his back-up plan of using poisoned darts were so much more effective and subtle, and that there was no sign of the much-vaunted wireless-control-mechanism that Irene went to so much trouble to steal for Moriarty in the first movie, but for the most part it’s an enjoyable film - and was successful enough to warrant a third outing.
(Oh, and buy the way, if you were impressed by all mental fist-fighting that Sherlock and Moriarty get up to, check out Hero. I’m pretty sure it’s where Guy Ritchie got the idea).
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
So, is it like a rule now that any plot of a Pirates of the Caribbean film has to be as indecipherable as possible? I can follow something complex or twisty, but these films (barring the first) are a whole other ballgame. I spent the entirety of World’s End wondering just what the heck was going on, and though this was not quite as convoluted, there is still WAY too much plot for what should just be a simple treasure hunt with a couple of fun twists along the way.
Maybe the trouble is that most of the exposition is given whilst people are sword-fighting or running around out of breath. Trying to learn the plot rules regarding what the characters need to get to the Fountain of Youth, how Blackbeard controls his ship and his crew of zombie pirates, how they're meant to drink the water once they have it (with the two chalices), and the whole prophecy regarding the circumstances of Blackbeard’s death whilst you can barely hear the characters speak is a bit of a challenge. The fact that many of the action sequences felt obligatory instead of organic didn’t help either.
Likewise, in the first film the screenwriters wrote a pirate, and it was Johnny Depp who really created Jack Sparrow with all those zany characteristics. Since then, it’s felt as though the scripts have been written to accommodate Sparrow’s idiosyncrasies instead of an actual story. Plus, I have what I fear is a stupid question: was this is a sequel or a prequel? I get the feeling it was the latter, but I could never be too sure and I suppose there was no real reason for it not to be either one. I missed the rest of Sparrow’s crew sans Gibbs, and I couldn’t recall whether Barbossa had a wooden leg last time around or not. So based on all that, I’m going to say...prequel?
Still, there was one scene of pure magic that made up for the rest of the confusion, and that was when the pirates went hunting for mermaids. It was eerie and atmospheric and spine-tingling, and I actually gasped as the men turned to see the first mermaid unexpectedly leaning on the side of the boat. What a striking, unexpected, unnerving moment. Their singing was haunting, the camera panning down from their torsos to their lower-halves inspired, and the chaos and claustrophobia of the ensuing fight extremely well shot.
I can only imagine fandom reaction when it became apparent that Penelope Cruz would be joining the Pirates cast as a potential love interest for Jack Sparrow, but it turns out that she and many of the new characters (Blackbeard, Philip, Syrena) were just too impossibly bland to really care about. In regards to Angelica’s motivation, I have no idea why she wanted to play saviour to her father or what exactly her feelings for Jack were - okay, it’s fine to have a little ambiguity regarding her true intentions toward both men, but when you end the film and still don’t have much idea of what she wanted, it becomes a problem.
That goes same for Philip and Syrena, whose love story is told entirely in stares and bad lines. Again, I never really got a fix on either of these characters or why (for example) Syrena chose to save Philip’s life. According to her: “you’re different.” According to him: “you’re different.” Mmmkay. To their credit however, they are the only human beings alive that give Puss in Boots a run for his money in regards to giant puppy-dog eyes.
It was rather sad to see Richard Griffiths as King George in light of his recent death, though Judi Dench’s little cameo was fun. And if nothing else, the film has inspired me to replay Monkey Island.
Puss in Boots
Now, this is more like it. A smooth plot that managed to integrate a lengthy flashback without slowing things down, action sequences that were creative and organic, and surprisingly deep characterization for its protagonist and the supporting characters. Plus, I’ve always loved the design of the Shrek franchise, for even when the movies in the original series began to go sour, there was a real creativity in how they reimagined the host of familiar fairytale characters and the world in which they inhabited, which always looked so lush and colourful. That’s no exception for Puss in Boots which is visually gorgeous, melding elements of Jack and the Beanstalk and a typical Spaghetti Western together to create a story that also deals with themes of betrayal, redemption and filial love.
Wow, that’s quite a feat considering the last Shrek film was just It’s a Wonderful Life.
Again, I’m left unclear whether this was a prequel or a sequel, though I’m leaning more heavily towards a prequel since it more or less explored Puss’s origins - though that doesn’t explain how he goes from a loveable outlaw to an assassin-for-hire in Shrek 2. But the thing is that I often found Puss to be a little superfluous in the Shrek films. This was apparent as early as the second film (his first appearance) and the more so in the two sequels. It was as though the writers had come up with this fantastic idea for a character - and yes, Puss in Boots as a tiny swashbuckling bounty-hunter/assassin/mercenary that uses his big dark pleading eyes as a superpower and is voiced by Antonio Banderas is a FANTASTIC idea for a character - but had very little clue of what to do with him.
So in that regard, he was an obvious choice for a spinoff movie, and he actually ends up with more depth and resonance than Shrek himself (yeah, I said it) what with his devotion to his adopted mother, his struggle to do the right thing, and the complex relationship he has with his brother. Humpty Dumpty is another brilliant character, both in design and characterization. Voiced by Zach Galifianakis, he is a complex character on many levels. Bullied as a child for being - well, an egg, he also goes down a very dark path in his teenage years, which - combined with his tangled feelings for Puss (a mix of brotherly love and jealousy) gets him in a lot of trouble with the law. Once the flashback catches up with present-day events, we find that Humpty wants to make amends for his crimes, and it’s quite difficult to pinpoint whether or not he’s being sincere.
Either way, he provides interesting insight into the theme of “nature versus nurture” and the fact that darkness can exist in a person’s soul despite a powerful imagination, big dreams, a fairly solid upbringing and a loyal friend. He and Puss make great foils for each other in regards to their life choices, their final decisions and their innate goodness, and (as with many other Shrek characters) Humpty’s character design is fabulous. In this case, much is made of his physical restrictions - he’s either lumbering along on his two feet, or he’s rolling on his side (either by his own volition or because he’s been pushed/fallen over) which comes complete with the inevitable listing to one side that you’d expect when you roll an egg-shaped object. It’s gorgeous attention to detail.
I was somewhat less keen on Jack and Jill, who were here portrayed as a redneck couple with a steampunk cart pulled by warthogs, and Salma Hayek as Kitty Softpaws is to this film what Puss in Boots was originally to the Shrek franchise - a lot of fun, but somewhat superfluous. There is an attempt to give her a little bit of depth by having her share that she’s been declawed by her owners, but this doesn’t really add much and for the most part she’s there to give Puss someone of the opposite sex to bounce off of. (In this, she’s rather like Angelica in Pirates).
HOWEVER, I would definitely hesitate to call her “just a love interest” (urgh, I’m really starting to hate that phrase - it’s up there with Mary Sue as the new way of passive-aggressively critiquing female characters with something that sounds vaguely like a feminist argument) as she’s given a unique set of skills, there’s a fun running-gag in which she swipes various articles of clothing/other objects from other characters without them noticing, and she doesn’t in fact end up with Puss. The film ends on a “catch me if you can” note, and I could easily see her handling her own spinoff somewhere down the track.
There were a couple of false notes in the world-building; not only does it seem like a huge disappointment that the giant at the top of the beanstalk was long-dead, but the fact that it was the baby gosling and not the mother goose that was pushing out large golden eggs was decidedly strange. A baby laying eggs? Really? Why not just have our thieves steal the gosling after realizing that the eggs are far too heavy to carry, knowing that the baby will grow up to be a layer? This would have also avoided the inevitable havoc done to San Ricardo’s economy after they start handing out solid-gold eggs to the population.
And finally, I’ve always loved the little bits of absurdist humour present in the Shrek franchise, whether it be Humpty Alexander Dumpty, the random cat that went “oooh!” after anyone else did/said something cheeky, Antonio Banderas’s manly voice emerging from Puss’s kitten form, or the continual reminders of Puss’s inherent cat-like nature (lapping milk from a shot glass, getting distracted by moving lights, or reverently bringing a dead bird to his mother). There’s a silliness to it all that’s played with such earnestness and unself-consciousness by the characters that it makes it all the funnier.
***
So, had a lot of fun with these three movies (some more than others) and am more than happy to add them to my DVD collection. Don’t you just love bargain bin sales? You end up owning movies for less money than you would have paid to see them on the big screen.