Puss in Boots

[yoco]

Release Date: November 4, 2011 (3D/2D theaters and IMAX 3D)
Studio: DreamWorks Animation
Director: Chris Miller
Screenwriter: Tom Wheeler, Chris Miller
Starring: Antonio Banderas, Salma Hayek, Zach Galifianakis, Billy Bob Thornton, Amy Sedaris
Genre: Adventure, Animation, Comedy, Fantasy
MPAA Rating: Not Available

"Puss in Boots" - one of the most beloved characters of the "Shrek" universe - tells the hilarious and courageous (daring, bold, brave) tale of Puss's (Antonio Banderas) early adventures as he teams with mastermind Humpty Dumpty (Zach Galifianakis) and the street-savvy Kitty (Salma Hayek) to steal the famed goose that lays the Golden Eggs.

[SealLion]

so basically, it's a re-telling of Jack and the Beanstalk. Didn't Jack climb up the giant beanstalk to see what was near the top and then walk onto a fantasy cloud and basically walk in to the giant's castle and then steal the goose that lays the golden eggs?
I believe so.
Jack was seen as courageous as the character in this flick is identified.
But Humpty Dumpty was never in it. How could Humpty Dumpty be in a flick like this unless he got his egg shell pieces 'recycled' somehow?
Must've been one big job to do so since all the kings men and all the king's horses couldn't put Humpty together again, eh??
Someone must've glued back together all of his egg shells and then star him in this flick.

[slikrapid]

"Puss in Boots" - one of the most beloved characters of the "Shrek" universe

a re-usage of a character from a much older tale, which ofc is never mentioned, so it gets labeled as someone from the 'shrek universe' - either the creators of the 'shrek universe' were insufficiently creative/able to devise something new or they wanted to make a certain point (or both), not forgetting the sexual innuendos, visible in the character name (puss-y instead of cat) and contents (adoration of the star, the sex-symbol, with a possible additional homosexual element: female in male boots) or heroic attributes

interestingly, this character was actually a swindler, working for someone else (the mastermind), doing the 'dirty work' so that his master's interests get advanced - the visible con-man gets the (5 min. or more) fame & public attention, whereas the real puppet master(s) remain hidden in the shadows (or in plain sight, depending on their preference)

to steal the famed goose that lays the Golden Eggs.

so the children can see how its done...with fun - by stealing

Someone must've glued back together all of his egg shells and then star him in this flick.

naturally, he is a metaphor for something else - in this case he seems to be used in the role of a mastermind (notice the voice actor's possible nationality), sitting on his high wall...in control

and the street-savvy Kitty

which is yet another trickster to complete the deceiving trinity, one longing to be with/near the star(s) of the show

[SealLion]

Something that one might also notice is, that over the many years that Disney et al have produced animations with human voices is the replacement of animals over people.
What lies behind such ideas or does it make suggestions towards populations??
It's a distortion of reality. Animals, unless your a parrot or are a chimpanzee who's learned sign-language, normally do not communicate in human voices. They only communicate in various techniques of which there are many ( not necessary to evaluate here ).
But again, I see it as a distortion or reality. Animals shooting guns, animals eating with knifes and forks, animals reading books and riding horses. Animals flinging cowboy-hats off to the side and so on.
What lies behind distorting realities??
In my view, what lies behind it are a number of ideas which I believe have been purposefully placed into our subconscious.
Here they are:

1. A production of harmless diversions;
2. Hollywood reflects reality;
3. The media grants ( or gives ) what the population wants.

Those are some very big misconceptions that have been placed into the subconscious of the viewers minds since time eternal.

The above lies and mistruths are so pervasive and persistent in our lives that we don't even notice these things any more.
There exists a lot of anti-social behavior in many films. Gun shooting, knife-drawing, killing, wounding, car-crashing, exploding people, and what not.
People imitate these acts and suggestions. For example, people in RL killing somebody by cutting them up into little pieces. Have you never heard of people gone berserk and after they've nabbed someone in the dark of a back alley or meet them in a bar, they take them home, offer them a drink, and after they've fallen asleep, kill them and chop 'em up. Sure, they might be a little 'coo-koo', but the point is....where did they learn of such behavior??
Don't try to convince me they learned it all by themselves. Probably when little Johnny-boy was at the tender age of 10, watching some horror-flick, he saw somebody in the movie get all chopped up. " Hey! That's cool!"-- he thinks to himself.
Television sells, doesn't it??
That's the nature of it.
Let me extrapolate a little more of what and how the media influences us all, most particularly with this movie distorting reality.
Hollywood's fall-back defense of this "we don't influence" crap is that most people turn out to be OK. Most of us don't become violent. Children who later grow up and mature don't grow to become violent adults. Even though they watch lots of violent movies and TV shows. There may be violence in the different media, such as in movies and other films, but this continuing prevalence of decent people coming out from watching all this violence proves that it doesn't have any bad effects at all on our psyches.

So....basically, violence has no effect on people, eh??....ah ya. Sure.

That of course is the most illogical, deceptive, seductive, and dishonest defense that media can provide.
Do we see a distortion of things here yet, folks??

As much as advertising influences people, so does violence. Advertising, as equally as distorting reality whereby we've got animals talking or behaving like people, or even violence occurring in a show, influences the thinking and behavior of us. Mass media defines our ideas of 'normal'. Or rather---- redefines. And that is power. Power to suggest or to define for another.

Repeated exposure to these images has such effects.

As for reflecting reality. Let me explain this mistruth a little more.

Let's use spirituality for example.
The only images of religious or spiritual people you see are of people who are corrupt, crazy, and crooked. I do not believe that this is a true and correct reflection of society.
Another example is sexuality. How many sexual references do you come across on some TV show??...many no doubt.

Is that part and parcel to help explain the increasing numbers of STDs throughout North America??
Advertising that puts a woman on a billboard and she looks sexy. She's got lipstick on. She's skinny. She's got a gorgeous dress on that shows her figure well. So younger girls see this image and they want to be like the advertising model. When you see models on the runway, they're skinnier than a toothpick, for crying out loud. Is this the image that young girls are supposed to have??
I doubt it.

The idea that advertising and the media reflect 'reality' is a distortion and for lack of a better word: A lie.

[slikrapid]

But again, I see it as a distortion or reality. Animals shooting guns, animals eating with knifes and forks, animals reading books and riding horses. Animals flinging cowboy-hats off to the side and so on.
What lies behind distorting realities??

sure, a distortion of the known, creating something unknown/different, a distortion of the every-day/common reality, creating another kind of reality, tapping into the subconscious, etc. - writers do it all the time, people that use their imagination as well, artists of any kind, pretty much everyone does it to a certain extent

the other element is giving animals and other entities human characteristics, anthropomorphic descriptions and depictions

both are perfectly natural in itself, however when used for a certain malevolent purpose, like intentionally influencing human behavior while pretending to entertain (especially on a massive scale), then the unsuspecting public may indeed have a major problem

1. A production of harmless diversions;
2. Hollywood reflects reality;
3. The media grants ( or gives ) what the population wants.

interestingly,
1. it may be, if one has a good defense/understanding (oversaturation excluded)
2. it does to a certain extent, but its a crooked mirror to put it mildly
3. they do, but often it comes with quite a bit of likely unwanted 'extras'

where did they learn of such behavior??
Don't try to convince me they learned it all by themselves.

well, if we want to go back to the beginning, first there was life and then 'art', so long before the rise of the media (industry) all this behavior or at least some forms of it or some extent of the forms have already been happening (or have been imagined/dreamt/contemplated), but the distribution & visualization of this information was limited (though one might argue that it is all accessible/stored within the 'collective unconscious', constantly 'leaking' towards the individual conscious), the media took it on a whole new level of mass distribution (and exaggeration and misappropriation and indoctrination), hence the mass-media

Hollywood's fall-back defense of this "we don't influence" crap is that most people turn out to be OK.

(civilized) people only seem to be ok, on the outside they are mostly well-trained automatons with imagined freedom & status, whereas inside they resemble to living ruins of their true potential with many layers of fortified measures in the attempt to avoid confronting/realizing their true self

Mass media defines our ideas of 'normal'.

there is also the question of whether being 'normal' is something all that desirable - it may work for a structured society, but does it really work for the individual or does it actually drown one's uniqueness/diversity in the sea of normality/mediocrity? both seem to have some relevance, though i'd say its better to have excess in the department of individuality as opposed to the normalized collective

When you see models on the runway, they're skinnier than a toothpick, for crying out loud.

thats the attempt to make them look like young boys (to some extent also androgynous), an example of long-going & on-going perversions of the female to serve the male superiority concept

Is this the image that young girls are supposed to have??

it doesn't matter what the media attempts are, as long as these girls understand whats that all about and are mentally strong enough to be above it - however, if they, as adults, choose such a life, their free-will should be respected

[yoco]

[yoco]

[yoco]

I actually enjoyed watching this

6/10