\"Frankly, I expected him to be killed by one of his underlings...\"
Well, tEchNIcAlLY...
I do find the \"Nobody can have the treasure in the end, it must be destroyed\" thing a bit weird. Like, why is the movie even called The Last Wish? No one made a wish! On the other, I personally can\'t think of a way to resolve it otherwise. Puss, Softpaws or Goldi getting their wish via magic would damage the aesop, and Perrito would just wish for world peace. Maybe they could use it to save the life of a loved one, but that would be even more cliche (and could also damage the theme of mortality).
\"On the other, I personally can\'t think of a way to resolve it otherwise.\" Or... hear me out, I mean this will be crazy but... hear me out.
Nobody makes a wish. They kill Jack Horner by pushing the infinite bag into the destruction field while he is inside, realize that they got what they wanted, and think \'hey, perhaps we can leave this to someone who really needs it.\' and they go their merry ways.
This is what miffs me most about this weird \'nobody can have the treasure\' trope. Its \'Either I have it, or no one else will\' which is not only a stupid way of thinking, but also selfish. Sometimes its warranted like Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (The stone that was left was rightfully given back to the tribe and the other two would bring nothing but trouble). But most of the time its just a way of keeping a weird status quo. What if a kid got sick with fairytale version of cancer and the wish was his only way out? Or, I don\'t know, original baby bear from Shrek 1 wished his mom back or... there is a whole populace outside with all sorts of problems. By deciding \'nobody can have it\', the narrative just ignores everyone else.
The problem with an all-powerful wish is that it could potentially destroy all conflict going forward. On the other hand, the tension of an all-powerful wish being used for either good OR ill sounds like a promising sequel hook.
This sounds like a job for a They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot entry!
TO THE TROPEMOBILE!
Leave a Comment:
Pick it up. PICK. IT. UP.
So, this one was a bit of a surprise... Dreamworks is mostly focused on cash cows, so I wouldn't ever guess that they'd focus on a risqué movie focused on a secondary character. I watched the movies, thought that the last one involving Puss was bleh at best, but now, wow!
If there is something that Dreamworks strives, is a striking style, and this movie is no exception. The story goes through many different spots and each one has a gorgeous distinctive style (both visual and thematic, with a mish-mash of different time periods) and color palette, so nothing feels ‘samey’. It took cues from Spiderman: Into the Spiderverse with stronger color contrasts, especially when the groups enter the area where the Last Wish is located, with blurred effects.
In fact, I felt that these cues were actually detrimental. This because the animation is fluid and smooth, but whenever there is a fight or something more ‘stylish’, the animators break the flow with forced perspectives and ‘fake-broken’ frames per second, giving a visual whiplash. I prefer when the animation follows its own style and flow. Also did you know that the true inventor of this ‘fake 2D’ was actually Arc System Works, the game developer responsible for Guilty Gear and Dragon Ball Fighter Z?
The story quite good, being able to narrate a tale about facing one’s own mortality with grace and nuance, especially since Dreamworks isn’t known for nuanced writing. The arcs are well-defined, as in the introduction to the characters relevant to the plot, the trip has its usual well-used paces and it doesn’t feel overly rushed. The story also doesn’t shy away of killing characters in rather gruesome, but not gory ways nor showing blood. Most problems of the plot are a matter of personal taste, more than anything really ‘flawed’. For example, I loathe with a passion trite Disney-esque tropes and tribulations, such as “Nobody can have the treasure in the end, it must be destroyed” You could handle it far better.
If I had to point a ‘true’ problem, is that the character of Softpaws ended underdeveloped and out of focus: The narrative points out that she has several unresolved trust issues (and is a serial ‘backstabber’, though this isn’t brought up nor she gets called on it), and since most of her time onscreen is used in a love/hate relationship with Boots, there is no time to properly work on her as a character. It robs us of a proper interesting dynamic of a bond of trust that needs to be reforged through the trip and the equally valuable lesson that, to trust, you need to be trustworthy too. Just toning down the clichés would be good. In the end Softpaws has one chat with Puss In Boots and she is fine and dandy, issues forgotten (not necessarily solved), and her telling Puss she never went to the church either made her a hypocrite (I chose to believe she was lying) and she never gets called out on her behavior. Outside of the clichéd forced bitter comedy, the plot shows a really good chemistry between both characters and they synergize well!
The villains felt a bit tacked on. Goldilocks and her adoptive family of bears do have an entire arc of their own, but ‘the thing you wish is already in front of you’ is quite similar to Softpaws’s own arc (making it feel redundant), and Goldi’s manner which she treats her family of bears is never really addressed, just easily forgiven. Jack Horner who feels like a mix of Gru and Kingpin without any other literal sort of characterization besides ‘I’m evil, rich and greedy!’ didn’t feel threatening, nor efficient, nor intimidating. His design is a weird mishmash of bizarre proportions that make him look as if designed by a five year old. Frankly, I expected him to be killed by one of his underlings or Goldilocks. In the end, I think it would have been better to remove either Goldi or Jack and focus on the other alongside Softpaws.
The nameless dog was a pleasant surprise, I expected him to be a one-note annoying comic relief, but he is empathetic and has a good emotional intelligence, zeroing-in other characters psychological problems while he has absolutely no common sense whatsoever with hilarious moments. (The face off against the Bear family comes to mind)
But the star of the show is both Puss and the Wolf. A daredevil that thinks he is immortal, not caring for anything but glory until one day, he loses everything and has to deal with a new reality, and a sadistic implacable hunter that takes joy in breaking the 'fearless hero'. Antonio Banderas delivers a solid and flexible approach to Puss and his nine lives, and Wagner Moura shines as the Wolf, giving him a hell of a flair with a chaotic, but low-key approach. He may be sarcastic, then threatening, then friendly within the same scene with just a switch of tone of voice, reinforcing that you cannot predict how Wolf will behave (and the animation team hit the ball off the park with his visual and expressions). The whole situation with the wolf is cohesive and quite good, and it’s solved in an interesting, but equally believable manner. No deus ex machina or sudden depowering here!