The 1931 Puss in Boots is a weird, musical fever dream

So, is this 1931 version of Puss in Boots worth your time today? Honestly, only if you’re a bit of a film nerd or someone who finds old, slightly creepy costumes funny.

If you’re expecting the flashy, smooth-talking cat from the modern movies, you’re going to be very confused. This is for people who like seeing how movies used to struggle with sound when it was still a brand-new headache for everyone.

Kids today would probably find it terrifying, or just really boring. 🐱

The movie starts off and you immediately realize this isn't a cartoon. It’s a guy in a suit.

The cat looks... well, he looks like he’s seen some things. The face on the costume doesn't move at all, so he just stares at you with these wide, blank eyes.

It’s almost like watching a mascot from a haunted theme park. I found myself looking at the whiskers more than the actual actors.

The whiskers look like they were made of stiff wire or maybe broom bristles. They don't move when he talks, which is super distracting.

The story follows the usual beats from Charles Perrault, but everything feels a bit more like a stage play that someone decided to film on a Tuesday. Robert A. Simon wrote the script, and he clearly wanted it to be a big musical.

'Wee' Willie Robyn is in this, and he does a lot of the heavy lifting with the singing. His voice has that high, thin quality that you only hear in recordings from that era.

It’s like listening to a ghost singing through a telephone. The sound quality is pretty rough, let's be real about it.

There’s a constant hiss in the background that sounds like someone is frying bacon in the next room. At one point, the cat is talking to the King, played by Oscar Ragland.

Oscar looks like he’s having a decent time, but his costume is so heavy he can barely move his neck. He’s got this big crown that looks like it’s made of gold-painted tin and it looks like it's about to slip off.

The whole set has this 'hand-painted' feel. The trees are obviously flat pieces of wood that someone stuck in a stand.

If you’ve seen Life's Blind Alley, you’ll recognize that same cramped studio feeling. The movie doesn't really try to hide that it’s being filmed in a small room.

There’s a moment where the cat is 'running' through the woods. You can tell he’s just running in place while they slide a background behind him, or maybe he's just hopping weirdly.

It’s charming, I guess. Or maybe it’s just cheap. But it has a personality that modern CGI movies lack.

It feels like real people were sweating under hot lights to make this happen. The ogre scene is the highlight for me, though it's very short.

The ogre is just a big guy with a lot of dark makeup and a messy wig. When he turns into a mouse, it’s just a quick camera cut.

One frame he’s there, the next frame there’s a tiny toy mouse on the floor. It’s so simple it’s almost funny. 😂

Cinematic perspective: Exploring the visual vocabulary of Puss in Boots (1931) through its definitive frames.

The cat 'eats' the mouse, and you can see the actor just palm it really quickly. It’s not exactly Avatar level technology, you know?

I liked the boots, though. They are very large and very shiny.

The cat clomps around like he’s wearing wooden clogs instead of soft fur. It makes every scene feel a bit more ridiculous than it should be.

If you like the pacing of One Exciting Day, you might find this a bit slow. There’s a lot of standing around and singing about nothing.

The Miller’s son, played by Robert Skilling Jr., is fine. He’s mostly there to look handsome and be confused by his talking cat friend.

I think Junior Addario was in this too, but it’s hard to tell who is who under the heavy makeup and the cat fur. The lighting is very bright, like they were trying to kill the actors with heat.

They probably had to use massive lamps because the film stock wasn't very sensitive back then. It gives everyone a slightly washed-out look, like they’re all made of wax or old paper.

The movie is much weirder than something like Her Golden Calf. That one feels more like a real story with real stakes.

Puss in Boots feels like a dream you’d have after eating way too much cheese before bed. I wonder what the audience in 1931 thought of it.

They were probably just happy it had sound and they didn't have to read cards. The music by Nathaniel Shilkret is okay, but it’s very repetitive.

The same three notes keep playing whenever the cat does something 'clever.' It gets stuck in your head, but not in a good way.

It’s like a jingle for a soap product that doesn't exist anymore. I noticed a lot of the extras in the background look really bored.

In the castle scenes, there are people just standing there. One guy in the back looks like he’s trying to suppress a huge yawn while the cat is dancing.

I don't blame him. The dialogue is a bit clunky and heavy.

'Oh, noble cat, what have you brought me today?' It feels like they’re reading from a giant book just off-camera.

It’s definitely not as polished as Burn 'Em Up Barnes. That movie actually has some real energy and movement.

This one feels like it’s moving through molasses. But there’s something about the way the cat tilts his head that is just weirdly fascinating.

It’s a bit like Jazz Monkey in that regard. Just strange choices made by people who were still figuring out how to tell stories with sound.

One scene has the cat walking through a field that is clearly just a studio floor with some dead grass thrown on it. You can almost hear the camera crew