Ralph Breaks the Internet
Mission: Impossible - Fallout
Log in with Facebook
Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Sign up here
and the Terms and Policies,
and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and Fandango.
Already have an account? Log in here
Please enter your email address and we will email you a new password.
No consensus yet.
Tomatometer Not Available...
No consensus yet.
All Critics (5)
| Fresh (4)
| Rotten (1)
It's so brightly colored that the simple act of looking at it remains pleasurable even when the story vanishes into an insubstantial puff of smoke.
Mediocre songs, so-so animation...but it has Garland and Goulet singing.
Gay Purr-ee is pure gaiety.
Enjoyable animated feature.
Whoever said this was a well animated movie with decent songs, likable characters, good story, & great script must have been watching a completely different movie, because it is none of those. Gay Purr-ee is not only badly animated, but it is also so bad that it is almost laughable. But trust me, it gets worse.
As a huge fan of animated films (sticking to 2D & stop-motion/claymation), & currently learning more about the art of it in my university, my eyes were more opened to the world of other amazing animators ranging from Chuck Jones & Tex Avery (comedic gods!), to Frank & Ollie & Walt Disney (geniuses), & even some animation companies I've never even heard of (UPA). Speaking of which, Gay Pur-ee was done by UPA (United Productions of America), & I said to myself before beginning my homework on this company that if this was the type of movies UPA was giving the world, then it is perfectly clear as to why they died out (more on that later).
I've seen a wide range of animated films: from wonderful classics (Walt Disney Pictures, Studio Ghibli, & a few Warner Bros.), boring, predictable kiddie crap (Pixar), to plain out shit (animated Titanic movies, Chicken Little, Cars, Cars 2, Coolworld, & anything done by Video Brinquedo). But this movie is so close to being placed on the "plain out shit" list that it's almost sad. I find it so hard to believe that Chuck Jones, the guy who gave you "The Dot & the Line", actually had any involvement in this.
Plot/Story: What you get in here is a really corny story where the characters don't even make it better. The story of a pedigree, prim cat who wants to go to Paris because she feels she's too good for the 'country' life, & goes to the big city to only find herself being almost mistreated to become a proper cat. Sounds very familiar doesn't it? It isn't consistent, you don't know what the real point of the story even is, & it is so slow & bland that you would want to just stop the movie & play something else. But that & the bad story is the least of this movie's problems.
Characters: The characters are quite possibly the worst thing the movie offers, because the characters are unlikable messes, no development, & lack any consistent/real personalities. Mewsette (Judy Garland) is a fine, high pedigree cat who is a true bitch; she is ignorant, arrogant, & naive & blends those three very well. She first had no problem as to where she was at at the beginning of the movie, but then her owner's sister came from Paris, & said something about how Mewsette deserved to be in the finest places getting the most proper grooming & such for a cat of such luxury. Hearing that, Mewsette automatically 'realized' that she was miserable in the country side & hates how Jaune-Tom gives her horrible things. Real likable isn't she?
Jaun-Tom (Robert Goulet) is a free spirited tomcat that does what he can to impress the love of his life, Mewsette. He is an incompetent idiot that still loves an ignorant cat like Mewsette even after she pretty much told him to "fuck off" out of her arrogance. So, a tomcat that can have any other more elegant & beautiful country-side cat that won't be a complete bitch to him wants to stick with someone like Mewsette? Makes sense. Robespierre (Red Buttons) is Jaun-Tom's 'sidekick(?)' who seems to be the only one in the whole movie that is likable & intelligent (for what it's worth, & I use likable & intelligent very, VERY loosley). But don't get me started on him, & how bad his voice casting was (he did not sound like a kitten). I don't even want to get to the other characters in here because otherwise I'd spend an eternity on my laptop.
Animation: It's bad, just bad. UPA was well known for starting something new in their days; limited animation. The reason? Because one of the guys who started UPA originally worked for Disney, & felt like he was being forced to make animation realistic, & was only limiting what animation really should have been like. So they created limited animation to make cartoons more fun & wild & creative; something Walt Disney wouldn't approve of at that time. UPA created Mr. Magoo & Gerald McBoing Boing; two cartoons that were never impressive or amusing to me for various reasons that would just go way off topic of the movie.
They later began to work with some Hanna-Barbera cartoons all thanks to their limited animation success; however, with that, & if you know Hannah Barbera cartoons as well as I do, then you clearly know the result of VARIOUS HannahBarbera cartoons turned out poor to plain out appalling & some that you would actually argue with me about even existing(with the exception of Scooby-Doo, Tom & Jerry, & less than a handful of others). What I mean, that UPA's limited animation success in Hanna Barbera cartoons went from poorly animated to just laughable animated with clear signs of no effort put into them; Speed Buggy, Tomcats, The Thing, & Yogi are just a handful of perfect examples. But if anything, I'd definitely recommend you checking out The Thing because of how truly bad that cartoon really was (it really is that bad). Yes, The Thing himself from the Fantastic 4 actually got his own cartoon, but it was so bad that it died out quickly, & as I said, some people out there actually did not believe me when I told them that such a cartoon actually existed. I'll just say that Jabber Jaws (Scooby Doo rip-off, & the only spinoff Hannah Barbera did that was tolerable) lasted 10 times longer than The Thing did.
Anyways, back to the movie. So the animation is just really cheap, choppy, & completely unimpressive. It's not as bad as the animation in "Speed Buggy" or those Titanic animated movies, but it's still crap. The only animated redeeming feature this movie has is the backgrounds. The backgrounds are very Chuck Jones-esque, & are colorful with some very beautiful watercolor-like details.
Cast/Acting: The casting choices are unimpressive, & so is the voice acting. The acting isn't technically bad, but since the characters are so unlikable & annoying, & the animation is so poor that it overshadows the acting, & you will just forget it's decent.
Music: Awful, just awful. The opening of the movie starts with Judy Garland singing an unnecessarily overlong musical number (guess people really, really wanted to hear Garland sing in an animated movie), & the rest of the musical numbers are horrible, do not support the story or even fit in, & are bland at best. The worst part about these numbers is how outdated they are, & they will not get better in time.
Final summation, this movie sucks, period. I am quite surprised that people are actually positively reviewing this garbage. It is not properly animated, it has no likable characters, the story is weak, the plot isn't there, the musical numbers are crap, & the dialogue is laughable. You know what? It just seems like a really bad rip-off of Disney's "The Aristocats".
Yes, I know this movie came way before Aristocats, but trust me, seeing how bad this movie is, especially compared to The Aristocats, you just can't help but feel that this is a very middling, & poor effort of a rip-off of that movie. Yes, it's that bad. I find it hard to believe that anyone who is over the age of 10 could find anything to like in this movie. If anything, you're better off watching Don Bluth's Thumbelina or A Troll in Central Park, because at least in those (as bad as they are) you'll find a story (for what it's worth) & wonderful animation.
Writer Note: Sorry I haven't written anything in a long time guys; I've been so busy with my university work that I have little to no time for myself, let alone even to write a review for here. So why did I write a review for THIS of all movies I COULD have written? (Prometheus, Breaking Dawn Part2, The Hunger Games, The Cabin in the Woods, Skyfall) Well, because this movie was so bad, that I actually had all the thoughts clustered in my mind ready to be written out. Movies like Prometheus, The Muppets, ParaNorman, Breaking Dawn Part 2, Frankenweenie, Hunger Games, etc. as amazing as those were, I would have spent a LONG time thinking of all the great things they had & trying to write them out to make them make sense in the reviews. So deal with this lol.
P.S. Yes, I thought Prometheus & Breaking Dawn were amazing. Anyone who wants to argue with me about it can suck. Those two movies are NOT for anyone that takes movies seriously. And even if they were bad (which they're not), they are NOT Battlefield Earth, House of the Dead or Manos the Hands of Fate.
This movie is pretty good, but Aristocats is much better, I recommend that movie over this one. Of course if you like Garland, I'd say see this movie anyway. It's sort of fun.
View All Quotes