I appreciate that UPA tried to make a full-length cartoon that was different....and some parts of the film I really liked. But overall, I felt a bit bored by the cartoon and am sure as a kid I would have just gone to sleep instead of watching the film. Now I know that many people like the movie....it's just my taste.
"Gay Purr-ee" is unusual because UPA was known for making some of the fasted and simply animated shorts of the 1950s and 60s...with cartoons like "Gerald McBoing Boing" and "Mr. Magoo". They were popular and the studio received a few Oscars...though I just thought their products looked cheap. Their success led to good animation studios copying their style...and the once-great cartoons by MGM and Looney Tunes were a thing of the past because of this.
Now this is NOT to say that "Gay Purr-ee" is badly animated. The backgrounds OFTEN are gorgeous and are obviously inspired by Impressionist paintings. As for the characters, while the animation isn't great, for 1962 it's decent and a vast improvement over the usual UPA cartoon.
So with nice animation, why did I dislike the story so much? Well, I just found it rather dull...and think most kids would feel the same. The story about a nice country cat (Judy Garland) going to Paris and meeting up with an evil jerk (Paul Frees) has a few nice moments...but it also drags a bit and seems more like a film for adults...not the entire family. Watchable but it just didn't work for me.
"Gay Purr-ee" is unusual because UPA was known for making some of the fasted and simply animated shorts of the 1950s and 60s...with cartoons like "Gerald McBoing Boing" and "Mr. Magoo". They were popular and the studio received a few Oscars...though I just thought their products looked cheap. Their success led to good animation studios copying their style...and the once-great cartoons by MGM and Looney Tunes were a thing of the past because of this.
Now this is NOT to say that "Gay Purr-ee" is badly animated. The backgrounds OFTEN are gorgeous and are obviously inspired by Impressionist paintings. As for the characters, while the animation isn't great, for 1962 it's decent and a vast improvement over the usual UPA cartoon.
So with nice animation, why did I dislike the story so much? Well, I just found it rather dull...and think most kids would feel the same. The story about a nice country cat (Judy Garland) going to Paris and meeting up with an evil jerk (Paul Frees) has a few nice moments...but it also drags a bit and seems more like a film for adults...not the entire family. Watchable but it just didn't work for me.