I thought the movie was OK, but not very memorable. I don’t think either of them are going to age well, though, because they’re so dependent upon topical references. *Shrek * and *Shrek II * are going to be like the old WB cartoons that Turner Classic Movies sometimes run as shorts, where the host later has to explain the references to which the ancient jokes are keyed.
What Uvula Donor said. While I enjoyed both Shrek movies, it’s fairly obvious after watching them that they won’t age well. There isn’t much of a theme, or depth, to either of them, and the movies exist primarily as a vehicle to tell jokes about “hip” and “current” pop-culture references (an approach also tried by Shark Tale, but which just stank in general). The cinematic equivalent of cotton candy, IMO.
Suffice it to say, none of the Dreamworks’ CGI movies can hold a candle to Pixar’s stuff.
I liked Shrek 2, thought not as much as the first one. A lot of the little references – the ones that will probably make the movie extremely dated in a decade or so – made me chuckle. Especially the visual jokes on Los Angeles – the Angelyne-style Fairy Godmother billboard, Romeo/Rodeo Drive, the palm trees, even the people running out of one Farbucks into another Farbucks (you can do that very easily downtown).
My dad observed that while the first movie had a very straightforward fairy-tale plot, the second’s plot was a lot more convoluted. He wondered if the kids who liked the first movie would be able to follow the second. I pointed out that the first movie had dick jokes and an exploding bird whose young were then eaten by the heros. Not entirely a kids’ movie.
They did a lot more ambitious stuff with the visuals, taking advantage of the fact that the hardware and software behind computer graphics have been steadily improving.
I agree, though, about Puss in Boots. When the movie was over I thought to myself, Wait, everyone was talking about Puss in Boots. Why?? You could have easily taken the character out of the movie altogether!
Because he was so Fricken CUTE(in a good way).
Shrek was quite good, and Shrek 2 was okay. About “the ado”:
-
I think a lot more thought and time goes into any first movie (album, etc.) compared to a sequel, which is often put out quickly in order to reap a quick profit on the back of the first, compromising quality. There is a reason why Empire was not put out the year after Star Wars.
-
I didn’t see any movie reviewers give Shrek 2 a mediocre rating. They enjoyed it more than I did, or else were scared they would not be taken seriously since kids probably do like the sequel a lot.
I literally just finished it and can only echo your sentiments. It was OK. Nothing fantastic.
Two things I didn’t understand:
Puss In Boots did not do anything in the entire film. Even his jokes were not especially funny, and Antonio Banderas’s accent is so thick it never seemed like the cat was really saying the lines (though that happens to all the characters in the film quite a lot).
And the giant gingerbread man was rather pointless too. There were lots of better ways to write a scene of breaking into the palace than that absurd nonsense.
On a secondary note, the voices of Pinocchio and the gingerbread man are godawful. They’re just men doing horrible grating falsettos. There’s no character expressed in those screeching squealy voices!
Shrek is not worth even half the hype it’s been getting. It bothers me a lot that so many people go for crap like this so easily.
When will the studios learn that it’s allabout the story? Shrek had a story, the succces made the exec sit down and order a sequel, which gave the writers a task: write a plot line. Shrek 2 didn’t start with a story, it started with a board meating.
Brad Bird had an idea about super heroes, and a story to tell, he approached Pixar in '99 and they liked the idea of the story.
Star Wars had a story, which was fleshed out for Empire. Jedi was redundant and al the prequels are, in essence, just stupid. Every novice writer learns to cut out all the back story and cut to the chase. Lucas, having only one story to tell´, decided to make movies from the cut out back story, something that was originally left out for a reason.
Any good movie, book, tv show, starts with a writer who has a story to tell. When that story is finished, there’s no need to go on.
Curmudgen that I am, I was annoyed by the sheer volume of fairy tale/nursery rhyme/children’s literature characters one the one hand and all the lowest-common-denominator pop-culture references on the other all crammed into one time and place. “Sir Justin”? Harrumph!
I enjoyed it.
Not as much as the first one but a good movie in my opion.
Loved the little touches, especially how the police used a pepper mill to put pepper into the eyes instead of pepper spray. 
From the trailers I thought Puss would be great but at the end of the day he was nothing special at all.
Thought it would be better but still way better than Shark Tales.
Not seen the Incredicles yet but I’m expecting it to be waaaaay better.
Just you wait. Pixar’s contract with Disney ends after their next feature, Cars. I know people in High Places who inform me that they’ve got some super-cool and really revolutionary stuff in the works for when they go independant.
I popped in to comment… but you know, all I have to offer is: “I liked it because I liked it.”
I liked Shrek, and Shrek II, about equally. I really enjoyed it. Hubby and I will be adding them to our DVD collection to laugh over them again.
I do, however, think it was way overhyped. I’m not sure what you heard about Puss in Boots… but I went into the theatres knowing nothing about a new character, and I was simply overjoyed, because Puss in Boots is my favourite children’s tale character. Hearing Antonio Banderas’ voice just cracked me up. As I said - it was a complete surprise to me.
With both movies, I didn’t expect too much of anything going in to it, just to be entertained, as I would with any movie. I was. It’s not too heavy, kind of sweet, not hard on the brain or anything. I wouldn’t give it awards for brilliance or anything, but it’s one of those nice movies you can watch when you just feel like laughing at nothing, or you don’t want to think too much about it. Brain junk food.
Check the Rotten Tomatoes page for a few:
“Credit Shrek 2 for being the rare sequel that more or less equals its predecessor—the first film was garbage, and so is the second.” --Slant Magazine
“Anyone wanting to see well-crafted animated films that don’t rely exclusively on making fun of pre-existing material for their jokes should stick with Pixar.” --Film Threat
“A piecemeal plot that seems to go nowhere and be about nothing and wind up no place, somewhat effectively camouflaged by a number of intriguing but incidental bits.” --Washington Post
Unfortunately, I get that sense from all of Dreamworks animated movies, CGI or otherwise. I always get that uneasy feeling when their ads emphasize the celebrity voice talent over everything else.
I enjoyed the first one, although it had weaknesses, and looks like warmed over crap sitting next to any pixar film, it was okay. Thanks to the joys of procreation, I have now seen Shrek 1 about 60 times, and it doesn’t make me want to fricassee my brain after repeat viewings.
Shrek2, on the other hand was a disappointment, and I think, an example of what happens when a creative company is run purely for profit. Pixar has a certain purity about them that makes their movies gems. SKG doesn’t have it.
A couple of pittable offenses made by SKG on this disc…
[ul]
[li]The awful overuse of pop-culture references for 90% of the humor.[/li][li]Far Far Away Idol. Worst. DVD. Extra. Ever.[/li][li]On the damned DVD, there are three and a half thousand previews, and no way to skip them [/li][/ul]
I suspect all the good reviews must indicate that there are ways to buy good press for a movie. No way it would have gotten that much praise on it’s own credit.
A-bloody-men. I’ve bought only two PDI/Dreamworks DVDs, Shrek and Shrek 2. Unlike Pixar, none of the rest of their work has interested me enough to purchase it. The Shrek disk had previews, but not inescapable as does Shrek 2. Next time I do like a Dreamworks piece, I will rent it first. If it has the same “feature” . . . well, my money will be better spent elsewhere.
DD
I guess my subscriptions to Slant Magazine and Film Threat got lost in the mail that month. The Toronto newspapers were more effusive.
Just watched it last night. It was really “eh” until Shrek and Donkey went on their quest, then it picked up and ended strong enough to give it a thumbs up.
Was I the only one who expected Puss to channel Indigo when they’re trying to figure out out to break into the castle? j
-lv
Shrek did have the good will for having a anti-traditional ending: the princess chooses to be an ugly Ogre instead of Shrek be beautiful. The second movie just rehashed that theme, with no one having learned much of anything. And PiB was just kind of confusing. He fought Shrek for about a minute and then immediately became his devoted pal? He did it all for the money, but then claims to have misjudged Shrek? Eh?
I laughed a lot when I saw this movie. And I didn’t like the first one as much. I think the Puss in Boots character was the main reason. I know it was hard to figure out his motivation, but I think everyone is trying to get a little too deep about it. The joy of Puss in Boots is that he is supposed to be this mercenary swashbuckler, but he’s really just an ordinary cat, who gets furballs and licks his own butt.
I think that was one of the most realistic depictions of a cat ever.
Personally I really enjoyed Shrek 2. The references to modern pop culture were great, especially the ‘Mongo’ Gingerbread man resembling the Ghostbusters Marshmellow Man. The FarBucks. The “Far, Far, Away” sign. The fugitive on the white Bronco, etc. It was just great fun.
Personally I really liked the character of Puss in Boots as well. Just an amusing character in general. He’s just an ordinary cat, who has the ability to use a sword.