The amazing thing about the Shrek movies is their ability to both follow a formula, and yet move away from convention at the same time. I am a big fan of the original movie and the moment I heard they were coming out with a sequel, I was both excited for the sequel to come out and trepid with fear for what they might do in order to make me hate it. It seems as if so many movie studios decide to follow my 'derivative' formula for sequels. (1)
Rather than go through my usual breakdown of movie elements, I decided to talk a bit instead about what made Shrek successful, and what I hoped that its sequel would follow. Did it follow? Did it break new ground? Did it fall down on its face and become yet another of those horribly bad sequels?
You'll just have to read and find out (oh yeah, I'm following classic tension techniques, I know you're hooked after that exposition, just wait until the climax!!!)
The formula of the Shrek How is a movie able to be both conventional and unconventional all at the same time? Is this like one of those oxymoron things? Sort of like Jumbo Shrimp? Military Intelligence?
The thing that makes the Shrek institution (I'm calling it an institution now, as I fully expect more Shrek movies) so great is its ability to both follow a formulaic plot line followed by oh so many fairy tales and make it non-conventional. For instance, in the first movie, it was the fairy tale of the 'knight in shining' armor who saves the Princess from the tower (conventional), only the 'knight' turned out to be an Ogre (quite unconventional), and much hilarity ensued. The other key, was that it didn't take itself seriously. In other words, we saw that the film makers were having just as much fun with this movie as we were intended to have in watching it (very important concept here).
The question remains then (for the reader, as I've already seen the movie and made up my mind, you just have to wait until I decide to tell you in this review, the power is all in my hands {insert evil laugh here}), does Shrek 2 live up to the ideals set forth by the first movie?
In short, it does (I know, I gave over my tension building way too early in the plot line). In long, not quite so completely.
OK, OK, OK... I'm short of patience, what works for this movie?
I'm glad you asked, gentle reader, let me pontificate to you for awhile on this one...
As most good sequels go, Shrek 2 stuck with what worked. Everybody loved the comedy duo of Meyers and Murphy, and rightfully so, as they worked very well together in the first movie. I'm happy to report to you, that they worked together very well in the second movie as well. They haven't branched out into live cinema yet, but I really think they should (assuming their talents at working together translate well).
Secondly, much like the original, Shrek 2 doesn't take itself seriously, which is very important for much of the comedy that they are trying to portray. They still have taken a fairy tale setting and translated it a bit more into modern day (the “Far, Far Away” kingdom was quite classic), and the evil Fairy Godmother was quite nice as well. Yet, there wasn't too much of this so as to take away from the Fairy Tale aspect of the entire story, I still thought it was a Fairy Tale.
Thirdly, Shrek 2 uses some great animation to keep you interested (but I'll get into that later).
Now that you've pontificated on that Mr. Author, please tell us more about what didn't work?
This is a really tough one, and until recently I wasn't able to put my finger on what was missing from the sequel. The one thing that was missing, were the very powerful 'moments of random hilarity' from the first movie. Some of the examples from the first movie are: Princess Fiona singing with the exploding bluebird, Shrek and Donkey watching the introductory diorama to the kingdom, Robin Hood's fight with Shrek and Fiona.
There were some of these moments in this movie, its just that they weren't as powerful and funny as they were in the first one. Its possible that they haven't had the time to sink in and have me find them as funny, but as of this writing, I don't think they were as good in this movie. I'll just blame it on the sophomore jinx.(2)
The other area which I found a bit lacking was Diaz's membership of the comedy team. I thought that the interaction between Diaz, Murphy and Meyers in the first movie to be hilarious and one of the pieces that held the movie together, making sure it wasn't a completely 'buddy flick'. In the new movie, Meyers and Murphy are mostly on their own and are joined by Banderas, which moves the movie a bit more into the 'buddy flick' realm, which I really hope is not the direction that the Shrek team is taking the institution.
Animation, one of the hallmarks of the Shrek institution Please, please, please tell me that they didn't screw this part up, it means so much to me!!!
I'm glad to report, that they indeed did not screw up the animation in this movie. Just as in the last one, Shrek 2 pushed the envelope when it comes to animation. Where as in the original movie they had some of the most believable character animations that I had ever seen, I think that they have outdone themselves, in some instances coming as close to human looking characters as I have ever seen (especially in some of the facial movements and the subtlety of some of the facial hair). I think the hardest thing for them to do was some of the reflections that they had to render on top of water, which looked very realistic, and show some seriously sophisticated software algorithms.
However, before I completely and totally geek out on this subject (which I could do quite easily and with much geekish glee), I am going to move on at this point.
Characters Its really the characters that carry a movie, so tell us whether or not these characters carry the movie as much as we want them to
The incredible team of Murphy and Meyers again carry the brunt of this film. They are naturally funny together, and their characters have already been developed in the first movie. Unfortunately, they didn't delve much more into the characters, but thankfully that wasn't needed.
I already stated above that they relegated Diaz a bit too much in this movie. She's shown comedic talent before, and I think she should have been allowed to shine a little bit more. However, the plot didn't really allow for that. She did, however, carry her own in that portion of the plot.
Antonio Bandaras gets introduced in this rendition as another wacky sidekick. I loved the character he played, and he provided some very good comic value. His part wasn't really delved into beyond the basic comedy (it was a tad, but not enough for my liking), but his competitive hi jinx with Murphy was very good as well.
Rupert Everett is introduced as 'Prince Charming' and was so great that I didn't even recognize his voice until I saw it on the screen at the end. Great job there, wonderfully pompous.
John Cleese is perhaps the best of the newcomers with his character of 'The King' opposite 'The Queen' (played by Julie Andrews). He plays the tension between the new husband and the father very well with Meyers and does a good job playing with both Andrews and 'The Fairy Godmother' (played by Jennifer Saunders). His character is always a little bit scared or on edge in some form or another, and its something at which Cleese is naturally talented.
Tid bits and conclusions OK, you've told us all you want to tell us, is there anything else we should know?
As far as random moments that I loved, the Tom Waits in the bar of pirates was good, as was the whole Mongo character. As per the usual there was plenty of good music in the film, perhaps even more so than the first. However, I thought that the music fit better in the first movie than it did in the second.
Overall, I loved the movie, and I was entertained from start to finish. Its ability to not take itself seriously, and yet make you still think that you were involved in a fairy tale is still an extraordinary talent in my mind, and I bought it the whole way through. The only problem I really had with it was that the 'random moments of hilarity' weren't in there as powerfully as they were with the first movie.
So, in conclusion.... LEAVE ME COMMENTS, COMMENTS MAKE THE WORLD GO ROUND!!!
footnotes (1) -- see my review for Blade II for a full definition of my derivative movie formula. (2) -- I did note that they made fun of Disney conventions a whole lot less in this movie than the first. Perhaps this is the source of entertainment that I lacked in the sequel, but I can't be sure. You never know, they might be trying to court Disney and become their animation house now that Pixar is leaving.
In this meet-the-parents sequel to the romantic fairy tale in which two ogres fall in love SHREK 2 brings the loveable green menace voiced by Mike Mey...More at Family Video
PriceTool.com periodically updates pricing and product information from third-party sources,
so some information may be slightly out-of-date. You should confirm all information before relying on it.
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
