Reviewing - The Shrek Films
Somebody once told me that ogres are like onions. Since that year, Shrek-mania has swept the globe with a massively successful franchise that made a mockery of everything that Disney Studios had spent generations cultivating. Witty, irreverent, and with all the heart that Disney had become famous for, this genre-defying Dreamworks hero was exactly what 2000s audiences were in search of. In short, he’s nothing less than shrektacular.
Shrek (****)
In which true love’s kiss leads to something unexshrekted
Everything about this movie is what makes it the perfect cinematic response to over ten years of masterful Disney storytelling.
Disney was unrivalled in the realm of animation at the turn of the century. Virtually every other animated film from the 90s has been forgotten (with the exception of one or two cult favourites), and even though Pixar was quickly blowing up as a force to be reckoned with, Disney was the one handling their distribution. In 1999, anyone who wasn’t Disney or Pixar was playing for second.
Disney had reinvigorated their brand with beautiful, heartfelt stories. Aladdin, Beauty & the Beast, and The Lion King all featured award-winning music, stunning art design, and family-friendly values every step of the way. Humour was definitely present in the Renaissance films, but for the most part the jokes were ones that you didn’t feel bad about repeating to your grandma.
But by 2000, it seemed as though the tides of fortune were shifting. The relationship between Disney and Pixar was floundering under Michael Eisner’s leadership. Disney’s traditionally animated films weren’t as record-breaking as their predecessors had been, while Pixar was soaring in popularity. To the general public, it looked like computer animation was the way of the future – and Disney wasn’t yet ready to take the leap. As it turned out, they wouldn’t be ready for another five years.
And then in walked Shrek.
From the opening minute of the film, it’s clear that the filmmakers have set their sights on everything that Disney holds dear. Firstly, this is a CGI picture – in other words, Disney’s worst nightmare at that point in time. Secondly, it’s a fairy tale, and Disney’s made their living off of this genre. Nothing’s less exciting than having someone jump in your kitchen and start cooking right next to you. Thirdly, Shrek is very clearly making a mockery of all the tropes and characters that Disney has spent their entire lifespan as a company in building.
In the opening minute, Shrek literally tears a page out of a storybook and uses it to wipe his butt. There’s no other way to say it - he’s taking a dump on years of Disney tradition. And he made almost half a billion dollars for doing it.
Take this in – Shrek made more money than Beauty and the Beast. He made more than The Little Mermaid, Pocahontas, Hunchback, Hercules, Mulan, or Tarzan. He beat eight out of the ten Disney Renaissance films in terms of box office numbers right out of the gate. He even beat Toy Story, for crying out loud. Shrek was a huge deal. And it was only his first film.
What’s amazing about Shrek is that this movie is not simply a lampoon of popular Disney stories, nor is it simply an avenue to throw pop-culture references into a fairy tale setting. It actually had something meaningful to say, and there’s a lot of heart in its story. This could’ve been a thoroughly stupid movie – there are plenty of movies with nothing more to them than jokes. Shrek is not that movie. Shrek teaches us that love is not skin-deep, and that not everyone’s happily ever after may look the same. Incredibly, its big moral manages to say something poignant while still slapping Disney in the face. Fiona’s curse is broken after true love’s kiss, but she’s still an ogress.
“I’m supposed to be beautiful,” she says.
“You are beautiful,” Shrek replies.
The reference to Beauty and the Beast in Fiona’s non-transformation bit is all too apparent, but it shows how things don’t always need to look picture perfect on the outside in order to be beautiful on the inside. We’re all like onions – we have layers of complexity, and just because the outer layer ain’t pretty doesn’t mean there’s nothing worth pursuing on the inside. Has Disney ever said otherwise? No, but Shrek referencing their stories to make that point is all that it takes to make us believe Disney’s been missing the truth for ten years. Suddenly, Shrek’s the smart one. That’s not just brilliant storytelling – that’s brilliant marketing.
There’s a lot beyond the story that’s great about this movie, particularly the moments that criticize Disney. Although I didn’t pick up on it as a kid, Lord Farquaad’s kingdom is obviously modelled after Disneyland. They’re painting Disney as an image-obsessed titan that might just be ‘compensating for something’ on the inside. The humour also still holds up, thanks in no small part to Eddie Murphy’s Donkey. There are some jokes and language in here that I might not be comfortable with my kid repeating, but I can’t deny how funny it still is. And for what it’s worth, I imagine many parents at the time were relieved to watch a family film that wasn’t afraid to get a bit closer to ‘the line’. The animation isn’t bad, but a lot of the sets haven’t aged well. I felt like Fiona’s walking was a little bit robotic in some scenes, but I could be wrong. Even if the animation can’t compete with what we have now, it still would’ve been really cool for the audiences at the time.
Shrek would turn out to be a gold mine for Dreamworks Animation. Much like Toy Story, he marked the beginning of a new era of animated filmmaking – one characterized by irreverence, humour, and more fart jokes than we’d ever seen in a Disney film. I can’t overstate the impact that Shrek had for family cinema. He made Dreamworks one of the leading animation studios in the 2000s, accelerated the collective swing towards CGI, and painted Disney as an old stick-in-the-mud that took itself way too seriously. Whether that’s true or not, they couldn’t have made their case more effectively. Shrek was more than an ogre. He was a giant.
The Ghost of Lord Farquaad (1/2)
In which a non-corporeal ghost gets shrekked by ordinary fire as if that made sense
This is not a short film. This is not a television special. This is not cinema.
The purpose of this video is to entertain theme park guests. I have nothing against a good theme park ride, and I think I even rode this thing once at Clifton Hill in Niagara Falls years ago. As a ride, I’m sure it’s fine. That’s not the point. My point is that this simply does not work unless it’s part of a ride. Characters keep looking at the camera as though we’re actually part of the action, which we’re not. Things get shoved towards the screen so that the 3D glasses we’re supposed to be wearing will have something to do. At one point, spiders appear out of nowhere for no discernible reason. They’re only there because if we were in a ride, it might be a fun moment.
But we’re not in a ride.
If I was reviewing this as a theme park attraction, I’d certainly be much more kind to it. But it’s on Netflix, so I have to review it as a narrative. And because of that, this is just the worst.
Shrek 2 (****1/2)
In which true love’s kiss gets delayed until a few shrekonds after midnight
Given the box office numbers of the original, this sequel was inevitable – but I don’t think anyone expected it to be this incredible.
The first Shrek was groundbreaking, trend-setting, and unapologetically unlike anything else in animation of the time. The cultural impact that it had was too massive for any studio head to ignore. A sequel had to be made. But where many sequels have failed before, Shrek 2 soared to new heights. The animation leaps forward, giving us a visually stunning ‘Far Far Away’ kingdom and other really cool-looking scenes. The soundtrack was just as catchy as the original, peppered with perfectly placed pop hits. And to top off an already-great cast of characters, we got to meet Antonio Banderas’ Puss in Boots...a character so scene-stealing that he ended up with his own spinoff film and a television show.
Shrek 2 has everything the first film had, and then some. I loved the new takes on familiar fairy tale characters, with the Fairy Godmother’s characterization being a wonderfully fresh idea. Prince Charming as well was thoroughly entertaining – his role in the opening scene was a terrific bit that made us laugh and set up the rest of the film all at once. Where Lord Farquaad’s kingdom in the last film resembled Disneyland, the kingdom of Far Far Away is clearly supposed to be Hollywood / Los Angeles. Once again, I loved the cheeky reimagining of modern day conventions and businesses within the context of a fairy tale world. And what adult could not smirk at the bit where a bunch of citizens run screaming out of one Starbucks to charge into the one nextdoor? I don’t care what you think – that’s great comedy.
But just like the original, the heart of this film is in its story. And it’s great. It’s a natural progression from where the last movie ended: Shrek has to meet Fiona’s parents and deal with the social ramifications of having turned their daughter into a permanent ogress. Sure, Fiona and Shrek love each other and see each other as ‘beautiful’, but how are they supposed to keep that up if no one else sees them that way? It’s a great question to tackle, and I love how the filmmakers decided to explore it. With that in mind, Shrek becoming ‘sexy’ was a terrific plot element. It flipped an element from the original film, and did it to make us think harder about what it means to ‘make changes’ for the one you love. The final decision that Fiona and Shrek come to is a beautiful one. What makes you you isn’t something that you can see or wear or point at. What makes you you is inside of you, and Fiona didn’t want to pretend otherwise – even if it would’ve made their lives easier. Love it!
And honestly, this movie gets so many marks because it’s genuinely funny. There’s plenty of films made with children in mind that just really fall short in the jokes department. Shrek 2 keeps the laughs coming with smart, mile-a-minute comedy. No joke holds the narrative back, and every quip lands perfectly. It’s not easy being this funny.
Shrek 2 is a champion in its own right. It’s hysterical, heartfelt, visually marvellous, and better than the original in every way. Dreamworks did it again!
Far Far Away Idol (*)
In which Simon Cowell gets ogre his fear of singing in public
Let’s not pretend that this is anything else than a DVD feature.
As a kid, watching this short in the Shrek 2 DVD was kind of fun. The fun was in arguing with my siblings over which contestant was the best, and then picking. You see, originally there was a pause after all the contestants had gone, and you’d get to click on which one you wanted to win. If you picked one of the minor characters, Simon Cowell would overrule you and select himself – but if you picked Shrek, Donkey, or Puss, he’d let them win. It’s a bit gimmicky, but we had fun as kids.
On Netflix, however, this is its own thing. You just watch the short, and Simon overrules whatever the decision is. And it’s utterly boring. First and most obviously, none of the singers are actually any good. And secondly, the songs vaguely have something to do with the characters who picked them, but none of the selections made me laugh. This really only works as a game – not as watchable entertainment.
I understand trying to make as much Shrek content available as possible on the streaming service, but passing this off as a short film is inexcusable. If they had left the viewer-interaction element in, it might have been worth it, but without it this is just a waste of time.
Shrek 3 (**1/2)
In which the kingdom of Far Far Away misses the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to be renamed Shrekoslovakia
An unfortunate victim of the infamous ‘third-film-flop’ cliché, Shrek 3 looks okay but has lost the magic of its two predecessors.
The first time watching this movie was one of the most bizarre viewing experiences of my life. I grew up in the west end of Toronto, which I would classify as a fairly urban environment. The movie theatres that I went to were big, flashy, and well-kept. People would chat quietly to each other during the pre-show, but largely went silent once the trailers began. That’s what I knew. But one day, we went to see a movie in a town called Cobourg. It’s a beautiful little place that’s grown in popularity during my lifetime as a tourist destination. They’ve got a great beach, and their main street is adorable. That said, it’s certainly not Toronto – and when my siblings, mother, and I walked into the town’s theatre, it felt more like I was checking into a daycare than a cinema. There were murals of historical Cobourgian figures on the wall and a colourful mascot standing among them. The entire lobby wasn’t much bigger than a standard classroom, and it felt like anything but the shiny new theatres I was used to.
When we walked to our seats, the room was filled with noise. There were a lot of kids here – which wasn’t surprising given the movie we were about to see – but I remember watching kids climbing on the seats, running around the room, and generally behaving as if they owned the place. It’s not as if I was some curmudgeon looking down at these kids – I was only in grade 7. I was still a kid myself.
I figured the kids would settle in once the trailers started, but the commercials started rolling and the pandemonium continued. My siblings and I sat flabbergasted in our seats. Each trailer that passed, we hoped that the audience would get the idea, but if anything the noise seemed to get louder. Finally, the trailers ended, and the screen went black. This is when things got really weird.
A lady came up to the front of the room, right below the screen. She was clearly a staff member – and because the screen was blank, I worried that she had come to announce some sort of technical difficulties. But instead, she put her hands to the sides of her mouth and shouted,
“Okayyy! I’m gonna start the movie now!”
My siblings and I all stared at each other, wide-eyed. Never before had a theatre attendant made an in-person announcement to commence our movie-watching experience. We felt like we were in an episode of The Twilight Zone.
Anyway, the movie played, and honestly I barely heard a word of it. The kids talked the whole way through – laughing at the occasional joke, but for the most part hardly paying attention. I couldn’t say that I enjoyed the movie, but I tried to give it the benefit of the doubt. After all, I had barely seen it.
Unfortunately, upon a second watch-through over a decade later, it turns out those kids may have been right to not pay attention.
When the credits rolled for this film, I tried to figure out exactly what went wrong here. Like Shrek 2, this film is more or less a natural progression from where we were last. Shrek 2 was about meeting the parents, and this one is about having kids. That makes sense. But why didn’t this one work as well?
For one thing, I think ‘Arty’ was a lousy addition to the cast. Donkey was a terrific supporting character in the first film – loud, hysterical, and a perfect foil for our hero. In Shrek 2, we got Puss in Boots, and he stole every scene he was in thanks to his charisma and charm. To have Arty as the next member of the adventuring team just doesn’t make sense. He’s not funny, he’s doesn’t really contrast with anyone, and he doesn’t LOOK iconic in the same way that the others do.
Then there’s the fact that the plot just doesn’t carry the same ‘oomph’ that the first two did. The previous films had a message that everyone could relate to: be yourself, no matter what. Here, it seems like the message is “It’s okay to have kids”. Sure, you could extrapolate that it’s more about responsibility, but that kind of falls apart because Shrek shirks his kingly duties. This movie is very much about Shrek’s hesitancy to become a dad. That could’ve been a great launching point for us to investigate Shrek’s childhood or his relationship with his father (which is almost always a great narrative, at least in my book), but instead the story never really gives us anything impactful or as emotionally resonant as the other films did. The third act also really fell apart as far as I can tell. Prince Charming had Shrek trapped – and then he didn’t because backup arrived – and then the backup was trapped because Charming brought backup – and then some other stuff happened, Shrek got stabbed, and then it turned out he wasn’t stabbed. There was just a thorough lack of gravitas in the climax. No one ever really seemed in danger, even though the space was packed with heroes and villains. That should’ve been an epic battle between good and evil, but instead it was the equivalent of sipping a lukewarm cup of coffee.
Maybe this movie failed because Andrew Adamson had left. He directed the first two films, but was unable to help out this time because he was working on the first ‘Narnia’ film. Or maybe it had to do with the screenplay, which was written by none of the writers from the first two. Whatever the reason, it didn’t quite matter for Dreamworks. Shrek was too big to fail, and this film ended up making over 800 million dollars, falling short of Shrek 2 by about 100 million. I guess there was enough here for kids to still be entertained by, even if critics were disappointed.
Oh, and by the way – John Krasinski (a.k.a. Jim Halpert) plays Lancelot in this movie. You’re welcome.
Shrek the Halls (**1/2)
In which our favourite ogre inshrekstigates the true meaning of Christmas
Unfunny, unoriginal, and uninteresting from beginning to end, this won’t do much more than please the youngest of Shrek fans.
There’s nothing wrong with a simple short Christmas special – I’ve reviewed a few by now. But it’s not enough to have your characters doing ‘the Christmas thing’. There still has to be a story. Here, Shrek tries to put together his first Christmas celebration without really knowing what he’s doing. It’s not a really compelling story, and it never really goes anywhere, either. Sure, Fiona walks out on him at one point, but that was honestly a bit forced. If the only tension in the whole thing feels contrived, that’s a bad sign.
I’ve definitely seen worse, but there’s no reason that would make this a must-see.
Shrek Forever After (***)
In which a father gets a shrekond chance at the bachelor life
Shrek’s fourth (and final until proven otherwise) theatrical adventure doesn’t meet the standard set by his first two films, but it’s emotionally resonant and a relatively satisfying conclusion to the franchise.
I can’t go any further without telling you how much this film reminded me of Avengers: Endgame. I think Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely watched Shrek 4 one night, looked at each other, and said,
“This is it. This is our film.”
You’ve got time travel, alternate versions of characters, and a formerly formidable protagonist who’s suddenly put on an extraordinary amount of weight. You can’t argue with the facts. I’ll admit that Endgame did it better, but I’m probably always going to have the image of ‘fat Thor’ and ‘fat Puss in Boots’ hanging out together stuck in my mind.
One of the things I admired most about this film was how the emotional stakes had returned. In Shrek 3, I never felt that anyone was in any real danger. Here, Shrek’s entire universe had fallen apart, and he spent the whole movie trying to make things right. That’s a compelling story. It was cool watching Shrek try to win back Fiona’s heart and redeveloping his relationship with Donkey and Puss. Sure, it’s a narrative we’ve seen before many times, but that doesn’t make it a bad story. And to be honest, seeing Fiona as the leader of an underground resistance was awesome. What a cool alternate timeline. She busts herself out of her own prison, finds other ogres, and becomes one of the fiercest warriors in the kingdom. That’s sweet.
Because of the bleakness of the storyline, I feel like there were less jokes in this film than in its predecessors. Shrek’s always relied on humour as a central component of his stories, and I think this movie definitely would have benefited from some more funny bits. Rumplestiltskin also wasn’t the most compelling villain, in part because his rules weren’t quite clear. Why did he always need an escape clause in his contracts? Why didn’t he kill Shrek in the alternate timeline from the get-go? And if he stole the day Shrek was born, wouldn’t Shrek have disappeared entirely? A bit more clarity there would’ve gone a long way.
To wrap things up, this isn’t a great film. But the filmmakers managed to pull up their socks after Shrek 3 and turn the ship around at least a little bit, and that’s commendable. It’s hard to fix a franchise – just look at Pirates of the Caribbean. There’s been rumblings of a fifth Shrek film ever since this came out, and I’m sure that would be fine. But if this is the last Shrek film we get, that wouldn’t be the worst thing. This ogre made a permanent mark on 2000s pop culture, and he won’t be soon forgotten. Thanks, Shrek.
Scared Shrekless (***)
In which a group of fairy tale creatures decide to shrek out a haunted castle and tell scary stories
Ironically, my biggest problem with this is that it’s actually kind of scary.
Shrek’s always flirted with the line of what is and isn’t appropriate for a family film, and that’s what’s set the franchise apart from its competitors. I’m totally on board with that. But I think what we see in this short is more over the line than it ought to be. There’s plenty in here that’s totally kid-friendly, but the Gingerbread Man’s zombie scene just works a little too well – and Pinocchio’s Exorcist parody isn’t quite spoofy enough to lose some of the disquieting aspects of the source material. To say it quick, I’m worried that this might give a few kids nightmares.
Now, please don’t get me wrong here. I’m all for having bad guys that really look like bad guys in family films. Villains should be a tiny bit scary, otherwise there’s no real danger and thus no real narrative. But fear for fear’s sake is a different thing. There’s just enough here that could actually scare a kid simply for the sake of being scary, and I’m not crazy about that.
But hey, kids clearly aren’t the only ones watching this, and if I stop worrying about them, I can actually appreciate that this is one of the better-made Shrek shorts. The animation is good, and the stories have genuinely funny moments in them. In a sense, my biggest problem is also sort of a compliment to the film: they actually made Gingerbread Men scary. I’ve never seen “The Exorcist”, but I know enough about it to recognize the nods and parallels they put into Pinocchio’s bit. This is clever and well-executed, even if it’s not quite my taste.
Halloween fans and horror aficionados will probably enjoy this, but wary parents should proceed with caution. Then again, it’s all just fairy tale creatures, so I admit that I could be ogre-reacting just a little bit.
Puss in Boots (***)
In which a cat is disreshrekted by an egg
Surprisingly competent for a supporting-character-spinoff, Puss in Boots is a good enough time but more or less forgettable.
When I initially heard that they were making a ‘Puss in Boots’ movie, I groaned. The Shrek franchise had already seemed to have run its course by the time this film came out, and it felt like little more than an attempt to squeeze a few more dollars out of the fanbase. I never ended up seeing it in theatres as a result – and in the grand scheme of things, I think I was right to do so. That said, I felt it would be dishonest of me to watch through the entire franchise without giving this film a shot.
First and foremost, the animation is definitely competent – to the point where shots actually make you say, “That’s pretty cool” from time to time. The fun of Puss in Boots has always been that he’s just a house cat made to look awesome, and there’s certainly a lot of that in this movie. Antonio Banderas gives a spirited performance no less excellent than any of his others in the series. He’s been a carbon copy of Banderas’ Zorro from the very beginning, and that doesn’t stop here. That said, the atmosphere is very different from what we’ve seen in the previous films. Whereas the main Shrek movies have poked fun at fairy tales and created parodies of our own world through a medieval lens, Puss’s world seems much less sarcastic and cheeky – and more earnest. Sure, it’s a story about a boot-wearing cat and a talking egg stealing a duck from a sky-castle, but for the most part, things are played straight as opposed to being avenues for jokes. That’s not to say that the movie isn’t funny, but the humour has clearly taken a step downward from the central movies in favour of giving us more of Puss being ‘cool’.
Humpty Dumpty and Puss’s relationship is fairly stereotypical, but there was nothing wrong with it. They’re brothers by way of their upbringing, stealing and conning their way through boyhood until something drives them apart. There’s a surprising amount of heart in their interactions, but I have to say that I think they missed a golden opportunity at the end. We all know that Humpty had a great fall, and that all the king’s horses and men couldn’t fix him. Given that the movie focuses on the birth, death, and re-kindling of their brotherhood, it would’ve made sense to end the film with Humpty’s redemption just before his death. Then, have Puss try desperately to revive him, but without success. It would’ve put a poignant spin on the classic Humpty story. Instead, Humpty’s story ends a bit different from the nursery rhyme. It’s not bad – it was just a bit of a let-down for me.
There’s nothing here that makes the film a must-see, but you could certainly do much worse in the way of family animated entertainment. And as spinoffs go, this is pretty good!
Puss In Boots: The Three Diablos (***)
In which a rogue shrekulates on the possibility of adopting three young sidekicks
Of all the Shrek short films I’ve seen, this one is definitely the most palatable.
‘The Three Diablos’ is well-animated and has a coherent narrative that’s actually entertaining, which is more than any of the other short films can say (apart from Scared Shrekless). Puss has a few good moments, and the Three Diablos are entertaining enough for the short runtime of this story. The ‘Whisperer’ was weird as a bad guy, but he made me crack a smile so I guess he’s alright. The main thing is that I wasn’t bored watching this one, whereas I definitely was for most of these other shorts. You could do much worse than this.
The Adventures of Puss in Boots (*1/2)
I didn’t make it through the first episode.
On my Shrekspedition, I knew that this show was coming, and I told myself I’d sit through the first five episodes in order to give it a fair review. But I’ll be honest, I just didn’t care enough. The first episode’s animation was really not that great. You’d expect it to be a step down from the movies, of course, but this was more like a whole flight of stairs. It’s hard to believe Dreamworks was okay with leaving their name on it. As for the story, there weren’t really any characters that grabbed my interest from the get-go. To put it simply, I was bored. Skip this.
Puss in Book: Trapped in an Epic Tale (*1/2)
In which it’s a choose your own shrekventure
Well, it’s no Bandersnatch.
The choose-your-own-adventure genre is one that I loved as a kid. I had plenty of interactive books, and I loved flipping back and forth through the decisions – reading one ending, going back to try another. When I watched Black Mirror’s take on it in ‘Bandersnatch’, I was really impressed with how they adapted the format for television. People have identified flaws with it, but on the whole I found myself in an interesting story where I felt like I had control – and where I wanted to go back and find more endings. That’s good stuff.
Obviously, this for-kids thing wasn’t going to be on the same level as Bandersnatch, but I at least was hoping for some sort of narrative chronology. Watching this thing, there seems to be no logical connection from one scene to the next. It’s almost like flipping through YouTube. This isn’t a story – it’s a gag reel. And I found that really disappointing.
Kids might laugh once or twice, but anyone else is really wasting their time.
Comments