Movie Review - Shrek 2
User Rating:
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
2004 / 93 Minutes / PG
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz
Once upon a time, there was a movie named “Shrek”. And “Shrek” made a lot of money. A surprising amount of money, in fact, for a non-Disney movie. It was funny and clever and it had heart and most everyone who saw it enjoyed it at least a little, and the stockholders of Dreamworks lived happily ever after.
Until they started thinking that they could perhaps make another movie about everyone’s favorite green ogre and obnoxious talking donkey (well, aside from Francis the Talking Mule) and make even more money. And so they took “Shrek” and made “Meet the Parents” with Shrek in place of Ben Stiller and John Cleese in place of Robert DeNiro and, as evidenced by the box office receipts, they once again lived happily ever after.
The fact that “Shrek 2” isn’t very good is largely irrelevant. Everyone has already gone and everyone that hasn’t probably will go, simply out of a sense of civic duty. But “Shrek 2” isn’t all that great, my friends. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but here I am. Yes, as I already said, the plot for this movie has Shrek meeting his in-laws: the parents of Princess Fiona, who are played by John Cleese and Julie Andrews (and, by the way, neither of this pair’s particular gifts shine through their digital counterparts, they could’ve gotten anyone with proper British accents and had the same effect). Fiona’s parents are shocked that Fiona and Shrek are ogres because, naturally, they had expected Fiona to be rescued by the effete and self-absorbed Prince Charming (played by Rupert Everett) and therefore to be forever changed into a beautiful woman, rather than a dumpy ogre lass. So the king hires an assassin to take care of Shrek: Puss in Boots (played by the movie’s shining heart- Antonio Banderas). Puss in Boots is easily the best character in the movie, but the movie flubs most of the humor inherent in him by making Puss befriend Shrek and Donkey right away. I think it would have been much funnier if Puss had made a few failed attempts on their lives before switching over to the side of right, if perhaps he had learned a lesson of friendship or something before finally jumping to the good guys aid. But oh well. That’s not the movie’s most glaring problem.
The problem with this movie is that it wants to be too clever, too hip. The movie seems to bend over backwards to load up with pop culture jokes and anachronistic references rather than sticking with its own story. There is a way to meld anachronistic humor into the narrative without bringing it to a screeching halt and sabotaging any sense of sentiment you might be trying for. Look at the “Toy Story” movies or even the first “Shrek”. But here the filmmakers are too busy trying to keep the adults entertained that they seem to have forgotten the playful magic they brought to the best moments of the first film. And most of the pop culture references also fall quite flat. Aside from a moment with a giant gingerbread man (and that was only slightly humorous) and a parody of “Cops” entitled “Knights”, most of the jokes seemed shoehorned in. Perhaps references to Oscar ceremonies (complete with Joan Rivers) and image transformation are hilarious to the Hollywood folk that made the movie, but they weren’t to me. The jokes just didn’t work and, what’s worse, they deflated the story and the characters, which is always a lethal problem. The result was that I was shockingly bored during the middle of the film, perking up only when Puss in Boots had some moment to shine. Eddie Murphy and Mike Myers are wasted here, really, and Antonio is the only one given memorable things to do. Not only that, but also most of the supporting characters are shrill and annoying and one-note. Prince Charming is more concerned with his hair than he is with finding true love (I half expected “You’re So Vain” to show up on the soundtrack). That’s funny for about one scene, and then it just keeps coming back. And the Fairy Godmother is a steamrolling bitch. That’s not even funny for one scene. Perhaps the filmmakers were trying too hard or perhaps the freshness of the “Shrek” concept has grown stale in the intervening years. I don’t know. But I do know that something is amiss here. Some vital ingredient of the first film is sorely lacking.
In short, the movie’s so busy (TOO busy) being hip that it forgets about virtually everything else and becomes sadly hollow and boring. That might not matter to eighty percent of the people who went to “Shrek 2”, but it mattered to me.
