Plot Details: This opinion reveals minor details about the movie's plot.

The original Shrek was a pretty good movie although tremendously over-rated in some quarters. I’d read conflicting reviews as to whether this was an excellent sequel that surpasses the original, or a good example on how to make money from an infinitely inferior sequel.

Sadly, I found the latter to be true.


A quick recap of the original:

Shrek (voiced by Mike Myers) is an ogre who ends up rescuing princess Fiona (Cameron Diaz) whose terrible enchantment (at night she turns into an ogre – literally, I mean) is broken… but it all goes wrong as she permanently becomes an ogre instead of being a beautiful princess. Along the way a talking Donkey (Eddie Murphy) becomes Shrek’s permanent companion. Most of the charm of the original was in its parodying several fairytales – and turning some on their heads. In the end Shrek and Fiona get married, to live happily ever after… ?

In the sequel, the newly weds get invited back to the kingdom of Far, Far Away, where Fiona’s parents (John Cleese and Julie Andrews) await to meet the groom. Of course, it’s a bit of a shock to them when they do… and Prince Charming (Rupert Everett), having crossed deserts etc to rescue his bride to be, is not amused. There’s also a secret agenda with the Fairy Godmother (Jennifer Saunders), and the formidable presence of Puss in Boots (Antonio Banderras)…

The new characters are good and the voice acting for all of them is superb, with Banderras stealing the show. The old characters seem rather listless, however, and Donkey is simply annoying rather than funny most of the time. The problem is the script – it stinks, frankly. Whereas the original Shrek showed little in the way of real imagination in the scriptwriting, this one simply dispenses with the idea altogether and relies on just about every cliché in the book. Some of the audience in the screening I went to were in fits of laughter, but this was down to them being unbelievably easy to please rather than the film having anything in the way of genuine humour in it. There are a few funny bits (very few and far between, unfortunately) but mostly the best Shrek 2 does is to be mildly amusing.

Every plot twist was completely predictable and the “surprise” ending was no surprise at all. Whereas the first film appealed equally to children and adults, this one is aimed squarely at young children (who, to be fair, will probably enjoy it a lot) and thinks that a few spoofs of movies such as Mask of Zorro and Mission Impossible make up for the lack of a complete lack of a decent storyline. The new characters are almost completely wasted, which is a shame considering how funny they could have been and how much voice talent was behind them. To put it bluntly, a prepubescent could probably have come up with a more interesting and original storyline.

The animation was top notch, as you’d expect, although occasionally contrasting visual styles seemed out of place. Great animation alone does not a good film make, however.

For all that it’s fairly enjoyable for young children and adults who are extremely easy to please. It’s undemanding and reasonably fun, but there are so many animated feature films out there that deserve your attention more than this one. [Click here for some of them…] (Dreamworks’ forthcoming “A Shark’s Tale” looks set to be one of them…) Save your money for something else, Shrek 2 is a huge disappointment.


See also A Tale of Two Sequels: The Best of Times



See also my Review of 2004 Movies.

CaptainD

http://www.darscom.net


Recommended: No

Video Occasion: None of the Above
Suitability For Children: Suitable for Children up Ages 8