RSS 2.0Shrek 2 (2004)
I loved Shrek when it came out in 2001. Not so much for the animation, but for the way it made fun of other movies, especially Disney’s trademark fairytale-based animations. Even though Shrek essentially had a fairytale for a story it was different, more gutsy, funnier. Disney tried to do that with movies like Lilo & Stitch but never really succeeded.
Shrek 2 takes off where part one left us. Shrek and Princess Fiona, who since part one has taken ogre form permanently, are celebrating their honeymoon. When they get back to the Swamp and get ready to settle in, a herald brings word from the King of “Far Far Away”, Fiona’s dad. She and Shrek are invited to a royal ball in honour of their marriage. Shrek is reluctant to go, but Fiona and Donkey drag him along on the long long road to Far Far Away… How will the people of this distant kingdom react to an ogre prince and princess…?
Like in part one, the story offers plenty of thoughts about the importance of looks vs. character. And much like in part one, the rest of it serves as an excuse for very many jokes, most of which make fun of other movies. Indiana Jones, Aliens, The Lord of the Rings, all of them are easy to spot.
Julie Andrews, Antonio Banderas, John Cleese and Jennifer Saunders have been added to the already impressive cast, and their talents are one of this movie’s main strengths. Banderas plays “Puss in Boots”, a contract killer with a very cunning secret weapon! Like I said before, I didn’t really like the animation in part one. It was a little too realistic for my taste, yet not totally realistic (like Final Fantasy for instance). Especially the human characters could have done with a bit more cartoon-like overacting. Both movies do look great though, and so does Far Far Away (which looks surpisingly similar to Hollywood btw).
All in all Shrek 2 offers very little new. It more of the same fun that made part one so entertaining, and there’s nothing wrong with that. I do hope they don’t do a third part though, that would be too much of a good thing.
Roy (117 posts)Web designer and programmer, movie fanatic and devoted dad from Huizen, The Netherlands.
11 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I am a movie fans because I think it is the best activity that you can do when you have no activity and want to spend some time. Probably this is the reason I like “Shrek” and “Shrek 2.” Hahaha poor Shrek the loner one. It is worth watching because the 3D animation in the movie is awesome. I don’t know how others feels but a loner man like me do definitely love the Shrek Movies.
Comment by Baseer Ahmed — Sun June 13, 2004 @ 1:11—-* Baseer Ahmed *—-
Bad news for you weefselkweekje: Shrek 3 and 4 have been green-lighted already… I am very much afraid Shrek 2 is more of the same but I wait until the theatrical release as I always do…
Shrek 1 wasn’t that well animated and I have a sense 2 is a bit better in that area. The jokes in 1 are funny but obvious since there is much to make fun of in the world of fairytales. I had to laugh most about the non fairytale related jokes in 1, like the exploding bird…
The animation of Shrek is great but nothing compared to the Pixar films. It is the voicecast that stands out in the Dreamworks films and it seems that Eddie Murphy is only acceptable as an animated voice these days…
I am awaiting Sharkslayer, another Dreamworks CGi animated feature to be released later this year with scepsis, since the trailer didn’t look worth beans as far as I’m concerned…
Comment by arjan — Sun June 13, 2004 @ 8:45It can always get worse. I’ve seen trailers of Polar Express. I wouldn’t touch that one with a ten foot pole! I’, curoius enough about Shrek 2 to go see it on the big screen.
Comment by reisneus — Mon June 21, 2004 @ 13:16Saw it yesterday. I was a bit disappointed. There didn’t seem to me much progress compared to the first one. The animation was quite similar. The humans still looked crap and it was a really cheap lousy story. I also missed some of the sharp humor from Shrek 1. It is clear most of the production costs went to the actors who received huge amounts of money for their voice roles. Anyway: rather uninspired sequel. I did like Jennifer Saunders and Antonion Banderas…
Comment by arjan — Sun June 27, 2004 @ 12:01I thought the detail in the animation was amazing. I’m not fussed about the humans not looking particularly real – this is a film with ogres, fairy godmothers, cats that walk, talk and wear riding boots and talking gingerbread men. Realistic? Not in any sense of the word.
I thought the jokes were a lot funnier than in the first film – and slightly more adult. I loved hearing the hook handed pirate as Tom Waits then Nick Cave.
I think the set pieces are cool – although there’s nothing as exciting as the dragon scene from the first one.
The story is simple and instead of mocking fairy tales the film spends most of it’s gags mocking movies and Los Angeles.
Personally, I thought it was excellent. I’m not the biggest fan of the first one, but I laughed my head off at this one.
Comment by damian — Wed June 30, 2004 @ 13:17I think the humans look too realistic. This is a cartoon, and I would have liked them to make cartoon faces. Before this move, there was a trailer for “Polar Express”, which seems to suffer from the exact same thing.
Comment by weefselkweekje — Wed June 30, 2004 @ 15:52I had a trailer for Shark tale and I think that one is really gonna stink!
Comment by arjan — Wed June 30, 2004 @ 21:13yeah I don’t like the design of the characters at all in Shark’s Tale. I’ll give it a chance when it comes out. Saw the trailer for Chicken Little the other day too – not really excited about that either. Just bring on the Incredibles!
Comment by damian — Thu July 1, 2004 @ 11:03saw this again last night. Interesting to note the Dutch cinema showed the original US version and in the UK the Ugly Stepsister was voiced by Jonathan Ross (terribly) and the character played by Joan Rivers was handled by some other bit of English crumpet.
After a second viewing I’ll admit I love it. The original Shrek has never stood up to repeated viewings as far as I’m concerned, but seeing thsi again last night I was still laughing throughout. I love this one.
Comment by damian — Fri July 2, 2004 @ 9:42I heard from many friends that this was better than the original Shrek. I found that hard to believe. However, I just watched it and it’s true. And I absolutely loved it! Laughed my head off at the humour.
Having a degree in animation, one would think I would be more critical of the animation than most – but nope: I thought it was just great.
It’s strength for me is firstly the hilarious script (with its adult humour), followed by the incredible line-up of actors and actresses who bring the characters to life. The story may not have been to complicated but it kept my attention throughout and had some great twists and turns! Loved Puss In Boots and the Fairy Godmother too!
Comment by PiP — Wed December 22, 2004 @ 0:29Hmm… didn’t like it as much as Shrek1 but I did enjoy myself. I couldn’t get used to Jennifer Saunders as the Fairy Godmother as her voice seemed too young for a grey-haired old woman. The jokes were sometimes very funny and sometimes rather corny. I did like the little adult details too (like Kyle, Fairy Godmother’s assistant, sweeping Prince Charming off his feet in a rather camp way at the end).
I felt that too much attention was paid to paying the voice-cast and not enough to the story and characters. Puss-in-Boots’ transition from adversary to best-friend was extremely sudden and unexplained. What I liked so much about the first Shrek was the way the characters grew on you. Almost all characters grew OFF me in part 2 except for the Gingerbread man who is my favourite
Also, the use of music in part 2 seemed forced on occasion, pop songs too loud an inappropriate for certain scenes. Almost as if they had to put the track in there so they could bring out a “Shrek 2″ Soundtrack.
But let’s not moan… it was entertaining
Comment by suzero — Sun December 26, 2004 @ 22:20