Reviewed by Peter Veugelaers © 2004
- Take a pot shot but be warned.

The dust has settled on this one. The verdict is unanimous. After raking in, as of this writing, almost U.S. $400 million at the domestic box office it is an enigma to me why the masses have taken to this in the numbers the dollars represent, and even executives are somewhat spellbound by Shrek 2’s overwhelming success.

Praise from some film reviewers for this sequel to the superior Shrek (2001) is bordering on the puerile. Call me a grumpy old ogre; Shrek 2 (a rather annoyingly original title) is enjoyable for the most part, but has none of the charm of its predecessor. This one is supposed to be bolder and more inventive, but it is like going through the formulaic cinematic motions.

The story is a repackaging of Shrek’s central idea: ogres in love repel each other and must find ways back to true love’s heart. In the first film, Princess Fiona (Cameron Diaz) and Shrek (Mike Myers) got married. In film two they have their first marital disagreement, at least in filmic time, and in their heart of hearts they essentially do desire to keep the relationship working – after all, they really are in love. It’s an appealing idea and it handles the cliché in an enthralling and entertaining manner, but lacks the peculiarity and individuality where we sit up and take notice. Shrek 2’s plot is flat, uninventive, and essentially inevitable.

The conflict arises when Fiona wants Shrek to meet the parents (voiced by John Cleese, from classic British comedy Fawlty Towers, and Julie The Sound of Music Andrews). Needless to say Fiona gets the final say.

Heading for Far, Far Away land (Star Wars anyone?) they embark on a curiously similar journey to what Gandalf and company embarked on in The Lord of the Rings - one of the many parodies in the movie of commercial cinema from the last 50 years. When they do meet the parents, to get their blessing, the king and queen spit and spat. Shrek happens to be an ogre and the dashingly handsome and charmless Prince Charming (Rupert Everett) was destined to kiss Princes Fiona: her real true love.

Shrek isn’t getting on with his in laws (as the story goes) and Fiona wants her husband to get on with them so puts on the pressure. A scheming king egged on by Fiona’s fairy godmother (Jennifer Saunders) is intent on uniting Prince Charming and Fiona sending Shrek on a journey with his sidekicks to drink a potion that will make him into what Fiona and his parents seem to want: beautiful (aw, come on, we just love Shrek the way he is!).

This is moderately funny with a few laugh out loud moments except the story is like a patch work quilt of fairy tale vignettes lacking a mind, soul and cohesive narrative of its own. That’s if you discredit the fluffy "it’s okay to be yourself" motif, hardly conceived all the same in the throes of an original philosophical conundrum in spite of its affirming truth. This parodies happy endings; however the end result and overall effect is too good to be true, an incoherent and seamlessness contradiction without any bite.

It is almost laughable if it weren’t true that some movie critics see fit to praise Shrek 2 for inter-textual moments in the film that hark back to From Here to Eternity (the famous beach scene that has almost died an unnatural death by constant imitation), The Lord of the Rings, Flashdance, and others, citing these spoofs as hilarious. It is one thing to ridicule films in Scary Movie and another in this better admired animated film. The effect in Shrek 2, however, is so what? What’s all the fuss about? Besides, I’ve seen endless snippets of Puss In Boots "zorro" his sword and cough up a fur ball before I saw the film that the image has become indelibly etched upon my psyche, and not favourably either (and it is not because I have an aversion to cats coughing up fur balls, either, but that this is supposed to be funny. Ha ha.).