This is a wondrous magic act you have seen before. It just needs a couple great new tricks.

Rating: Null/10 (2 July 2004)

For someone who never saw the original 'Shrek,' rest assured, its sequel holds all the humor, warmth and enchantment of the original. But for me and my favorite 12-year-old, veterans of the fire-breathing dragon battles and the defeat of the evil Lord Farquaad of Duloc, 'Shrek 2' didn't quite measure up, not because there is anything wrong with it, but because we had already seen its magic. I guess we were looking for 'Shrek 2's' creators to find ways to top the imaginative, charismatic appeal of the first, and we were left a little wanting.
A lot of us lined up at the box office in 2001 to meet the irresistible and reclusive green ogre, his chatterbox sidekick, 'Donkey,' and Princess Fiona.
It made back $47.3 million of its $60 million budget it its first weekend, then went on to earn $455.1 million on first-run tickets sales alone.
This time out, Shrek (the voice of Mike Myers) and his princess bride (Cameron Diaz) return from their honeymoon and set off with Donkey (Eddie Murphy) to visit Fiona's parents, the King (John Cleese) and Queen (Julie Andrews) of the Kingdom of Far, Far Away. Fiona desperately wants her mother and father's blessing on her marriage. Unfortunately, Shrek is not what Dad had in mind for his daughter's future or the future of the kingdom, so villains appear in the form of a devious fairy godmother (Jennifer Saunders), plus her conceited and not-so-charming son, Prince Charming (Rupert Everett). Shrek and Fiona are aided in their new struggles by a feline warrior known as Puss In Boots (nicely realized by Antonio Bandaras).
As in the original, 'Shrek 2' has charms for all kids, but my pre-teen screening partner thought it was a bit more juvenile. I tend to agree, but it still has all sorts of sly stuff targeted at adults. The town outside the castle gates is a parody of Hollywood, rich in detail that moms and dads will appreciate; the gates themselves look just like the fabled entrance to Paramount Studios. Murphy's performance is not lacking in laughs, but I had the sense that his own comedic creativity was in tighter reign than before.
As a filmmaker, I was blown away by the lighting. Yes, modern CG animation employs digital program techniques that 'light' scenes. I know 'A' list cinematographers and gaffers who would give anything to achieve in live action motion pictures the lighting I saw in this animated film. My only two notes to the animators: motion control is your friend, not an affront to your talent, and knees and ankles should be just as believable torsos and hands.
It is the rare sequel that can top the original. This is primarily a fact and function of story, not technique or performance. Films in a series ('Harry Potter' and 'Lord of the Rings' come right to mind) have a better chance of matching or topping their initial outings because the stories have been plotted and finessed well in advance. Shrek is a wonderful franchise; if Jeffrey Katzenberg and DreamWorks can keep the top creators together, they may be able to extend this to a 'Shrek 3' or even 'Shrek 4.' But they better have stories worth telling and magic, large magic, to reveal that no one has seen before.