It's really a... romantic drama who tries to be funny.

Rating: 1/10 (14 September 2004)

By now most people who were fans of the first film has seen part two so I won't bother to tell the storyline. Anyway. I rented the first tilm this weekend without a clue that the sequel was just showing up on the moviescreen around here and I thought the first "Shrek" was just great (just like It was the other times I've seen it). So when a friend told me today that he was going to the movies to see Shrek 2, I gladly decided to tag along.
I was disappointed.
What I found on the screen was not a half-goofy comedy for all ages with great characters, a big bag full of charm and a wonderful storyline, as was the case with the first film, but a sort of romantic-drama that tries hard to be funny, but just does not cut it. (or did they try? Maybe It wasn't meant to be funny at all, hmm?) And the result? A sequel of a comedy (or "family entertainment" if you want) devoted almost entirely to drama and love trough tough times. Where did the comedy that was so clear in the first film go then? Well. It's scattered all over the film really, but its in such small dozes that you almost don't recognize them before they're gone. For example: When you look around you see a limousine-wagon, fast food restaurants, commercials and modern words. What happened to the fairy-tale?
Was there a point? (some people in the audience chuckled over those I admit)
Maybe they meant "Well. In the last film it was a fairy-tale, so lets make it a little more modern and spin some jokes on that, haha"?
As I sat there amongst the other ticket holders I sometimes noticed what they laughed at and what not as I was myself laughing quietly at a sentence made by "Donkey" (Eddie Murphy). Yes. It was mostly Donkey that made the humor in the film, but he wasn't as irritating-and-at-the-same-time-charming as he was in the first Shrek. Now he was more dull, gray and kinda irritating (without the charming-part, but still likable). I must say that Donkey ruled the first Shrek, but he did have a close competition from all the other main characters, Shrek, Fiona and Lord Farquaad. They supported each other well. Which brings me to my next point: I enjoyed Antonio Banderas roll as "Puss In Boots" and I was wondering during the film, where the introduction of the character would pay off.
It didn't happen. Well. Sure. He was a slick character (and for another thing the best character that was introduced in the film), but honestly without a real purpose. I mean, the story didn't rely on "Puss" in any way. You could easily scip him.., But I suppose they wanted another character to help Donkey out on the laughter-factor. Here we have Donkey and Puss and they both ram at each other with mean remarks as they try to be the one who's closest to Shrek.
When we turn to the star of the film: No other than Shrek himself. I can understand that he's having a rough time with his romantic issues and Fiona's fathers opinion of him, but I must say... He's not playing along. He's not even working with the other characters to make it entertaining. He's well... Grumpy, serious, angry and sad. Keep in mind that I already explained that I realize that he probably is that way because of the characters situation. That is not to say that he's incapable of action. Quite the contrary. He shows of with his seriousness of the situation at all time, but by the end I would just need a li-tt-le bit more (like the seriousness he showed off in the end of the first film) and I would've been going to sleep easier tonight,
But seriously. Somebody please tell me that I'm not way out on this. I realize that most of my opinions are reflected on the difference between the first film and the sequel, and I understand if people tell me "Its not the same film! It's a new film. Get over it! Its not suppose to be an identical film. Things are suppose to change in a sequel that makes the difference between the first film and the new one, wheater its a location, characters or plot." Darn tutan I say and I assure everyone that I'm merely trying to point out my feelings on the film by using the first one as a sketch for a how a good movie of that kind and for that audience should be made and I'm not suggesting or badgering it's content, but rather the structure of it.
I mean... Really... Shrek is a great film.
Well... On with the character analysis. I didn't really like Fiona (Cameron Diaz) part in this film. Merely because she's so cut off I think. She was much more of a character in the first film. She smiled, she burped, she sang, she fought and had a real temper. Tough you got to learn more about her emotions, which is a good thing, she was more like a secondary-figure in this film after the point when Shrek went of with Puss and Donkey to try and solve their situation. She merely glimpsed by now and then just for us to know thats she's still alive and is bothered with the situation.
(oh, god! I'm getting a headache. It's almost 5 AM, but I feel I must do this while the film is still fresh in mind. Please excuse possible misspelling.)
There's so much things in the film that could have been made a lot better, landed on the clipping-floor or just not been made at all...
If I dare say such a thing about a movie people probably have been working their asses off while producing (sigh). It kinda makes me feel bad for having an opinion,
Well anyway- Let's just settle the matter with the fact that I don't think I'll be buying the DVD, ... but perhaps the first Shrek so I don't have to rent it anymore,
Tough my statements here about the movie I DO recommend that If you're really a fan of the first SHREK It could be very interesting for you to know the whole story nonetheless. Besides, this might just be a film YOU'D enjoy.
... even if I didn't.