No exception to the sequel rule

Rating: Null/10 (15 September 2004)

Sequels suck.
Okay, so it was funny, had memorable characters, and it was a "family" film (although the thong joke was way more inappropriate than the first movie ever was. Even if it is mature, I'm not sure if 6 year olds will understand it, and that ruins the magic for them).
Shrek 1 was a fairy tale of its own. Shrek 2 was dozens of fairy tales stuck together, plus that "female wanting dad to approve of lover" plot.
Fiona actually did something in Shrek 1. Fiona was only a motivation for the other characters' actions in Shrek 2.
In Shrek 1, there was no backstory to any of the characters, because it was unnecessary. In Shrek 2, it was all about the unnecessary backstory.
In Shrek 1, although there were references to other stories and modern life, they were brief, sparse, and inessential to the main idea. In Shrek 2, those references where everywhere and seemed to be the backbone of almost all the dialogue.
Shrek 1 was unpredictable and stuck unlikely characters into different situations. Shrek 2 was predictable and we've seen the characters before (I'm not talking about Shrek 1 characters. I'm talking about the clichéd and stereotyped characters that we all know too well).
Shrek 1 took people to a new, magical world. Shrek 2 was just a magical world with stuff we've already seen.
Last but not least...
Kids know nothing about married life (and not just "daddy said it made him a prisoner"). Maybe they've been in love before, maybe not, but they all know what love is. This is something they cannot connect with.
So, if you're looking to stop your toddler's whining, see it. Otherwise, this is just an attempt to make more money off of a concept that worked well before.