Not BAD, but no Toy Story

Rating: Null/10 (17 June 2001)

I know I'm in the minority here, since it seems that everyone can't get enough of Shrek. I'm not american. I was brought up on the much grittier, blacker comedies of Britain and Australia. I therefore got off to a bad start when Shrek's opening moments consisted of nothing but flatulence humour. For god's sake, the Young Ones were doing that nearly 20 years ago and it's been subsequently picked clean by Matt and Trey with 'South Park'. I yawned. I think I am the ONLY person in the world to NOT think the Gingerbread Man is the funniest thing in the aforementioned world. What is the deal here?
I feel that everyone is being mesmerized by the admittedly top-notch CGI animation and the comfortingly simple moral of the story. And I think that's part of Shrek's problem. The animation is TOO good. I kept being distracted from whatever character development might have been happening by every single hair painstakingly rendered on the donkey or on Fiona's head. The writers seem to be so busy taking rather luke-warm potshots at Disney's canon (I doubt Michael Eisner and Peter Schneider are smarting from the barbs) that the characters just don't grab you. Eddie Murphy's performance is the only decent thing about it...even if some of his script IS rather inexplicable (what's he babbling about PARFAITS for?...). I have yet to see why everyone adores Mike Myers so much. Maybe it's because I never saw Saturday Night Live or any Austin Powers movies. But the fact that Dreamworks splash Myers/Murphy/Diaz/Lithgow in bigger lettering than the title of the movie seems to say that they're lacking in some confidence as to the quality of the story and the characters...only big-name power can bring the crowds. And it seems, it's working. If an equally talented. yet unknown actor had voiced Shrek, would everyone still adore him so much? Cameron Diaz's Princess Fiona wasn't bad, but her motives as a character were a little confusing. If she's so keen to play the role of the princess-in-distress, where did she get the need to be able to Xena-whallop a gang of annoying Merry Men? If she's meant to be a parody of a fairytale princess, that's fine, but inserting the Lara Croft element for no real reason only undermines and weakens her role in the story. The climax was the biggest groaner. I guessed SO far in advance what was going to happen, the least they could do was bring it about in an original manner. The emotional climax of a movie, when we're supposed to empathize with characters the MOST, isn't the time to indulge the Anti-Disney Elf again.
Look at Toy Story. Woody and Buzz are only 5 years old, but they're already part of the cultural lexicon. Say 'To Infinity and Beyond!' or 'There's a snake in mah boot!' to anyone and they'll crack a smile. I can't see any of the cast of Shrek being clamoured over on ebay. Not that memorable characters and movies have to hinge on catchphrases or merchandise, but the success of toy story was that Pixar made sure you ONLY concentrated on the characters, not off-the-cuff in-jokes put there by writers to remind you that you're supposed to only watch and mock, not get involved.
Watertight, emotionally-gripping storytelling is the first and most important thing in ANY movie, even a comedy. An entertaining story can be told with less-than-perfect production values (like South Park), but all the money and technological marvels and big-name voices can't save a slip-shod story and characters with no real heart.
Emperor's New Groove was an outstanding example of the modern animated satire (along with Chicken Run, tellingly a non-american production). They have the potential to do consistently great stuff (Prince of Egypt was a very good start) if only they realise that great comedy and drama comes from character, not bells and whistles.