Nice film, objectionable material greatly exaggerated

Rating: 9/10 (26 May 2001)

I feel it's important to rebut the many comments which have been made about the "gross-out" humor which people seem to have taken great exception to in Shrek. There is a bit more innuendo and tastelessness than some adults might care for.
But consider the primary viewing audience of this film: kids (heck, the name is Shrek!) The innuendo will go--whoosh!---over their heads and the flatulence/b.o. jokes are definitely at grade school level. Young'uns minds are not being polluted by this harmlessness. I'm much more worried about the implications for society of 20-somethings being hung up on the same humor and flocking to see Carrey, Sandler, Schneider, and the gang in more "sophisticatedly" tasteless films.
As for being a can of pop culture and thus hopelessly derivative and unoriginal, again, this movie is for kids. These touches to the film are witty, if self-consciously so, and the kids (and adults) in the theater I saw it in found it all very funny.
I advise jaded viewers to try to view it with less pre-conceived bias against it. So what if things are being rehashed? At least they're more genuinely conceived than pat Disney (Hercules et al.) I just rented Hamlet (Ethan Hawke, 2000) from Blockbuster and the "to be or not to be" soliloquy was delivered with Hamlet in the Action section of a Blockbuster store. I'm not saying Shrek was as high-concept, but both it and Shrek are demonstrations, on different levels, of how employing pop culture may add to a film.
Mike Myers was all right, if a bit flat. Eddie Murphy was sometimes very funny. Cameron Diaz was a fine princess, after Steinem and Charlie's Angels. Some of the emotional touches in the animation were quite effective and put Toy Story 2 to shame. Not a perfect film, but adults, I beg you, watch this film through your kid's eyes (or, if you don't have one, fake it).
Note: The author is 19, male, and lives on Long Island