Just another lunch box shifter

Rating: 3/10 (2 July 2001)

I went to the cinema gorged on the hype for this movie. What I found was that I knew every joke already, and that they weren't really funny.
What really got me was the animation of people. It was so bad that I would rather watch stick men. Computer animation just doesn't hack it when you are looking at something as familiar as a human face. This is something they knew when they made Toy Story, and got round in a very clever way. Shrek could have got round it by using caricatures for ALL the human characters.
Anyway, that aside, I found the film boring, and noted that the small children in the audience at one point started shouting across the cinema to each other, suggesting to me that they were bored too.
I shouldn't have gone to see this film. If you like cinema, and are concerned with decent storylines that are engaging and intelligent, then don't go and see this film without some form of inebriation to soothe you!
It really is, like Antz, substandard to Disney, no matter how many anti-Disney wise-cracks there are in there. The story is more simple than needs be, and has no message worth 90 minutes or whatever (seemed like 30 mins to me - small blessing). Also, I wonder if Mike Myers dare set foot in Scotland after another exploitative attempt at an accent. Mike Myers, you are no Mel Gibson - no one will thank you for this. Why are you bothering.
Ooh, yes, and the "hip" soundtrack just didn't hang. What were all those bands thinking. Ah yes, royalties!
Don't listen to the hype, and don't believe the self-referential "hipness". Shrek is just another lunch-box shifter.