Though better than the previous installment, Shrek Forever After fails to revive the magic of the original

Rating: 5/10 (2 June 2010)

After Shrek the Third, I must say, I went into this with extremely low expectations. With an amazing first film and an equally amazing sequel, I'm probably not the only one who felt shafted by the third film in the series. After seeing Forever After, I can safely say that it exceeded my expectations.
However, just because it improves over the third one does NOT make it a worthy predecessor of Shrek and Shrek 2. The story is very clever and engaging, yet at times feels rushed and careless. It's as if they simply didn't care about making Shrek go out on the same level it came in. On the other hand, it was a very interesting idea and there were some times when we got a glimpse of an almost return-to-form for the series, as short-lived as these moments were.
My biggest complaint about the movie involves the characters. One of the key factors to the success of the previous movies were its fun and unique array of characters (especially Donkey, who is arguably the most popular character in the whole series). However, in this entry into the franchise, it seems as if these characters were pushed to the side, and the movie seemed to solely focus on Shrek. Now, I know he's the main protagonist and the namesake of the films, but the element that kept the entire series so fresh was its variety of characters. I was pretty saddened when I saw great characters like Puss in Boots and Donkey go from co-leads to minor characters. Even when they were on screen, the chemistry just didn't seem to be there. In the previous films (even in the third one), there is very strong chemistry between all of the film's main characters. In this one, it all feels a bit forced and doesn't have the same kind of emotional appeal as the others did.
The lack of chemistry may also stem from a rather lackluster performance from some of the leads, most notably Mike Meyers as Shrek. I was very disappointed in his performance, to say the least. Having just recently watched the first two, it's impossible not to compare them all. I may not be able to speak for everybody, but in my opinion, Mike Meyers has considerably less enthusiasm and emotion with his character as he did before. He has turned Shrek, a disgustingly funny, yet lovable, character into a droll and lifeless shell of his former self.
However, though some of the actors fell short of expectations, some actors shined. Walt Dohrn was absolutely BRILLIANT as Rumpelstiltskin. He put a fun and interesting twist on an old character and made him fresh and entertaining. He had just the right voice and attitude for the character, and it was obvious he was very passionate about the role and put a lot of emotion into it.
So, all in all, Shrek Forever After was a welcome step-up over its immediate predecessor, yet a rushed story, lack of chemistry, and a less-than-stellar performance by Mike Myers kept it from coming anywhere close to the bar set by the first and second films in the series.
I guess Shrek was right in the movie; he just isn't the same ogre he was before.