Puss in Boots (2011)

After Donkey, Puss is my favourite character from the Shrek series. It's probably because I love cats, and because Antonio Banderas's accent is something else. Anyway, Shrek the Third and Shrek Forever After didn't do well with this character which is why a solo movie sounded like a good idea. It was, to be honest. Puss in Boots is entertaining and fun, but it has a problem, it lacks the magic of the first two Shrek movies. 

Years before meeting Shrek and Donkey, Puss in Boots (Antonio Banderas) is a wanted fugitive with a mission, to find magic beans. But Puss isn't the only one after the beans and he crosses paths with Kitty Softpaws (Salma Hayek), a female feline who is helping Humpty Dumpty (Zach Galifianakis), and egg of questionable intent and Puss' old friend. Puss eventually agrees to work with them and steal the beans from the outlaw couple Jack (Billy Bob Thornton) and Jill (Amy Sedaris) but things don't go according to plan.

The story isn't great and it starts off quite boring but as the plot develops and thickens up, it gets interesting and engaging. It's sloppy at times though, and in the end, although it manages to be somewhat emotional (in my experience, it works better for a younger audience), it gets as predictable as it can get. Still, it provides plenty of action and adventure and the fan of the Shrek series are not likely to get disappointed.

Paramount Pictures

Easily the best part of Puss in Boots is the characters. Puss finally gets the development and backstory he deserves and Antonio Banders makes the character even more likeable. Also, his chemistry with Salma Hayek is great. The other characters are a little shallow and aren't that developed (there indeed isn't a lot of change in the characters), but they are fun and humorous, especially Humpty Dumpty (the character itself isn't that interesting but he's got a nice backstory and Zack Galifianakis is fantastic in the role), and each has enough charms to keep you entertained from start to finish.

The humour is pretty good too. It makes fun of things cats usually do, like drinking milk and chasing lights, and it works. Some jokes and gags lack originality but they are properly developed. There are some jokes intended for the adults as well, but they never come off uncomfortable. 

The colourful animation is excellent, as always, and the setting, no longer the forest of Far Far Away but a Mexican village, is beautiful.

Shrek Forever After (2010)

A good first film followed by an even better sequel. That's how I would have described the Shrek series if they had stopped there. But they didn't. They made Shrek the Third, a forgettable film, to say the least. That wasn't enough and they made a fourth movie, Shrek Forever After, another terrible addition to the series. There's a bright side though, with this one they finally stopped wearing down Shrek. 

Since they were out of ideas, Shrek (Mike Myers) has some sort of mid-life crisis. He is drowning in his domestic routine life, all he wants is to be a real ogre again and makes a deal with Rumpelstiltskin (Walt Dohrn) to go back to his life before rescuing Fiona (Cameron Diaz). As he is erased from existence, Shrek finds himself in a dark alternate timeline where Rumpelstiltskin is king, ogres are hunted, and he and Fiona have never met so he sets out to restore his world.

I'm going as far as saying that I found the storyline to be quite interesting. Unfortunately, it was poorly executed and the result was what would probably happen if It's a Wonderful Life had a baby with a fantasy film, a very ugly baby. There are some twists but the overall plot is so boring, it makes for a very unpleasant watch. What really bothered me about this is the huge plot hole caused by Shrek 2. If Shrek didn't exist and therefore never rescued Fiona, Prince Charming would have saved her from the dragon and the alternate timeline of this film would have never existed.

DreamWorks Animation, Paramount Pictures

Anyway, the major problem with Shrek Forever After is that, order than completely lacking the charms and magic of the first two films, has no comedy whatsoever. The humour is gone, there are no one-liners for Donkey, and the characters only come off as annoying.

And it looks like the writers didn't care much about the characters either. There's no development and no reason to empathize with them or care for them. Also, the villain is weak as never before.

What really pisses me off is that the filmmakers knew it would be a mess so they added, here and there, some scenes that have absolutely no purpose in the story, like that dreadful dance number with the ogres and the very long scene where Shrek flies a witch's broom to escape from Rumpelstiltskin's castle. This last one was well done and kinda cool, still it had no reason to be in the film.

Shrek the Third (2007)

Forgettable. That's the first word that comes to my mind when I think of Shrek the Third because I've seen this film several times and yet I barely remembered a thing about before rewatching it. 

In this one, the king (John Cleese) of Far Far Away and father of Fiona (Cameron Diaz) dies and Shrek (Mike Myers) becomes the successor of the throne. But he doesn't feel like the right guy for the job so he decides to find Arthur (Justin Timberlake), the only remaining heir aside from him. But while Shrek, Donkey (Eddie Murphy) and Puss in Boots (Antonio Banderas) are away, Prince Charming (Rupert Everett) comes back with an army of evil fairy tale creatures and attempts to take over.

One of the problems with Shrek the Third is that the plot is developed in the first 15 minutes of the film which leaves an hour and 15 minutes completely plotless. A lot of things happen but they aren't really related to one another. There's Shrek struggling to accept the fact that he's becoming a father. There's Shrek trying to convince Arthur that being a king is awesome so that he won't have to do it. There's Donkey in Puss in Boots' body and Puss in Boots in Donkey's body. There's a lot going on, and it just didn't do for me.

DreamWorks Animation, Paramount Pictures

Also, it's clear right from the beginning that the film lacks that spark, that something both its two predecessors had. Making fun of fairy tales doesn't work anymore this time around, the humour isn't really funny (that scene at the beginning when Shrek and Fiona are wearing royal attire is cringy, to say the least) and it lacks emotions. There are several moments that are supposed to be moving but they weren't, and I think I felt the same way the first time I watched the film back in 2007.

Another problem is that there are too many characters. Although most of them are very likeable, they have no development and they only do stupid things that are supposed to be funny to distract from the fact that the film doesn't have a plot. But again, it doesn't work. Arthur is such a wimp (Justin Timberlake did a good job though) and Prince Charming as a villain doesn't have anything to offer that hasn't already in Shrek 2.

Being completely honest though, I had a little fun watching this. But only towards the end, when Prince Charming puts on a play (in theatre with an audience and all) to kill the evil ogre and rull in the kingdom of Far Far Away.

Shrek 2 (2004)

Like I told you last week, Shrek was one of my favourite films when I was a kid because it was fun and made fun of fairy tales. It's pretty much the same with Shrek 2. And I don't know how people feel about this one, but for me it's one of those times the sequel is better than the original. 

Picking up when the first film left, Shrek (Mike Myers) and Fiona (Cameron Diaz) are now happily married and live in his swamp with the annoying Donkey (Eddie Murphy) who is having some marital problems with the dragon. But then a letter from Fiona's parents (John Cleese and Julie Andrews) arrives, inviting them to dinner to celebrate her marriage which brings a lot of unhappiness in their lives because, as if Shrek and Fiona's father not getting along wasn't enough, Prince Charming (Rupert Everett), the guy who was supposed to marry Fiona, returns from a failed attempt at rescuing her and works alongside his mother, the Fairy Godmother (Jennifer Saunders), to separate Shrek and Fiona.

Although it lacks the originality and freshness of the first film, the story once again uses a lot of characters and aspects of famous fairy tales to entertaining and the twist of having the Fairy Godmother as the main villain makes it a lot interesting.

What I really liked about the first film was the humour, working both for kids and adults. And it's the same in this one. Only instead of relying on a lot of one-liners to make adults laugh, this one relies on parodying things that could appeal to adults such as The Lord of the Rings, Indiana Jones and Mission: Impossible. And it also makes fun of Hollywood - the land of Far Far Away is indeed a quite brilliant parody of Hollywood. 

However, what makes Shrek 2 so good are the characters. Shrek is pretty much the same angry but kind ogre, Fiona is sweet as usual and Donkey, well, he's annoying as only he could be, but the new characters are a very good addition to the film. The two villains, the Fairy Godmother and Prince Charming, are a lot of fun, both evil and charismatic. Then there's Puss in Boots who steals the scene and brings a lot of energy (and Antonio Banderas's accent) to the film. The performances from the new cast members are also noteworthy. Jennifer Saunders is excellent as the Fairy Godmother, and John Cleese and Julie Andrews are both wonderful as Fiona's parents. 

Shrek (2001)

Genres

Adventure, Animation, Comedy, Fantasy

Directors

Andrew Adamson, Vicky Jenson

Country

USA

Voice Cast

Mike Myers, Eddie Murphy, Cameron Diaz, John Lithgow, Vincent Cassel, Conrad Vernon, Chris Miller, Cody Cameron, Simon J. Smith, Christopher Knights, Aron Warner, Jim Cummings

Storyline

When Lord Farquaad (Vincent Cassel) exiles all the magical creatures to the woods, the fairy-tale beings decide to camp outside the house of ogre Shrek (Mike Myers) who loses his peaceful life. So, in order to get his land back, agrees to rescue Princess Fiona (Cameron Diaz) for Lord Farquaad.

Opinion

Flying over the fact that I haven't seen it in over 3 years (yeah, shame on me), Shrek has been one of my favourite animated films since always and has a special place in my heart not because it's fun, but because it makes fun of fairy tales. 

The story would have been your typical fairy tale story with a princess that needs to be rescued if it wasn't for the fact that there is no Prince Charming here. The hero is a grumpy green ogre who only acts for self-interest; he's basically a mercenary hired to do a job. And the prince (actually he won't be a prince unless he marries a princess) is a coward and rather pathetic little man. This twist (and many others along the way) is what makes the story interesting and charming. It's got some plot holes and a weird romantic subplot, but it eventually delivers its don't-judge-a-book-by-its-cover message. 

The soul of the film, however, isn't the story but the characters. They are a bit stereotyped (I mean, the ugly evil ogre isn't that evil after all, the noble is evil, and the friend is all over the place), but they are amazing, especially Shrek who is incredibly grumpy but equally likeable and Donkey, Shrek's animal sidekick. Donkey is actually my favourite thing about the Shrek franchise and he'll always be one of my favourite movie characters because of the wonderful work of Eddie Murphy. He was the perfect cast for the role, and gave such a funny and sweet performance. It's impossible not to love Donkey.

Another awesome thing about Shrek is that the humour works on different levels. When I was a kid I was able to enjoy all the fairy-tale related jokes and references; now I can also enjoy a lot of one-liners, especially those from Murphy and Myers who does a really good job as Shrek. 

The animation is also nice. There's a lot of attention to backgrounds, textures and details which make up for the goofy movements of some/most of the characters. 

SHREK FOREVER AFTER Fails At Box Office. Or Does It??

I am amazed at the number of media outlets blasting SHREK FOREVER AFTER for under performing at the box office this weekend. Over $70 million is a nice opening! Remember - this is the fourth franchise movie and Dreamworks Animation knew that it would be very hard to keep besting themselves at the box office every time around. Especially after Shrek 2 made $108m and Shrek 3 grabbed $121m - both setting records.

$70m is hardly a failure. While it may be true that less than half as many moviegoers as SHREK 3 (which was not a great movie - another mitigating factor to huge box office) went to see SHREK 4, we always have to look at the international market where SHREK really shines. It made $20m in Russia this weekend, which topped even AVATAR's opening.

Again, 3D is playing a HUGE role. Over 60% of the revenues were from 3D screens with the 3D premiums adding $13m to the tally. And don't forget that HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON had plenty of legs - SHREK 4 could stay awhile in theaters.

The lesson to be learned here, if any, is that some franchises peter out earlier than others. SHREK FOREVER AFTER's opening performance is a good one for just about any other franchise, except, well SHREK. Will DWA continue on with the franchise then? I highly doubt it with the announced sequels to HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON and KUNG FU PANDA - both in 3D of course. Legacy? Well, a generation of kids have plenty to look back on and smile at. And so does DWA.

Samsung To Offer 3D Blu-rays of Shrek, Monsters Vs. Aliens; Plus More 3DTV News

Michael here. According to Reuters, Samsung has announced that anyone who buys one of its 2010 3D TVs - which are coming out this month - along with their 3D Blu-ray player will get a kit that includes viewing glasses and a 3D version of Monsters vs. Aliens.

They also stated that the Shrek series will be available in 3D in the second half of 2010.

Meanwhile, Sony announced that they will begin selling 3DTV's in Japan on June 10, and internationally soon after. Sony expects its 46-inch model, which includes two pairs of 3D glasses, to sell for 350,000 yen ($3,875). According to Reuters this is 52 percent more than its latest regular LCD TV with a comparable screen size.

Oh, and Panasonic will officially launch sales of its 50 inch 3DTV tomorrow at a Best Buy store in Manhattan. Whether it will be available at other stores tomorrow is unclear.

Every significant TV manufacturer will be bringing out their 3D TV's within the next few months. Now the question is when those 3D Blu-rays will arrive. Hopefully we hear announcements of titles like Beowulf, Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs, Ice Age 3, Coraline, Journey 3D, Up and of course Avatar soon. It would be a shame to have those TVs out there without a good number of 3D Blu-rays. We know the technology is ready...now we just need to wait for the studios to make their moves.