Shrek Forever After

I think I can help Dreamworks with a problem they seem to have had with this film. As it was coming out, I could not figure out whether the title was “Shrek Forever After” or “Shrek: The Final Chapter”. I saw and heard both titles being advertized, which is kind of funny when you consider the fact that a movie is having an identity crisis. I propose a new title: “Shrek Saves Face”. Seriously though, I shall use the title I saw at the start of the film but my point is that this film was made mostly because “Shrek the Third” was such a flop. The filmmakers did a smart thing by stealing the story of “It’s a Wonderful Life” starring Jimmy Stewart because it is entertaining to see our favorite characters act out this tale. Of course, this story is quite worn-out and the filmmakers have run out of fairy tales to spoof and reference. The film was definitely not worth the 3D ticket price and those who haven’t seen it should wait until it is released for home viewing. That doesn’t mean that I won’t ever see it again though. The animation is well done in some places and as mentioned, watching our favorite characters in a “Wonderful Life” scenario was entertaining. It is too bad that the Shrek movies have to end like this and my wish would have been for the tale to end with “Shrek 2”.

Pixar is the best at character animation with Dreamworks in a well-deserved second place. For the most part though, the best acting in the Dreamworks films tend to be in the Shrek series. When I saw the first Shrek film, I was blown away by how real Fiona looked and acted. This achievement was maintained in “Shrek 2” with the performance of the human characters, particularly the Fairy Godmother and Prince Charming. We skip ahead to “Shrek Forever After” and Fiona is once again the best actor. Fiona is obviously beautiful but her acting is what really makes her attractive. During the dramatic scenes, I believe her performance. Ever time she has that “spark” as Puss called it, her face is filled with so much emotion. That is what makes Fiona the most beautiful to me: her love for Shrek. Unfortunately, that is the only thing special about this film.

After the failure of “Shrek the Third”, it is no surprise that Dreamworks would want to save the series. As a result, they looked to a story that has influenced so many television show episodes and movies with generally positive effects: “It’s a Wonderful Life”. There are many comparisons between the two films, one of which is that Felicia’s doll can be likened unto Zuzu’s petals or the broken banister in George’s house. The thing that makes “It’s a Wonderful Life” so wonderful is the payoff at the end and “Shrek Forever After” failed to provide a similar type of payoff. At the end of “It’s a Wonderful Life”, George is so happy about his ordinary life being restored that everyone else is confused. This was probably modeled after the final moments in Charles Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol” in that Scrooge’s character change at the end is a complete surprise to all. We also had a great payoff at the end of “Click” when Adam Sandler is happy to see the “Bed, Bath and Beyond” employee, his parents and his young family. He is so overjoyed that his life is back to normal that everyone is puzzled. I was expecting this at the end of “Shrek Forever After” and for the most part, it did not come. The payoff was not satisfying and this did not do the film any good.

The story of this Shrek movie has other problems in that Shrek’s crisis in his life at the start of the film is not as relatable to kids as was his crisis in the original film. In “Shrek”, our main character is judged based on what is on the outside and he is able to overcome this. In “Shrek Forever After”, Shrek wants his bachelorhood life again. This kind of desire appeals to older audiences but not to children as much. Shrek’s opening aspirations in this sequel contradict those in the original film as well. In “Shrek”, he wanted people to see him as more than just a smelly ogre. In “Shrek Forever After”, he wants exactly the opposite. In addition I believe that after Shrek’s adventure in “Shrek 2”, he would have not taken his love of Fiona for granted ever again. Also Rumpelstiltskin was introduced in the third film as a very minor character and in “Shrek Forever After”, he is completely different. Plus, there is a story flaw in the alternate reality because I think Prince Charming would have rescued Fiona before she gave up on being rescued. Finally if the spell on Fiona was broken, shouldn’t have we seen something magical happen like at the end of the first film.

People go to sequels because they want to re-experience things. Filmmakers have the choice of either shaking things up like on “The Empire Strikes Back” or going on a new but similar adventure like on “Toy Story 2”. Most of the time, sequels do moderately well. The first Shrek was so fresh because fairytales were spoofed and modernized. “Shrek” had a good four-way relationship between the characters, the audience, the filmmakers & the story. This allowed the filmmakers to use postmodernism and their disposition towards fairytales to create an enjoyable experience for the audience. Even though fairytales were being played with, the film still followed classic fairytale motifs such as true love’s kiss. “Shrek 2” was really successful because of the potential of being able to spoof and modernize other fairytales not delved upon in the original. Also, “Shrek 2” introduced new characters and had an entertaining new but similar adventure for Shrek and his friends. After that film, people became accustomed to the world of Shrek and so the subsequent films in the series lacked the freshness of the first two films. One of the losses of the third and fourth films is that of the character Puss in Boots. He was so entertaining in “Shrek 2” and I felt that in the subsequent films he didn’t live up to his initial impression. They could have made Puss even cooler in the last two films just like Legolas in “The Lord of the Rings”. The original film used big stars, as did the first sequel. Even the third film had some big new names but in “Shrek Forever After”, there was no new star power. I thought DreamWorks was known for going after the biggest stars they could get. I loved how the first two films started out because they established a sweet fairytale feeling with Fiona’s theme music accompanying a sincere storybook reading and then interrupted things by a modern song or joke. The last two films in the series did not do this. Once Andrew Adamson left the director’s chair, it seems the series went downhill.

The 3D and design of this film was not as good as in “How to Train Your Dragon”. Besides the animated performances, particularly on Fiona, this film has little appeal. We have a story that is fun to watch with these characters but it is cliché. I felt no concern for Shrek’s circumstance towards the end because I knew things would work out all right. They always do in this kind of story. As a consolation prize, “Shrek Forever After” is better than “Shrek the Third”. And so ends the Shrek series (I am trying to sound positive because the "Puss in Boots" spinoff was even worse)

2 Stars