« A Well-Earned Rest | Main | Guest Blog: Dave the Lawyer »

11 August 2004 — Shrek 2 (9)

Sometimes I feel pop culture has left me behind. Digitally animated films are a case in point.

Everyone I know loves Toy Story, Toy Story 2, Shrek, Shrek 2, A Bug's Life, Monster's Inc., Ice Age, etc. Me? I find these films fair to middling. (Monsters Inc. is my favorite of the bunch.)

Part of the problem is that I don't love digital animation as much as everyone else does. You've heard me complain — ad nauseum — about the shoddy digital effects in feature films (particularly Attack of the Clones and Peter Jackson's Helms Deep); imagine how I must feel watching entire films of digital animation!

I prefer — strongly — traditional cel-painted animation. (Note that I'm not saying traditional animation is better, just that I prefer it.)

Last night, Kris and I watched Shrek 2, a film that received rave reviews from friends and from critics. Predictably, I was unimpressed.

I did laugh, and was particularly amused by the throwaway gags, those bits that parodied pop culture (especially obscure aspects of pop culture). And the scene where Puss-In-Boots introduction is marred by a hairball had me in stitches (one of the funniest things I've seen since The Princess Bride's R.O.U.S.!). But despite the grin on my face, the film left me with a hollow feeling.

As with most films that I'm unable to buy into, I'm frustrated by the scripts to these animated features. Sure, the jokes are funny, written with a deft hand, but the rest of the dialogue is generally flat and trite, and the situations themselves generic. The plots are mundane, the barest threads upon which to hang the beautiful digital animation and the funny visual jokes.

The problem with Shrek 2 isn't so much the plot — though it is pretty lame, despite some cute twists (the Fairy Godmother as manipulative evil bitch) — as it is the dialogue. The jokes are funny, sure, but the rest of the script is mediocre at best, and often just bad. Also, there were too many vignettes that played as music videos.

I didn't hate Shrek 2, just as I didn't hate Peter Jackson's Helms Deep. But I didn't find other film up to the enormous hype. They're both average films billed as classics.

(What I really wanted to see last night was Mean Girls but, alas, it wasn't available when we wanted it.)

On this day at foldedspace.org

2005Bird Photographs   As you may have suspected, my interest in birdwatching is intersecting my interest in photography. I want to make photographs of birds. Unfortunately, I can't find a good way to do so.

2003Three Men and Adena   In which my wife is right.

Comments
On 11 August 2004 (08:58 AM), Amanda said:

Ditto, ditto, ditto. None of my friends understand why I'm so underwhelmed by animation, but I am. Gimme good old fashioned real life actors any day of the week.


On 11 August 2004 (11:16 AM), dowingba said:

Gimme good old fashioned real life actors any day of the week.

Alright then, I'll get the real talking donkey and real giant green er, goblin thing to the studio, post haste.


On 11 August 2004 (01:44 PM), Denise said:

I really liked Finding Nemo.


On 11 August 2004 (02:07 PM), Aimee said:

Mean Girls is sensational! Don't give up on it as a second-run or rental option, or as a trifling tenny-bopper wannabe movie too good for your time ... Joel and I were pleasantly surprised at the story and acting talents (Lindsay Lohan & company are fun to watch) when we took it in at the low-risk, high-brew McMenamins' Bagdad theater. The movie is based on a recently published expose; I've been trying to get my hands on a copy of Queen Bees and Wannabees for sometime now ...


On 11 August 2004 (03:53 PM), Pam said:

I think you are forgetting that these movies were meant for KIDS! Of course highly educated adults will find the scripts mediocre, but they aren't written to compete with Shakespeare! Sure there are a few clever jokes and references to keep the parents entertained, but the true target audience is underscored by the universal G ratings of these films.


On 11 August 2004 (08:37 PM), Joel said:

Ah, the R.O.U.S.'s. Now there were some special effects worthy of the name.


On 12 August 2004 (05:23 AM), Dana said:

You would think the R.O.U.S.es were the comedic high-point of the Princess Bride. :/

"Why do you wear a mask? Were you burned by acid or something?"
"Oh, no. It's just that they're extremely comfortable -- I think everyone will be wearing them!"

"Stop that rhyming now. I really mean it!"
"Anybody want a peanut?"


On 13 August 2004 (09:44 AM), J.D. said:

Dana: You would think the R.O.U.S.es were the comedic high-point of the Princess Bride. :/

They were for me. I've never laughed so hard in my life. On the other hand, the two lines you mention didn't even merit a grin. Different strokes! :)

Pam: I think you are forgetting that these movies were meant for KIDS!

This is true. I had forgotten this. However, being a kids film isn't a license for mediocrity. There are scores of high-quality children's films that don't neglect story and script! Still, your point is well-taken.


On 13 August 2004 (12:06 PM), Andrew Parker said:

John, I suggest you try the old Pixar animated short films to see if your perspective changes. I was lucky to stumble into a big-screen showing of these on campus in 1990 and was immediately charmed: written cleverly enough to warm the techieness of then-cutting-edge computer rendering technology... http://www.pixar.com/shorts/


Post a comment
Name


Email Address
(required, not shown)


URL


Comments




Remember info?