Puss in Boots: The Last Wish

Tonight, I went and saw “Puss in Boots: The Last Wish,” which came out nine days ago. If you remember, I reviewed the first one at the beginning of last year. What I didn't mention is that the sequel was in talks for years. How did it turn out after much discussion?

The sword-fighting cat spun off from the Shrek franchise makes a very successful comeback in this epic fantasy adventure from DreamWorks Animation (the fifth film featuring this character). It looks like this animated film has a chance at an Oscar this year.

Puss in Boots, reprised by Antonio Banderas, is a fearless fighter, and the film starts with him defeating a giant opponent. Part of the reason he is fearless is that he has nine lives. A series of reckless accidents and misadventures over the years, leaves him with just one life remaining, and this shows his primary fear, a fear he never had to face before.

Death comes to him in the form of the Big Bad Wolf (Wagner Moura), and Puss runs away, looking for hiding to a cat lady (Da’Vine Joy Randolph) who takes in numerous stray cats. There, proud Puss suffers the shame of wearing little cat mittens on his paws and eating cat food from a sort of feeding trough. However, he makes friends with a small, persistently upbeat dog, Perrito, voiced by Harvey Guilén, who is pretending to be a cat in order to eat.

Robert Roten said in his review, “It appears that Puss in Boot's adventurous personality is slipping away as he settles in to a safe, monotonous life.” Suddenly, three bears (Olivia Colman, Ray Winstone, and Samson Kayo) and Goldilocks (Florence Pugh) break into the house, looking for him. They don’t recognize him, but when he overhears what they are after, he gets back into gear, ready for a new adventure.

What they are looking for is a magic map which leads to a place in a dangerous dark forest where a magical Wishing Star can grant a single wish. Puss wants to use this wish to get his nine lives back. He and Perrito go to search for the map. Along the way, they meet up with an old friend, master thief Kitty Softpaws, reprised by Salma Hayek, who is also after the map.

Puss and Kitty Soft Paws steal the map from Big Jack Horner, voiced by John Mulaney, a collector who hired Goldilocks and the Bears to get the map. Puss, Kitty, and Perrito go with the map, with Goldilocks, the bears and Jack Horner close behind. Jack Horner brings along a whole bag of magical objects from such stories like Pinocchio and Alice in Wonderland that he has collected to help him with his quest. Jack raises one of the spells, causing Jiminy Cricket, voiced by Kevin McCann (sounding like he is doing a Jimmy Stewart impression), to appear. Jiminy’s moral advice is ignored by Jack, but Jiminy eventually gets the last word.

When they enter the magic forest, Puss and Kitty each see a different, dark and dangerous path rejoiced to them by the magic map. However, Perrito, having a gentle nature, sees an easier way to the Wishing Star. Goldilocks and the bears, along with Jack Horner all end up in a huge fight for the Wishing Star. In the end, the quest and fight reveal the true nature of each of these characters, for good or evil, generosity, or selfishness. Therein lies the moral of the story.

This year, there have not been many top notch animated film, unlike 2021, when there were more excellent animated films. Roten said, “It looks to me like this movie is one the top five best animated films I've seen this year (along with “Turning Red,” “Pinocchio,” “Marcel the Shell with Shoes On” and “The Bad Guys”).” It should get an Academy Award nomination.

As a spinoff to the Shrek franchise, these are very good movies. The first one was really enjoyable and I know that the sequel was in talks for years. Finally, when they had announced the sequel, the pandemic delayed everything. Now we finally got it in time before the holidays, and it is actually better. The animation is on the same level as the Spider-Verse movie. This has some funny lines, some great action, and really great humanizing moments with some real legitimate drama. If you saw the first one and loved it, see the sequel. You will enjoy it. However, I would highly recommend everyone to see the first movie before going to the theater to see the sequel. See it if you like the Shrek franchise.

Thank you for joining in on my review tonight. Stay tuned tomorrow for the finale of “Disney Month 2022.”

Puss in Boots

So much time had pass since people could say confidently that an animated film was the highlight of its opening weekend at the box office, and that was with Dreamworks Animation’s “Puss in Boots,” the 2011 spin-off of the “Shrek” franchise that is more active and more entertaining than people would think. Richard Propes said in his review, “Of course, it should be noted that the opening weekend of Puss in Boots is dotted with such cinematic mediocrity as Anonymous and In Time.”

“Puss in Boots” is a prequel to the “Shrek” films, but it has a completely different tone and look to it. I should also point out that “Puss in Boots” is one of the rare films of the year that the 3D animation was actually worth it. Propes mentioned, “The film's animation is richly layered and the action sequences, abundant in quantity, are also of tremendous quality. While the film is not up to Pixar's best, it certainly surpasses this year's Cars sequel and it wouldn't be surprising to see it mentioned during the 2011 awards season.”

The script from a team of writers doesn’t really bring anything new and definitely isn’t on the same emotional level of a Pixar film, but Dreamworks was really making a mark for itself as just a step below the Pixar films with their recent films like “How to Train Your Dragon” and the “Kung Fu Panda” movies.

Propes credited, “Antonio Banderas is marvelous as Puss, bringing to his vocal work a vibrance and energy that would make you literally able to envision the action even if you weren't looking at the screen. Banderas is suave, debonaire, funny and simply everything you want Puss to be. The actor has had quite the year between this appearance and his appearance in Almodovar's controversial The Skin I Live In.” Salma Hayek is perfect as his halt and friend, Kitty Softpaws. Visually, the two enjoy some really great scenes that go from well choreographed sword fights to really entertaining scenes. The story tells audiences Puss’s childhood and his friendship with Humpty Dumpty, voiced by Zach Galifianakis, whose work on the film include one of the naughtier jokes that was every inserted in a kids’ film (that it’s almost reassured the kids will never get).

Billy Bob Thornton and Amy Sedaris voice Jack and Jill, whose magic beans become the subject of a robbery by Humpty and Puss.

Directed by Chris Miller, who also directed the boring “Shrek the Third,” “Puss in Boots” hands down is superior to just about anything that anyone could have thought from a film that spun off of a four film franchise. Even one of the largest fan had to think if “Puss in Boots” would be worth checking out. Surprisingly, it’s one of the best animated films of 2011.

If you were not very fond of the “Shrek” franchise after one or two movies, then you should see “Puss in Boots” because it was a very good animated movie. I checked this out when my brother got it from the library and I thought it was very entertaining. As a spin-off to the franchise about a character that is a spoof on Banderas’ Zorro character, it did a really good job. You should see it, especially if you have kids, because all of you will really enjoy it, I promise.

Alright everyone, we have now come to the end of “Salma Hayek Month.” I hope everyone enjoyed it and have checked out the films that I have reviewed, even though there are more films that she starred in. I know there might be some famous ones that I didn’t look it, but I will have to see when I can check them out and look at when will be the right time to review them.

Stay tuned next month when we pick back up with “Black History Movie Month,” where I will be looking at some of the work done by a really great actor/director of his time.

Shrek Forever After

Now we have come to the finale of “Shrek Month” with its latest installment, “Shrek Forever After,” released in 2010.

Most people wouldn’t see the same thing twice if the first time left them with a sour taste in their mouth. After the dull installment of “Shrek the Third,” it’s no surprise that many audiences didn’t go see “Shrek Forever After,” which is bad since it’s much better than the third movie.

Realizing that the life of an average dad is too ordinary for him, Shrek loses his temper stomping out of his kids’ (Jasper Johannes Andrews, Ollie Mitchell, Miles Bakshi and Nina Zoe Bakshi) birthday party and rails against a following Fiona. Overheard by Rumpelstiltskin, voiced by Walt Dohrn, who wants revenge against Shrek and had his one chance at taking over the kingdom ruined by Shrek’s rescue of Fiona, he is given the deal of a lifetime. Rumpelstiltskin gives Shrek with a profitable exchange that would give him to see how life would be as an ogre again for one day. The deal is, all he has to do is give up one unimportant day from his childhood.

As with every deal, everything is written out. Without knowing it, Shrek signs over his birth day, which gives the main force of the story. Without being born, King Harold signs over his kingdom to break the curse of Fiona. Now, Far Far Away has the selfish, greedy Rumpelstiltskin as king who dominates his people and doesn’t have soldiers and protectors but the entire kingdom’s witch population, all outcasts before.

To get everything back, Shrek must convince everyone who doesn’t know him to not only trust him, but accept that “True Love’s Kiss” will break the spell and end Rumpelstiltskin’s hold over all of them.

Wesley Lovell said in his review, “You shouldn’t be surprised how the story pans out as there are few surprises left in the franchise at this point. The story is well drawn and plotted, though dotted with unnecessary one-liners and painfully rote dialogue. It’s like watching a grade school production of Hamlet produced by multi-millionaires: plenty of technical pizzazz, but immensely lacking in depth.”

Lovell continued, “Where the third film went wrong is that it shifted away from a fairy-tale basis having nearly exhausted the trove of tales out there from which to draw inspiration. King Arthur, as a legend, is a compelling story, but it’s not the kind of fantasy this franchise requires. It may be based on a real person embellished as a folk tale, but it’s not a fable meant to teach the audience a moral lesson.” The fourth film, based on the first-born-stealing Rumpelstiltskin, is more in line with the original film and sequel’s ideas.

Lovell noted, “There are many funny moments in the film: the gladiatorial Gingerbread Man (Conrad Vernon); the Trojan horse conceit; all of the scenes with Puss in Boots (Antonio Banderas); the waffle hole; and the opening scene establishing Shrek’s growing dissatisfaction. Yet for all of the fun moments, there are far too many uninteresting ones that tend to flee the mind shortly after viewing.”

The Shrek series has shown a quick downfall in quality as the main idea becomes older and less lively. Unlike the “Toy Story” franchise, the creators must be more into wanting the franchise make more money than trying to look at new areas and find a deep character that interest’s audience. Instead, they just purposely redo the same idea with new stories that look original, but also look stale.

“Shrek Forever After” is better than the third film, but that’s not saying much. It’s still not anywhere as good as the first two in the series, which is a letdown in quality from the original boosted by “Puss in Boots.” There have been talk about a final film in the series, but we’ll see how long that will take in the next few years, especially since after the phenomenal release of the third, they said there would be two more films, not just this one.

As you might have guessed from reading this, “Shrek Forever After” is one of those films that copied the idea of “It’s a Wonderful Life.” I don’t understand why people copy that idea when it belongs in that movie and nowhere else. Just because it worked once doesn’t mean it will work again. However, this movie is a cute flick, despite the rip-off idea of a classic Christmas movie. If you want to see this one, especially if you didn’t like the third film, go right ahead.

We have now come to the end of “Shrek Month.” I hope everyone enjoyed this month and I hope everyone will see the franchise, or if you have, hopefully you agreed.

Check in next month to see what I have in store everyone.

Shrek the Third

Diana Saenger started her review out by saying, “DreamWorks’ animated series about Shrek, an ogre who rules his territory by making fun of himself and looking at the glass as half-full, became a funny and successful franchise as the result of the first two releases. Shrek (2001) and Shrek 2 (2004) are nearing the $1.4 billion revenue mark, and the amount is still climbing.” With this type of success, it was obvious to come out with “Shrek the Third,” but this 2007 sequel lacks everything that made the first two films so entertaining.

At the end of “Shrek 2,” Shrek’s life was turning out good. The swamp loving and grouchy (who also has a heart of gold) ogre, found the love of his life in the kind of eccentric Princess Fiona. Her parents, King Harold and Queen Lillian, who rule Far, Far Away, weren’t too happy about their only daughter marrying an ogre and going off to live in his swamp. Eventually they saw how happy they were and finally approved their marriage with blessings.

“Shrek the Third” starts with King Harold, who was turned into a frog in the last film, on his death bed. He decides Shrek must take his throne and rule the kingdom. Farting a lot in the swamp is one thing – but in the castle? Shrek knows right away that he doesn’t want the job. When he sees there is one other relative, Fiona’s cousin Arthur, voiced by Justin Timberlake, who could rule the kingdom, Shrek and his friends, Puss in Boots and Donkey leave to find him.

Saenger said, “Up to this point there have a been a few laughs, so as the ship sails away, I—as a  big Shrek fan—settled in for more laughs and for that smart pop-culture banter that filled the first two films. Without delay the conniving Price Charming shows up to become the next king. There's a long unfunny segment where he puts on his own stage play, not exactly making his quest to rule too urgent.” He finally breaks into the castle and takes Fiona, her girl friends and the Queen captive, then throws them in the dungeon.

How about those girl friends? Saenger said, “Well, they have the depth of a pancake and spout inane dialogue.” The animation of Snow White (Amy Poehler), Cinderella (Amy Sedaris), Sleeping Beauty (Cheri Oteri) and Rapunzel (Maya Rudolph) seems weak compared to the animation in the rest of the movie, which also lacks in comparison to the previous films.

Making their directing debuts on “Shrek the Third” are Chris Miller and Raman Hui. Saenger said, “The movie also has a slew of writers, some new, but they've layered the new offering with non-comical heavy-handed scenarios and uninteresting characters.”

Charming’s evil colleagues such as Captain Hook (Ian McShane) and Rumpelstiltskin (Conrad Vernon) are as weak as anything. Where are the funny characters that really stood out in the other “Shrek” movies, like the hilarious Fairy Godmother? Also, where are those wonderful parodies that made “Shrek” and “Shrek 2” as enjoyable for parents as it was for kids?

Shrek himself is so unfunny it actually hurts. Saenger said, “The big oaf we loved has been replaced by a doofus moving through his lackluster life with little interest. What a disappointment to lose what Mike Myers previously brought to this character. Even the news that Shrek is about to be a father is treated with daft set-ups devoid of warmth and humor. Shrek’s dream sequence about multiple babies is like many of the scenes here that rely on pratfalls and fast action but fail to be amusing. Fiona turns out to be a nurturing wife, but there's little humor in her role as well.”

Honestly, Donkey and Puss in Boots are the only funny characters in the movie and they are irregular. Saenger said, “I remember checking my watch during long moments where nothing funny or engaging happened at all.”

Rupert Everett as Charming is truthfully the best part of this film. He successfully brought his character to life in the last two movies, and even though he has a kind of unlikely plotline in “Shrek the Third,” he still deserves his earning the high scores as a comical and interesting character.

Saenger ended her review by saying, “With more focus on Shrek toys at the fast food joints than a clever story, the bottom line in this unfortunate sequel is that Shrek no longer has fun, and neither do we.”

After such a great success with the first two movies, this one just fell flat, like a lot of third installments do. This was just a boring story with the whole, “I don’t want to be king,” like a spoiled, rotten child. I was really let down and disappointed by this film when I saw it. Just do yourself a favor and never see this one because it clearly is making Shrek into an ogre who doesn’t want any responsibility and just wants to lounge around and do nothing. If that was the case, then it just makes the first film unnecessary when he married Fiona. Why make the third film like that when Shrek should have known what was coming for him after he asked Fiona to marry him? Like I said, avoid this film.

Well, now that we have gotten that one out of the way, prepare yourselves for next week for the finale of “Shrek Month.”

Shrek 2

“Shrek 2,” released in 2002, is bright, lively and entertaining, but it’s not “Shrek.” Maybe it’s a lot to think that it can happen twice. “Shrek” was original in the animation and so much outpouring of creative imagination that it blindsided us. “Shrek 2” is wonderful in its own way, but more grounded. It’s more fun to see Shrek fight a dragon than to watch him meeting his parent-in-laws.

Shrek actually looks shaking on the edge of middle-class decency in the sequel. There’s nothing like a good woman to control an ogre. His previous way of being lonely in the swamp has changed so much thanks to falling in love with Princess Fiona, however his table manners could use improvement when he has dinner with her parents, King Harold (John Cleese) and Queen Lillian (the great and powerful Julie Andrews).

In the first film, as you should recall, Fiona’s curse was that she had been kidnapped by a dragon, but could be rescued if the dragon was killed and she was kissed by the hero who accomplished that. Superlatively, that would have been Prince Charming, voiced by Rupert Everett, but in “Shrek 2,” when he finally arrives at the castle, he sees to his strong disappointment that Shrek has already killed the dragon and married Fiona – and that Shrek’s kiss really changed Fiona. No longer small, she is tall and broad and green, and an ogre.

A letter comes from the Kingdom of Far Far Away: Fiona’s parents want to meet her new husband. This has a very long journey for Shrek, Fiona and Donkey, who insists that he wants to come along. Roger Ebert said in his review, “Donkey is the comic high point of the movie, with Eddie Murphy's non-stop riffs and inability to guess when he is not welcome.” “The Trick isn’t that he talks,” Shrek says in the first movie. “The trick is to get him to shut up.” The kingdom is really far, far away, which makes Donkey to keep asking, “Are we there yet?”

Their arrival at the castle of Fiona’s parents gives huge laughs. Harold and Lillian are shocked to see that Fiona has not only married an ogre, but became one. A flock of doves is released to welcome their arrival, and one of them is so shocked, it crashes into the castle wall and falls right at Harold’s feet.

Eventually the story takes us into the realm of the Fairy Godmother, voiced by Jennifer Saunders, an evil villain who works a huge factory mixing potions and curses. It is possible that her Happily Ever After potion could change ogres into humans. Not if she can make it. She wants to throw out Shrek and marry Fiona to Prince Charming, which was her original plan.

Ebert noted, “The screenplay, by J. David Stem, Joe Stillman and David N. Weiss, has the same fun that "Shrek" did in playing against our expectations.” Who would think a fight between Shrek and Fiona, with Shrek storming out of the house? Ebert asked, “What about the arrivals ceremony at the matrimonial ball, with all of the kingdom's celebrities walking down a red carpet while an unmistakable clone of Joan Rivers does the commentary?” There’s actually sincerity when Shrek and Fiona start kissing.

Ebert admitted, “The movie has several songs, none of which I found very memorable, although of course I am the same person who said the Simon and Garfunkel songs in "The Graduate" were "instantly forgettable." The first song, "Accidentally in Love," explains how Shrek and Fiona fell for each other. It's cut like a music video, which is OK, but I think it comes too early in the film, before we really feel at home with the narrative.”

A few minor characters from the first film, like the Gingerbread Man and the Three Blind Mice, return for the sequel, and there’s a new essential character: Puss-in-Boots, a cat who, as Ebert says, “seems to have been raised on Charles Boyer movies,” and is voiced by Antonio Banderas. Donkey and Puss have a huge shared hatred, because each one thinks he’s the star.

Sequels have their work cut out for them. Ebert admitted, “Some people think "Godfather, Part II" is better than "The Godfather," but the first film loomed so tall in my mind that I gave "Part II" only three stars. In the same way, perhaps I would have liked "Shrek 2" more if the first film had never existed. But I'll never know.”

Still, “Shrek 2” is a happy story, and Shrek himself looks strong enough to inspire “Shrek 3” with no problem at all. Well, we’ll have to see about that.

Before we get to that one, I personally think, like a lot of people, that “Shrek 2” is actually better than the first one. It’s livelier, cheerful, and funny and the songs I really thought were great. The problem was that I first started watching this in Spanish class when I was a junior in High School but I never got around to finishing it. Then, when I re-watched the first one on TV a few years ago, I went to the library and finally saw the second movie the whole way through. After seeing it, I thought the second one was better, but I don’t think, like Doug Walker does, that the first one was not good. I personally enjoy the first two “Shrek” movies a lot, but I think “Shrek 2” is the better movie.

Now with that said, stay tuned next week when we get into the disappointing third movie in “Shrek Month.”

Shrek

Remember in my first year of blogging when I reviewed “Shrek the Halls?” Well, I think that for the month of April, I will review the “Shrek” franchise. Unlike “Ice Age,” the “Shrek” franchise did not go in the same direction. There are some great installments, but we’ll get to that later on. Instead, let’s kick things off with the very first “Shrek” movie, released in 2001, a movie I saw when I was on my way back from my 8^th Grade Philadelphia field trip.

There is a moment in “Shrek” when the dreadful Lord Farquaad has the Gingerbread Man (Conrad Vernon) tortured by dunking him into milk. This sets us up for another scene when Princess Fiona’s singing voice is so painful it causes little bluebirds to combust. Making the best of a bad thing that happened, she fries their eggs. This is not your typical family animated film. “Shrek” is cheerful and evil, filled with clever in-jokes and somehow has a core.

Roger Ebert stated in his review, “The movie has been so long in the making at DreamWorks that the late Chris Farley was originally intended to voice the jolly green ogre in the title role. All that work has paid off: The movie is an astonishing visual delight, with animation techniques that seem lifelike and fantastical, both at once. No animated being has ever moved, breathed or had its skin crawl quite as convincingly as Shrek, and yet the movie doesn't look like a reprocessed version of the real world; it's all made up, right down to, or up to, Shrek's trumpet-shaped ears.”

Shrek’s voice is now played by former SNL comedian Mike Myers, with a voice that sounds similar to his morbidly obese Scotsman with a molasses enunciation in “Austin Powers” (a trilogy that I refuse to watch). Shrek is an ogre who lives in a swamp surrounded by “Keep Out” and “Beware the Ogre!” signs. Ebert noted, “He wants only to be left alone, perhaps because he is not such an ogre after all but merely a lonely creature with an inferiority complex because of his ugliness.” He is shocked when the solitude of his swamp is filled by a sudden clutter of cartoon creatures, who have been banished from Lord Farquaad’s kingdom.

Many of these creatures have an interested association to Disney characters who are in the public domain: The Three Little Pigs (Cody Cameron) show up, followed by the Three Bears (Bobby Block), the Three Blind Mice (Simon J. Smith and Christopher Knights), Tinkerbell, the Big Bad Wolf (Aron Warner) and Pinocchio (Cody Cameron). Later, when Farquaad looks for a bride, the Magic Mirror (Chris Miller) gives him three choices: Cinderella, Snow White (“She lives with seven men, but she’s not easy”) and Princess Fiona. He chooses the beauty who has not had the main role in a Disney animated movie. Ebert said, “No doubt all of this, and a little dig at DisneyWorld, were inspired by feelings DreamWorks partner Jeffrey Katzenberg has nourished since his painful departure from Disney--but the elbow in the ribs is more playful than serious. (Farquaad is said to be inspired by Disney chief Michael Eisner, but I don't see a resemblance, and his short stature corresponds not to the tall Eisner but, well, to the diminutive Katzenberg.)” The story is about Lord Farquaad wanting to marry Princess Fiona, and his lack of enthusiasm to kill the dragon that guards her from her men who try to rescue her. He hires Shrek to try to rescue her, which Shrek is happy to do, giving the hateful fairy-tale characters are banished and his swamp returned to its dull solitude. On his mission, Shrek gets a donkey named the Donkey, whose successively comments, voiced by Eddie Murphy, gives some of the movie’s best laughs. (The trick isn’t that he talks, Shrek sees. “the trick is to get him to shut up.”) Ebert said, “The expedition to the castle of the Princess involves a suspension bridge above a flaming abyss, and the castle's interior is piled high with the bones of the dragon's previous challengers. When Shrek and the Donkey get inside, there are exuberant action scenes that whirl madly through interior spaces, and revelations about the dragon no one could have guessed. And all along the way, asides and puns, in-jokes and contemporary references, and countless references to other movies.”

Voice-overs for animated movies were once, except for the yearly Disney classic, fast jobs that actors took if they were out of work. Now they are starring roles with huge paychecks, and the ads for “Shrek” use huge names to top the names of Myers, Murphy, Cameron Diaz (Fiona) and John Lithgow (Farquaad). Their voice performances are perfect to the characters, although Myers’ obsession with his Scottish inflection apparently have been toned down. Particularly, Murphy has come out as a star of the voice-over movies.

Ebert noted, “Much will be written about the movie's technical expertise, and indeed every summer seems to bring another breakthrough on the animation front. After the three-dimensional modeling and shading of "Toy Story," the even more evolved "Toy Story 2," "A Bug's Life" and "Antz," and the amazing effects in "Dinosaur," "Shrek" unveils creatures who have been designed from the inside out, so that their skin, muscles and fat move upon their bones instead of seeming like a single unit.” They aren’t “realistic,” but they’re strangely real. The drawing of the locations and setting is equally perfect – not lifelike, but beyond that, in a cheery, stylized way.

Still, all the skill in the world would not have made “Shrek” work if the story hadn’t been fun and Shrek so lovable. He is not beautiful but he isn’t as horrendous as he thinks. He’s a guy we want as our friend, and he doesn’t scare us but beat our pity. Ebert said, “He's so immensely likable that I suspect he may emerge as an enduring character, populating sequels and spinoffs.” DreamWorks must have figured out that they should turn “Shrek” into a franchise because one more was not enough.

In the end, this is a great animated movie that everyone should check out. Everyone will have an uproarious time watching this. Eddie Murphy became very popular in voice-acting after he did this movie. Although he already had done voice-work with “Mulan,” this one really heightened his voice-acting career. Everything in this movie is just great, and I know for a fact that everyone will fall in love with this.

Look out next week when we look at the first sequel in “Shrek Month.”

Shrek the Halls

For the next Christmas special, I think I will look at one that I saw not too long ago. The 2007 made for television 22 minute short, “Shrek the Halls.” This one takes place sometime between “Shrek 2” and “Shrek the Third,” and Shrek learns the importance of family (and extended family) during the holidays.

The special starts with Shrek, voiced by the creepy Austin Powers…I mean Mike Myers, talking to his friend Donkey, voiced by one of the funniest comedians, Eddie Murphy, about Christmas. As all Shrek fans know, he was a lone ogre before he met his wife Fiona, voiced by one of the drop dead gorgeous actresses, Cameron Diaz. During that time, he didn’t really feel like celebrating anything. Now that Shrek and Fiona are married and have triplets, Shrek wants to give his family the best Christmas ever. However, just when Shrek feels that he has done a job well done, the other familiar faces of the Shrek cast break into his swamp house and makes a mess.

As everyone knows, the first two Shrek movies were so funny (the second one being the best), and this special falls somewhere along the lines of being just as enjoyable as the first two. One of the things that they did right is that it wasn’t the usual 90 minute mark, so this is short and straight to the point. “Shrek the Halls” only needed to give us the usual laughs and nice feeling for the holidays, which it did. There was no need to add in a villain or nice action sequences for the kids.

Therefore, “Shrek the Halls” relied mainly on gross humor and slapstick to make the special hilarious, and with all of the Shrek cast members (including the three blind mice (voiced by Christopher Knights) the three little Pigs (voiced by Cody Cameron) Gingerbread Man (voiced by Conrad Vernon), Puss-in-Boots (voiced by Antonio Banderas), and Pinocchio (also voiced by Cameron)), it all works out in the end.

Kevin Carr said that the DVD came with special features (which I didn’t see). This includes a “sing-along of “12 Days of Christmas” and “Deck the Halls” featuring the “Madagascar” penguins, a dunking game, the DreamWorks Animation video jukebox and a video game demo.”

“Shrek the Halls” is a lot of fun to watch with your family, and you should make it a tradition to watch this every year around Christmastime. I also give this special a solid 10.

Look out tomorrow when I continue my 25 days of Christmas reviews.