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 say 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.