Shekarama
I remember when I reviewed the original "Shrek," I loved it the way it wedded "traditional children's stories with hip pop culture, and ended up with something old, something new, something borrowed and something green."
I only had one beef:
"For all its laughs and charm, 'Shrek' could have been even better if it had done more with its classic fairy-tale characters. There are funny cameos by Pinocchio, the Three Blind Mice, Snow White and others, but they're all cheap asides. None of them find their way into the main story line."
"Shrek the Third" answers my criticism by throwing Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Captain Hook and scores of other fairy-tale characters together in the main plot, in which Prince Charming schemes to get the villains to take over the kingdom.
Critics have been ho-hum about the movie, harping on the fact that it doesn't feel as fresh as the original.
What were they expecting? Has there ever been a third part in a trilogy that felt fresh?
I went in hoping for the further adventures of Shrek and friends, and that's exactly what I got.
What do you guys think?
(Incidentally, "Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End" reviews are in ... and they're as lackluster as the "Shrek" and "Spider-Man" reviews. Critics aren't liking anything yet this summer... except for "Waitress," which opens at Kimball's Friday. Everybody loves that cute little indie.)
posted by Warren Epstein @ 1:32 PM
3 comments
3 Comments:
(Incidentally, "Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End" reviews are in ... and they're as lackluster as the "Shrek" and "Spider-Man" reviews. Critics aren't liking anything yet this summer... except for "Waitress," which opens at Kimball's Friday. Everybody loves that cute little indie.)
That's because most movie critics are too afraid to actually say anything - relevant, edgy meaningful or otherwise. God forbid they ruin their "street cred" (within their own little clique that is) by giving kudos to a movie
that only the "unwashed masses" love.
That's why I've always loved Joe Bob Briggs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Bob_Briggs).
All most critics care to heap raves on are the "indie" flicks and "art" movies that MAYBE 10% of the population actually pay to see.
Movie critics have, by and large, and of their own doing - perpetuated an air about them that was once reserved for clergy back in the Middle Ages. Conceited, pompous blow hards.
Eli,
Having been a critic not too long ago (and still writing occasional reviews and a DVD column), I'm a bit defensive about the "conceited, pompous blowhard" thing.
The best part of being a critic is the most obvious. You get to see movies for free. But that's also part of the problem. You're there, during your working ours, watching movies with a bunch of other curmudgeons, and because you haven't paid admission, you're less invested (literally) than the average moviegoer.
Your opinions will necessarily be different than if you were on a Saturday night date with your sweetie.
Not everything has to make it's way into the main story line for a film to be perfect. I think the cameo appearances are a large part of what gave the movie it's charm, making it worth watching over and over. Most of my contacts in Europe adore Shrek, especially for those cameos, which seem to draw the crowds in.
Across the board, I think the Shrek movies are well produced. It's somewhat rare that the sequels turn out just as good as the original, but for them to be even better is an exception, and I think we see that with the Shrek movies.
I have no doubt that the Shrek movies are destined to be considered not just classic, but also cult classic. They are timeless and popular, and will no doubt entertain the masses for years to come.
Post a Comment
<< Home