Reviews:Shrek

From the earliest screens I've seen from Shrek, I've been anticipating this film. Besides the unique computer animation that brings this film to life, it features Mike Meyers, Eddie Murphy, John Lithgow, and Cameron Diaz (See A Life Less Ordinary for a cool Diaz flick). But can it live up to the month long advertising blitz that has been oozing from every flat surface for the last month? Or will it just be a big pile of crap. Well I was there opening night, and you can read my review, complete with minimal spoilers and bad jokes. First things first, I'm a Disney Junkey. I like cheesy kids movies. Tarzan. Aladdin. Toy Story. Fantasia. Jungle Book. I think that children's stories have the potential to be the best of all worlds. "Adult" movies like to get bogged down by being deep and philisophical. Children's stories can get by with a thin plot, and happy gags. Throw in amazing visuals and a few musical numbers, and you've got the formula for almost every animated movie America has given us since Walt coughed up Snow White. So keep all of this in mind as I tell you why I like this movie.

Shrek is to Fairy Tales what Who Framed Roger Rabbit is to Cartoons. Mike Meyers is Shrek, the grumpy ogre who is deep down, a good guy. Eddie Murphy is the wise cracking sidekick: in this film, a donkey (not to be confused with the wise cracking insect he voiced in Mulan). The world is laden with fairy tale lore: From Cinderella to Snow White. From Peter Pan to Robin Hood. From Goldilocks to the Three Bears. They're all here for random visual gags in this messed up world.

Of course we need a Villian: John Lithgow is the would-be King who needs only a Princess to achieve his goal of the perfect kingdom. Of course, his perfect kingdom is a warped disneyland style castle (complete with velvet rope waiting lines at the front door). Oh, have I mentioned that he's ridiculously short? He finds the Magic Mirror (totally visually snagged from Disney's Snow White) and uses it to find his princess. And Shrek is gonna go get it, in exchange for the rights to keep all those obnoxious fairy tale bastards out of his beloved swamp.

So of course there's a dragon, and a valiant rescue of the princess. There's banter between our Ogre hero, and his sidekick. There's love shared between the beautiful princess and the hideous ogre. But how can they be together when they aren't even the same species?!

So thats the plot. Its cheesy, and you've heard it before, but there's no need to let that bother you. You're really seeing this movie for the ride, and what a ride it is. Jokes are packed fairly tightly, and with a good range of target audience. Of course there are the obligatory fart jokes, to say nothing of referring to the Donkey by his 3-letter name which is going to get laughs out of all the 9 year olds who heard a dirty word. But there's other stuff too: Star Wars, Indiana Jones, The Matrix, and many more are given parody sequences. Of course the classic Disney movies are also given their fair shakes: the Princess nicely sings to the birds just like Snow White, but with slightly different (and truly warped) end results.

So here's the thing: the jokes are evenly spaced and vary in nature. And the best of them are absolutely awesome. The 9-year-old-boy jokes are there, but I can overlook them (ok, I laughed at a few of them). But I got a lot of good laughs out of it.

And finally, what sort of review of the latest computer animated flick is complete without a discussion of what it looks like: In short, it looks damn fine, but it was a fairly incremental step in terms of rendering and animation.

Much of the animation is really good. As with every CGI flick so far, the humans aren't quite right yet. The Princess is the best of the human characters, and she's usually pretty dead on accurate: but she always looks animated. Occasionally she breaks through at looks alive, but usually she's just almost but not quite. Don't get me wrong: convincingly animating a human in CGI is a task that so far has never been done on film to my liking. Thats why all the successful human's have been the more cartoony (Geri from Geri's game might be the best). The facial stuff is a step ahead of body language. It's just so close.

The animation on the other characters is more varied. Shrek is awesome. Convincingly animated: he has mass, he shows emotion, he moves just like you'd expect. The Donkey works most of the time, but animating a quadroped is a little harder and sometimes he just doesn't move quite right. Our antagonist is extremely well handled: the face is awesome and totally on the money, although he does move just a little awkward. The Dragon is awesome- she's handled amazingly and whoever animated her deserves mega props too: when she's bad she's so bad, and the way they handle her through the rest of the story is great.

This is nitpicking I know, and understand that I'm super picky about this stuff. Nobody has got it perfect yet, and Shrek has got as close as anyone. We'll see what Final Fantasy can do when it comes out.

The overall look of the film is quite different from what we've seen so far. They obviously have tried to capture the look of a fairy tale. Toy Story sorta revels in the fact that its computer animation. Bug's Life really feels gigantic. Antz felt more stripped down, and I feel like Shrek follows somewhat in Antz footsteps. They use a lot of matte paintings which tends to have a different feel to most of the other CG flicks we've seen which are fully 3D. Its certainly not every shot, but its obvious that they aimed for a "Look" with this film, but I felt like that look was in many ways accomplished by giving the film a claustrophobic feel. There's a lot of shots that feel flat. They look like they were shot on a sound stage. Thats partially the lighting, and partially the matte work, but mostly it seemed to me that its because they wanted things to look like those paintings that you see of fairy tale worlds.

They make up for it in other ways tho: the details in many scenes is simply extraordinary: the sheen on the princess's hair. The countless blades of grass blowing independantly in the breeze, getting bent by the donkey passing through them, the leaves in the trees. The landscape is absolutely gorgeous with a stunning level of detail. Its obvious that many of these shots were a labor of love.

The acting is solid across the board. Cameron Diaz gives a good performance (again, watch A Life Less Ordinary to see her in a really good flick). Lithgow is excellent as always (but I actually really dig him: while I don't like 3rd Rock all that much, he manages to really shine). Eddie Murphy plays Eddie Murphy, what do you want? Mike Meyers actually manages to break a bit out of his persona and Act a bit. Should Austin Powers 3 not make him a billionaire, I'd love to see him do voice work- he has a real knack for a variety of characterizations. He makes me super envious since being a voice for a cartoon character is one of my lifelong dreams, and he does it really well. Sometimes Shrek slips a bit of Mike Meyers into himself, but for the most part he stands on his own- especially impressive considering it looks like they snarfed a lot of Meyers reference footage for the animators. Same goes for lithgow. They really got the look of the actors into these characters. Very cool.

So in summary, it's a funny film. Although it's a bit short, thats not surprising: kids have no attention span anyway. The jokes vary, but the best of the jokes are truly sick and twisted. References litter the landscape, and most of them are awesome. Visually the film breaks some new ground, but mostly manages to achieve a unique look. And dammit we're just talking about 70 minutes of fun. Enjoy it. I sure did.

Comments

few thoughts

[Nate Fox]

I went with a few guys cause we wanted to see the CG. For those of you with a life: take a date! A KILLER date movie, one you dont have to worry about being a bit uncomfortable when the obligitory sex scene hits in the typical grown up film. It seriously drew out the helpless (err, hopeless) romantic in me. It truly plays on looking past the exterior and seeing the person within. Quite good.

Other thoughts: anyone see the dragon's "lair/castle" and think "this would make a really cool Quake level"? maybe it was just me...

-----
If Bill Gates had a nickel for every time Windows crashed...

Digital projection in San Francisco

[ciurana]

Greetings!

For those of you who live in San Francisco or close by in the Bay Area, Shreck is playing in full digital projection format at the AMC 1000 Van Ness theatres. I saw it there last night. Watching the film so clearly was awesome.

Cheers!

E

Re:Length of movies

[RayChuang]

First, go complain to the MPAA, not the RIAA. :-)

Secondly, remember computer-animated movies take a LONG to render. I think Shrek required over a year of computer rendering time with multiple computers to get 70+ minutes of computer animation at 24 frames per second. After all, movies like the two Toy Story movies, Antz, and A Bug's Life aren't much longer than Shrek is now.

Besides, two-hour plus live action movies ain't cheap nowadays, either. For a epic or action film, the budget can easily run over US$100 million.

You need to watch Mulan again

[Nutcase]

Eddie Murphy did NOT play an insect in Mulan. He played a protecting spirit in the form of a small dragon.

IIRC, he was kicked out of the spirit group for having done something stupid, but since he manages to help Mulan, he is let back in, and takes a place of pride in the house again.

It was sorta a big plot thread.

Two varying reviews

[upstateguy]

If you want to read the antipodes of reviews on "Shrek", they are best presented by the New Yorker (which, I admit, they tend to rip every movie a new hole, but that's what I find so endearing about them).

Honestly, I find Mike Myers pretty annoying in that he's too scared to use his own voice in *anything* and is still stuck in that improv schtick.

And the other, by Roger Ebert who gave it 4 stars.

I'll wait for the video.

Re:Two varying reviews

[mech9t8]

Honestly, I find Mike Myers pretty annoying in that he's too scared to use his own voice in *anything* and is still stuck in that improv schtick.

Actually, I saw in an interview somewhere that he had done the whole movie in his regular voice, and then after the first screening he saw of it (presumeable still fairly early in the creation process) he realized it would work a lot better with the accent, so he did a few scenes, showed them to Spielburg et al and they allowed him to redo all the voice work.

I imagine the animators weren't exactly thrilled by that. ;)
--
Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.

Thank you CMDR TACO!!

[vandelais]

for not going to see the film with John Katz. That's all. Award Karma accordingly.

animation technique

[Alien54]

Of cours, you don't have to be life like to have good entertainment.

A good example of this is this stick figure fight kungfu link someone sent me:

http://games.sohu.com/fightgame/fight3.swf

in this case there is no surface texture, it is all stick figures, but the body motion and all the rest is right.

Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip

I's the b'y 'o buil's the boat

[jonnyfish]

I'm a Newfie, and I'd love to see someone imitate our accent. :P

I dropped the accent when I moved away a couple of years ago, but I'm still quite fluent in Newfenese. Just for the sake of enlightenment, here are the most common rules of Newfenese:

1. The accent is a combination of English, Scottish, and Portuguese.
   
2. The "th" sound becomes "t"
   
3. Pronunciation of the "h" sound is optional; it is accepted practice to add a preceeding "h" sound to words beginning with vowels.
   
4. The sound formed by the last letter in a word is usually dropped.
   
5. All non-essential syllables are dropped.
   
6. If a sound is difficult to produce, it is accepted practice to replace it with a sound that it similar, but easier to produce.
   
7. Pronouns: a man is "he", a woman is "she" or "it", a small child is "it", and it is "she".
   
8. Grammar and general English rules can be ignored for the most part, as long as what you say is understood.
   

Ok, some examples (Newfie version is spelled as it is pronounced):

English: I am the man who builds the boat.
Newfie: Ize duh bye ooh bills duh boat.

English: It's a fine day for sailing, isn't it?
Newfie: Tis uh fine day fer sailin, iddin it?

Engrish: All your base are belong to us.
Newfie: All yer base is belong tus.

English: How's the weather?
Newfie: Ows duh wetter?

English: Young people today have no respect for their elders.
Newfie: Ye youngsters dedays got no respeck fer oh peepo.

English: Ok, I'm done ranting.
Newfie: Ok, Ize done rant in.

Re:What's wrong with deep movies?

[zoomba]

I believe what he was going for with that statement is that the movie aimed to be fun and entertaining, rather than a serious and deep movie with some really deep and meaningful message to it. While it is good to have movies that are deep and insightful, a lot of movies forget that the reason we're going to the theaters is to be entertained. I've seen movies that are so caught up in themselves in attempts to take the moral high ground or strive for an oscar, that they simply aren't entertaining.

I think it's important that movies achieve the "fun" or entertaining factor first, then look to be deep and meaningful. There are a good number of movies that have done this very well (see most Robin Williams movies). While I enjoy movies that make me think, my first priority when I plop down that $7 to see a movie is that I come away entertained. And honestly animated films manage this better more consistently than most serious adult films.

What's wrong with deep movies?

[Arakyd]

I think that children's stories have the potential to be the best of all worlds. "Adult" movies like to get bogged down by being deep and philisophical. Children's stories can get by with a thin plot, and happy gags.

Huh? What? Does anyone else think that "thin plot, and happy gags" is the best of both worlds, or has that potential? Thin plot and happy gags may be fun entertainment, but is it anything more? Not to me. What's wrong with deep movies? Do movies have some regulation governing them that say they must be shallow, and not attempt to provoke their audiences to think deeply? Movie making is a communications medium, and an art form, like writing, or painting, or sculpting. Books can have "deep" messages. Paintings can convey philosophical ideas. Why can't movies do the same thing and be applauded, instead of dismissing it as stuff that just "bogs it down." Come on folks, don't be afraid to think so much. Entertainment movies like Shrek are fun. Movies with "deep" or philisophical themes and messages may not be full of lighthearted (or stupid/sick/boring/dumb/sophisticated/good) humor, but that doesn't make them bad.

Of course there are plenty of movies that try to be philosophical, or deep, and fall on their face. But there are others that succeed, and those are the ones that I consider to be really good. When I look for the best in movies, I look for ones that challenge me, make me think and re-evaluate my paradigms, not ones that try to find some happy medium between humor and trite messages.

Re:Hoots mon on the Celtic Fringe...

[tb3]

Mike Myers isn't American he's Canadian, of Scottish ancestry. The scots accent is based on one of his relatives, but overdone for comic effect.
-----------------

The Limits of CG

[tb3]

As with every CGI flick so far, the humans aren't quite right yet.

According to The Tech of Shrek on Tech TV, the princess initially looked too human, so she looked out of place in the fantasy setting. So, they simplified the animation to make her look more 'cartoony'.
-----------------