Magic Missing in Shrek Forever After

The movie's not bad, just phoned in
By Jane Yager,  Newser Staff
Posted May 21, 2010 5:20 AM CDT

(Newser) Shrek Forever After, the supposed last film in the green ogre franchise, isn't terrible, critics unanimously agree. But neither is it remotely necessary. Here's what they're saying:

  • “There's a soft, middle-aged complacency to the well-oiled mechanics of Shrek Forever After,” writes Lisa Schwarzbaum of EW. “What was once a fresh, self-referential twist on the vulturish consumption of pop culture when the first Shrek debuted in 2001 has become a lazy corporate tic.”

  • “ If there were a Shrek TV show, this could be the two-part finale of, say, Season 3,” writes Eric Snider of “The difference, of course, is that a so-so episode of a TV show doesn't cost ten bucks to watch.”
  • It's just “a recycling machine that recalls the high points of previous installments without demonstrating the need for a new one,” complains Joe Morgenstern of the Wall Street Journal. “There's also a sense of filmmakers searching for whatever will help fill the running time."
  • But James Bardinelli disagrees. “Even though Shrek Forever After is obligatory and unnecessary, it's better than Shrek 3” and you won't regret seeing it, he writes in ReelViews. "As It's a Wonderful Life knock-offs go, this one isn't half-bad.”

My Take on This Story
Show results without voting  |