Review: "Shrek 2" (2004) 

Review: "Shrek 2" (2004)

The breakdown of the marked difference between the computer-animation films produced by Pixar ("Toy Story," "Finding Nemo," etc.) and those produced by Dreamworks/PDI ("Ice Age," "Shrek,") goes something like this: Pixar generally goes for the "timeless" angle in their films, while PDI's work is more of the moment. Pixar, thus far, has the superior batting-average; but not necessarily because of philosophy but because of quality of work: Pixar hit the ground running, PDI got off a little shaky. And while Pixar has become a new legend of American moviemaking, PDI had mostly scurried about at the sidelines until emerging at last with their first essential perfect creation: "Shrek."

In "Shrek" we see what has become the "PDI model" of animated features fully formed: A high-end Hollywood comedy (complete with big-name stars, in-the-moment references and a pop/rock soundtrack) that has been dressed in the "skin" of an animated adventure for children. PDI was using this angle all the way back in their criminally-underrated "Antz," (still better, as far as I'm concerned, than Pixar's not-too-shabby "Bugs Life" of the same year) but not until "Shrek" did it finally click when paired with a smart script, terrific cast and an ambitious mission-statement: Giving the "Disney-fied" versions of classic fairytales a "Princess Bride"-style comic-evisceration.

What made "Shrek" special, and jarring, was it's apparent lack of blatant desire to BE special or jarring. Most animated films, good or bad, are at pains to let the audience know how much time and effort was put into their creation, "Shrek" ambled along it's jokey way as if it had been "shot" over a weekend; it had a sprightly "whatever" energy not often found in animated fare. If "Pixar" is the new keeper of the original Walt Disney/Mickey Mouse "stories for the ages" vision of family filmmaking, then PDI has inherited it's genes from the flippant soul of Bugs Bunny.

To recap: Shrek (Mike Meyers) was an Ogre charged by the evil Lord Farquad (John Lithgow) to "rescue" Princess Fiona (Cameron Diaz) from a Dragon's Keep in order to prevent the would-be king from turning Shrek's swamp into a reservation/concentration-camp for all of the fairy-tale creatures being exiled from Farquad's Disney-like kingdom of Duloc. Fiona hoped for freedom from a curse that turned her into an Ogre at night, but instead found mutual love and self-acceptance with Shrek, who in turn found himself leading the uprising against Farquad and bringing about an finale that turned the Disney-vision of happy endings on their ear: Fiona finds her "true" self as an Ogre, while a "monster," a Donkey (Eddie Murphy) and a Dragon triumph over the Prince.

"Shrek 2" picks up where we left off: Shrek and Fiona have retired to their swamp home in wedded bliss, only to be interupted by a royal invitation: Fiona's parents, the King and Queen of "Far Far Away," are throwing a ball in honor of her rescue from the tower and subsequent marriage; unaware that her "prince" (and, now, she herself) is an Ogre. Arriving in FFA (a medieval version of Los Angeles,) the couple recieve a cold welcome from Fiona's parents (John Cleese and Julie Andrews.) That's not all: The powerful and dangerous magic potion CEO Fairy Godmother appears to have "arranged" Fiona's whole situation in order to get her son Prince Charming into the royal family, and she's not about to see it undone by Shrek. Holding some dark secret over the King's head, she orders him to "take care" of the Ogre...

"Shrek 2" doesn't quite have the same "damn!" impact as the first when it comes to it's suberversive ribbing of the fairy-tale ouvre, largely because now we're "expecting" it. In the first film, the Ogre-as-hero premise and Beauty-is-the-beast denoument were intended surprises; but here we're "returning" to the world of Shrek as opposed to entering it, so the fact that Shrek is the good guy and the more traditional good guys are suspect is now part of the deal.

The film is well on it's way before it starts creeping up on most folks just how much of a spin has been placed on things: The last film went after Disney, this one goes after the fairy-tale stlyings at their core. Not only is the Ogre the good guy, but the two most sacred images of fanciful goodness; the Fairy Godmother and Prince Charming are the villians of the peice.

Wisely, the film doesn't try to "top" the events of the first film for the most part. It charts an entirely new course that takes it in the kind of new directions that we often expect but seldom recieve from sequels. The first film was a quest in true fantasy form, but the second is something I never would have expected: A drama of political-intrigue. Unknowingly, his rescue of Fiona has placed Shrek in the midst of an intricate web of schemes and double-crosses which he must now navigate. Charming, our presumed-villian, is actually a patsy being craftily manuvered into a position of power by a scheming, domineering mother. An intentional nod to "The Manchurian Candidate," perhaps?

The actors all fall into their roles nicely. "Shrek" is largely the straight-men this time around, an Meyers fits just fine into his mostly-dramatic roles this time around. Diaz, too, is required largely to play it with less-jokes as Fiona. The two Ogres are largely being shoved around by forces beyond their control this time, so much of the joking is now handled by the new characters and the supporting cast. Eddie Murphy once again gets all the best gags as the over-excitable Donkey, and, as you've no-doubt heard, a great deal of scenes are stolen by Antonio Banderas as Puss in Boots, here cast as a "sleazy hitman" hired to asassinate Shrek but who instead teams up with him.

As before, the film layers it's comedy with kiddie-slapstick on the surface, adolescent scatology beneath that and subtle "blue" humor for adults WAY below the surface. This time, though, the grownup gags aren't as much about grownup humor as they are about social undercurrents to the proceedings that adults will snatch more readily than children. Example: The film plays it VERY close to the vest, but adults will probably guess what the "dark secret" that FGM is holding over King Harold's head before it's revealed, but it's still a pretty well-hid "gotcha."

It's tempting to get into whether or not "Shrek 2" is better or worse than the first; but the truth is it's hard to say. It's a much different film, with it's own rhythm and it's own speed, exactly as a good sequel should be. The only scenes that really come close to "rhyming" with the first film are, appropriately, the conclusion which (without spoiling the fairy nifty mid-way twist to the intrigue) once again involves an army of fantasy-land misfits making open war on a false "happily ever after" ending.

"Shrek 2" is a more-than-worthy sequel and offers proof that Dreamworks/PDI now have quite a franchise on their hands. As a good sequel should, this not only keeps the story going in great directions, it makes us excited for the amount of directions still available. Reccomended.