Saturday, January 07, 2006

Why do they have to be the same?

As I write this, Mum and Sharon are watching Shrek 2 (for the first time and yet again respectively). I have yet to see it, and I don't plan to. Probably blasphemy in my family (both Sharon and Zeta luuurve it and the first one), but it's for the following reasons. (Hey, roll with it; it fills up space. Plus when DreamWorks extends their string of Animated Movies That Aren't As Good As Pixar's with Shrek 3, it'll still be on-topic.)

1. The presence of Jennifer Saunders. Jennifer Fucking Saunders. Jennifer "I Am Never, Ever, EVER Funny" Saunders.
2.The first movie didn't really do anything that Rocky & Bullwinkle's "Fractured Fairy Tales" couldn't have accomplished in about five minutes and sans expensive computer animation.
3.In The World According To Mike Myers, everything has to bow to his will. This is not only in keeping with why Fiona changes to look like Shrek, but also the only possible explanation for The Cat In The Hat.
4. The above also ties in with what bothers me most about the movie; just as Beauty and the Beast (an animated movie that, unlike Shrek, I've seen more than once) could only have been better if the Beast had remained a beast, it's always seemed not that far from body fascism to me that ugliness = goodness and the obvious vice versa. Imagine if it was... well, you know. Shrek ugly and Fiona lovely, or Shrek handsome and Fiona ugly... wouldn't that have gotten the idea across a bit better?

Hm. I guess I am shallow. SFW.

And all those pop culture references are gonna date it the way Toy Story and its sequel won't be.

1 comment:

The Archivist said...

I've never seen Shrek either. Or Shrek II.

I have however, read a small novelisation of the second movie.