Shrek: A Collection Of Allusions That Fails To Be Its Own

The Good: Concept, Moments of humor
The Bad: Animation, Failure to be cohesive
The Basics: Surprisingly unsatisfying as it tells the same type joke over and over, Shrek is plagued with poor animation, timing and balance of allusions to original material.


Most spoof films don't rate so high in my book. It's not that I don't enjoy them, because usually, I do. The problem is they suffer exponentially upon rewatching. That is, a film like Spaceballs that plunders around the science fiction landscape alluding to something in each scene (though primarily focusing on Star Wars) is hilarious the first time, amusing the second and by the third, you're only smiling. Don't ask me to watch it a fourth time. Humor is tricky. I think the reason every true geek ends up reciting from Monty Python (usually, sigh, from Monty Python And The Holy Grail, though I personally prefer the episodes) and/or The Kids In the Hall is because it stands up well over multiple viewings. In fact, it's raw, honest humor that will endure so long as there's a society to be challenged; jokes on other works, especially more transient works than universal concepts, suffer immensely upon rewatching.

So, the first question is, was I entertained while watching Shrek? No. Would I reckon I'd enjoy it more or less the second go around? Less, most assuredly. The answer, in this case, is remarkably simple. I mean, usually when I'm borderline on something, as I was on Shrek, it takes me a day or two to diagnose the problem. In this case, it was that the film is a spoof and that's fine, but it's a spoof of the lowest order. That came out much more derogatory than I intended, allow me to explain. If a spoof is a work that alludes to others and attempts to usurp the purpose of the alluded films through humor, then it seems to me the greatest spoofs would call upon the most sources, mostly subtly (so at least 50% would take a second viewing simply to catch), while telling its own, unique story that becomes part of the collective unconscious in and of itself. I can't come up with a spoof that has done that yet either. As far as comedies go, Dogma would fill this niche. Moving on, it strikes me then that the lowest form of spoof would be the one that simply strings together allusion after allusion without adding anything truly unique. The lowest form of a spoof would be a one trick pony, mocking the alluded-to works in much the same way throughout. In simpler terms, the lowest form of spoof would tell the same joke over and over again essentially or pick on the alluded-to works in the same ways throughout.

Shrek is one such film. In it, the Ogre Shrek finds his swamp invaded by fairy tale creatures, in the company of a donkey, when he resolves to deal with the problem. So, he visits the diminutive Lord Farquaad and goes on a quest to rescue a princess who, despite her first impression, is not the typical fairy tale princess.

In short, Shrek is a ninety minute stringing together of jokes about fairy tales and Disney and Disney-style films. To its credit, it's a nice idea. I like the idea of mocking fairy tales. The problem is it turns them all the same way. Everything is supposedly not what we expect, so by the time we get five minutes in we're expecting it. For instance, Ogres are classically thought to be mean and evil and we're exposed to one who is good natured and a jokester. We encounter a donkey that speaks and pesters, rather than aids, the protagonist. Thus, by the time the Lord and the Princess enter, we expect them to be something other than they appear and we are not surprised then by their secrets.

To its credit, Shrek doesn't only attack fairy tales and Disney fare, it tackles plenty of other films (like The Matrix and Babe). The problem is, that's all it does. The film is a constant stringing together of allusions. I can't name a single scene that did not allude to some other work. So, it had the feel of a protracted mockery. Often, reviewers of films based on Saturday Night Live sketches complain that the sketches were wonderful, but that they film kills it stretching it into a work at least ninety minutes long. Well, Shrek suffers similarly and I think it no surprise that it clocks out at exactly ninety minutes.

My other beef, other than the lack of substance in this film, is the animation. I watched it on DVD and I was disappointed with the animation. I mean, Princess Fiona's eyes are lifelike and I know a lot of effort went into them. They are the superlative point of animation. The animation is choppy in parts and my real problem is in movements. Things in Shrek have a habit of not moving like things in real life. By that I mean that if you go back and watch early Disney films, it's obvious the animators study the ways bodies move and they worked hard to get it right. The animators in Shrek made no such efforts and it shows.

Good for two to five laughs, Shrek failed to do anything original, simply making joke after joke after joke after joke and, as we know, even comedies, even spoofs, need to have something more than just that.

For other animated films, please visit my reviews of:
Shrek Forever After: The Final Chapter
Hoodwinked!
Toy Story 3

5/10

For other movie reviews, please check out my index page on the subject by clicking here!

© 2011, 2001 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

The Chronicles Of Disappointment: Part 2 - Prince Caspian: The "Narnia" We've Seen Before Underwhelms.

The Good: Moments of character and acting - mostly involving Anna Popplewell and Peter
The Bad: Same essential plot structure as the first one, Special effects, Pacing, General lack of character
The Basics: The second chapter in The Chronicles Of Narnia disappoints almost as much as the first, largely because it replays the same essential plot, redressed. Prince Caspian feels LONG!


When I first saw The Chronicles Of Narnia: Prince Caspian, it made me feel that the future for films for young people seemed intensely dismal. Yes, after two and a half hours of Prince Caspian, my first thought was on the previews from before the film. I don't think there was a single film previewed that made me think I might go out to the theaters again anytime soon. More than that, there was not a single film previewed that made me think that the participants deserved to remain in the Screen Actor's Guild or the Director's Guild. In other words, everything forthcoming from Disney, Pixar and Dreamworks previewed looked like it stunk.

I mention this because this was the thing that left the greatest impression on me at the movie theater. That's not entirely true, actually: in my notes on Prince Caspian, I found myself writing down a quote from that night's episode of Lost that made me laugh for - I swear - a full minute: "Jesus Christ is not a weapon." Hilarious. That made my night. Seeing Prince Caspian, on the other hand, did not. Indeed, even though I went in with lowered expectations, I found Prince Caspian did not meet even those. Anyone looking for the next Lord Of The Rings (reviewed here!) is going to be disappointed. Anyone looking for something new, something fresh that they have not seen before, is likewise going to be disappointed.

In Narnia, a baby is born to the despotic lord Miraz and his wife, which gives him the muscle to menace the rightful heir to the throne of Narnia, Prince Caspian X. Caspian, fleeing with the aid of his loyal tutor, comes into possession of a magic horn - Susan Pevensie's magic horn - and in his moment of greatest desperation, be blows it. After a year of living in London without any way back to Narnia, the Pevensie children are summoned by the horn and teleported from their subway station to Narnia.

Narnia, alas, is in ruins, having come under siege by the telemarine forces; humans with a different bent who have committed as much genocide on the fantastic creatures of Narnia as they could before the Narnian's fled underground. As Lucy, Peter, Edmund and Susan reacclimate to Narnia and meet up with Caspian and his Narnian forces, Lucy becomes obsessed with finding Aslan. As Peter and Prince Caspian clash over the best way to overthrow Miraz and the telemarines, they marshal the centaurs, minotaurs, dwarves and talking animals of Narnia for an attack on the telemarine stronghold, with disastrous results.

Prince Caspian picks up a year after the events of The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe (reviewed here!), though in Narnia 1300 years have passed. Abandoned by Aslan and the human kings and queens, the telemarines had virtually no problem sweeping through the magical land and ridding it of its unique, fantasy occupants. And the viewer cares . . . for a very short time.

The fundamental problem with Prince Caspian is that there is pretty much nothing new in the film that viewers did not see in the first. To be sure, it is dressed up nicely and with enough difference to fool a child, but for any adult, this is a film bound to disappoint. Why? It's not a new, clever idea any longer. Just as the first film belabored what Narnia was by spending a bit of time on the process of getting there and the spectacle of establishing the fantasy world, its continuation spends an agonizing amount of time pointing out all of the differences in Narnia versus the Pevensie's memories of it. Prince Caspian substitutes the Peter/Edmund conflict for a Peter/Caspian conflict and the Aslan plot of the first with a "finding Aslan" plot in the second. But then, it degenerates into two big battle sequences, the highlight of which is a one-on-one sword fight between Peter and an adversary . . . much like in The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe!

The point here is that we get the principles of Narnia and it is fairly easy for viewers - and the Pevensie children - to see the differences when they arrive in Narnia. So, the plot is belabored and strenuously dull.

Add to that that the character elements are almost entirely neglected to service the plot. A perfect example of this comes rather late in the film when one of the dwarves tempts Prince Caspian with an intriguing offer of an alliance. When that resolves itself, largely through Peter's intervention, there are no emotional consequences that are illustrated. There is nothing to ground the film and make us care; it simply becomes a plot point that was dealt with and an excuse for a cameo in the movie. Caspian is largely a dull character who spends half the film making moon eyes at Susan without any substance to back up his attraction to her or even a decent conversation to illustrate that the two might actually be connecting. As a result, Prince Caspian's potential character growth issue reads like "Romantic Subplot #5." Truly disappointing.

Indeed, the only character aspect that actually works well in Prince Caspian involves Peter. The conflict between Peter and Caspian is forced, largely because William Moseley is a very white bread actor and the character is almost equally bland. However, Peter is characterized perfectly and works in a way that few heroic protagonists do: Peter is a terrible leader. Peter has no innate leadership skills, no ability to rouse his troops and not enough people skills to hold together his family, much less an army. This is a wonderful twist as he walks around Narnia with an implied birthright. He becomes interesting to watch and grumble at because he makes utterly the wrong decisions, illustrating perfectly that he does not have what it takes to be a man of greatness. This, at least, is refreshing and different, especially in a film with a strong Jesus-metaphor like Aslan.

The most interesting character, though, would have to be Susan, if for no other reason than she is arguably the most busy. She seems to be in virtually every plot line; figuring out where the children are when they re-enter Narnia, quickly negotiating between Peter and Caspian and accompanying Lucy on her quest to find Aslan. She is a solid warrior (her quiver never seems empty) and she has a few good lines.

Susan is ably played by actress Anna Popplewell, who delivers a sterling performance as Susan. She has a maturity to her that allows the viewer to believe that her character is a plausible love interest for Caspian and that she could be the warrior woman she appears to be. Popplewell has a decent control of her body language and facial expressions that never wavers; she is constantly in character and always on her mark, something that cannot be said about the others.

The rest of the acting in Prince Caspian is complicated by actors who miss their mark, are looking at virtual characters, but not seeing them and performers who stumble over lines. Several of the extras in make-up look bored in the wide shots and this guts the emotional resonance of many of the scenes.

So, too, do the general special effects. First, director Andrew Adamson tries to cheat the audience with what he might believe is a clever introduction to one of the diminutive characters. As Caspian flees Miraz, he is set upon by the minions of the lord. Those minions take a serious fall in a sequence that - no kidding - mirrors the style and tension of the vampire bunny scene in Monty Python And The Holy Grail. Adamson recreates an absurd sequence to introduce a character that anyone who is closely watching the sequence will be unsurprised by the stature of.

As well, the make-up on the centaurs and fawns - especially - is, at best, mediocre. During the big battle sequences, the visual effects take a nose-dive that makes one wonder if The Chronicles Of Narnia was only getting the rejects from Weta Digital to work on the film. Lighting especially is off and there are a disturbing number of instances where the mouse characters and Aslan are lit as if they are surrounded by light (including from below) and not part of the real setting. The point, of course, is that the special effects are not special; they seem like special effects and they become quite desperate, most notably with the Narnian woods.

Even worse is how the film insults the intelligence of viewers with its placidity. I'm not referring to how the film yawns through two and a half hours and feels every minute of that. Instead, I mention this because it is utterly absurd that not a single sword in the film has blood on it. Not one. On the way out of the theater, I heard someone say, "No way was that PG." I disagree; this was very much, at best, a PG film, whatwith the family-friendly language, the multitude of events wherein carnage is left off screen and that carnage never resulting in a bloodied weapon! This is ridiculous and even children are likely to wonder what the deal is.

Usually, I am a stickler for continuity and minutiae, but with Prince Caspian, I found it far too difficult to care. The film is a build-up to battles and the inevitable rise of Caspian to power and the thwarting of the obviously evil Miraz. Here, the only thing that I cared to note as seriously off was the lack of presence of the griffins in the first battle sequence. The griffins bring troops and supplies into the telemarine castle, to aid Peter's strike force. But the griffins do not intervene when the telemarines line up with a deadly line of crossbow-wielding assassins that would be well within their ability to take out. That one thing in a two and a half hour movie; this does not bode well when an avid cinephile is that disengaged by the movie.

That is not to say there are not moments in Prince Caspian that are enjoyable. Susan's part is interesting and there are moments when the telemarine political machinations are actually engaging. But it is not enough to keep adults interested. It is perfectly safe for children; indeed, it might be ideal for them. After all, if one repackages the same drecht in a new wrapper, children usually eat it right up. They are likely to do that for Prince Caspian, which is basically the same as the first - even though characters explicitly say things are different this time! - redressed enough that a child might think it was a different movie.

Even so, Prince Caspian does lead into the much better The Voyage Of The Dawn Treader (reviewed here!).

For other Disney works, please check out my reviews of:
Tron: Legacy
Tangled
Oceans
Toy Story 3
A Christmas Carol
Up

4.5/10

For other film reviews, please visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2010, 2008 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.



| | |

The Chronicles Of Disappointment: Part 1 - The Lion, The Witch, And The Wardrobe

The Good: Mr. Tumnus and James McAvoy's performance
The Bad: Pacing, Effects, Stiff acting, Predictable character arcs
The Basics: With its childish plot, stiff acting and utter lack of character development, the first Chronicles Of Narnia disappoints an adult audience.


Peter Jackson destroyed any legitimate chance The Chronicles Of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe had of being a decent film. Jackson's cinematic masterpiece of The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy (reviewed here!) set the bar obscenely - and rightly - high. Andrew Adamson, who directed The Chronicles Of Narnia,: The Lion, The Witch, And The Wardrobe had almost no chance. Yet, he tried anyway. You have to admire him for that. Well, almost.

The Lion, The Witch, And The Wardrobe finds four children, sent to live with a mysterious professor in a mansion away from the bombings of World War II. There, Edmund, Peter, Lucy and Susan keep themselves occupied by playing throughout the day. While playing hide and seek, Lucy - the youngest sister - hides in a wardrobe and discovers that the furniture is actually a doorway to a magical world called Narnia.

Narnia has been beset with perpetual winter, it is under the spell of the evil White Witch. Lucy meets a faun named Tumnus there and soon after, Edmund enters the frozen world as well. Edmund, however, is met by the White Witch, who buys his allegiance with flattery and a hot drink. When Susan and Peter enter Narnia as well, they learn that they are prophesized to break the White Witch's spell and restore Spring. That is, unless Edmund betrays them and their new lion friend Jesu . . er, Aslan, to the White Witch.

The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe is a children's movie. Flat out. It's for the kids and it makes little pretense at being anything more. Adults are likely to be dreadfully disappointed, especially after seeing how amazing a fantasy film could be via The Lord Of The Rings. Will children be entertained by this? I don't know. I don't particularly care, either. All I know is I was disappointed.

First off, Aslan is the most obvious Jesus metaphor of all time and the overt Christian references are troubling to those who want to simply enjoy a fantasy film. Father Christmas makes an appearance and it does beg the question, how does Jesus fit into Narnia? Aslan, the talking lion who talks the talk of peace, love and brotherhood, is redeemed in the narrative only by offering redemption and forgiveness to one of the characters, something most of the so-called Christians watching this movie might well have forgotten how to do.

Outside Aslan, who is voiced by Liam Neeson quite well, the only acting that is decent in the entire movie is that of James McAvoy. McAvoy plays Mr. Tumnus, the faun, and he is the only actor whose portrayal is not either stiff, awkward or flat-out immature. McAvoy has exceptional timing and great body language. It's rare to find an actor who may regulate the twinkle in his eye. McAvoy does and he steals every moment he's on screen.

Unfortunately, none of the other actors live up to the bar he has set so high. Tilda Swinton gives a surprisingly stiff performance as the White Witch. Gone is her mastery of face, body and voice from Orlando (reviewed here!), replaced with a veneer somewhere between bored and sitting on a thorn and not hiding it so well. It's too bad, too because she has talent and exceptional ability. Similarly, Jim Broadbent, who plays the professor, is given little room to shine.

Instead, most of the time, the screen is filled with child actors William Moseley (Peter), Anna Popplewell (Susan), Skandar Keynes (Edmund) and Georgie Henley (Lucy). The best of the bunch is Popplewell, who is given the worst character arc and the least to do on screen. Instead, much time is given to the young Henley who is barely convincing throughout much of the movie and Keynes who is stiff and dull. Moseley is thoroughly white bread and one wonders how these three were chosen for the part. They make a strong argument for computer generated characters.

Of course, some of the problem is not their fault. The characters are not terribly well-defined or interesting. Peter learns he is to become a great leader and because it is a children's movie, there is no conflict, no questioning. It's "sure, strap a sword on me and I'll be a man!" Edmund is treacherous and childlike and then, poof, he's not. Get real. And Lucy and Susan are trapped in gender roles that should have died in the 1950s. Outside Tumnus, there's not a character worth watching in the entire movie. And, sadly, Tumnus does not develop.

Finally, the effects in The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe are inadequate. In order to keep a PG rating, the film sacrifices realism for rating. There are far too many points where CG characters look drawn in or pass through the frame quickly. Or are cropped almost out of the image. There are far better films.

Who might like this film adaptation of The Chronicles Of Narnia? I don't know, but it won't be those who loved The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy. They will simply shake their heads in dismay to learn that much of the rest of the series is already in pre-production.

For other fantasy films, please check out my reviews of:
Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 1
The Twilight Saga: Eclipse
Alice In Wonderland

4/10

For other film reviews, please check out my index page by clicking here!

© 2010, 2006 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.


| | |