Why Do People Not Like Shrek?

[Spongebob Squarepants]

I've noticed alot of people on here don't like Shrek. Why is that? I think Shrek 2 is one my favorite movies.

[Disneykid]

I actually like both films, especially the second. That said, I do think they're both extremely overrated for many reasons:

* It starts off as a parody of fairy tales, especially Disney's interpretations. As the first film goes on, though, it abandons the whole fairy tale spoof concept (and only about 10 minutes, at that) and ends up becoming the very thing it's making fun of. The whole misunderstanding between Shrek and Fiona seems like something out of Three's Company. The ending force feeds its moral into the audiences' mouths rather than gradually establishing it throughout the course of the story. On top of that, the transformation directly contradicts the moral of beauty within. It's way too convenient that the spell makes Fiona an ogre permanantly. If we were to parallel this with Beauty and the Beast, the inconsistancy is even more glaring. The Beast turned into a prince because that's who was inside him all along and who he was supposed to be. By that logic, Fiona should've changed into a human because that's who she really was. What if she had fallen in love with a human? Would she still have remained an ogre? That would certainly lead to an awkward situation. If you're going to spoof something, fine, but don't sloppily borrow from that very thing when you realize at the last minute that you need a story. The Princess Bride and Ella Enchanted are much better examples of fairy tale parodies.

* Speaking of parodies, there are just way too many modern references in both films. In tens years, they're going to look seriously dated. If you want to add pop culture references so badly, tackle a variety of eras ala the Genie in Aladdin or the entire cast of Gilmore Girls. Sticking with stuff from within the past two years of your production firmly grounds your film in the year it was made rather than making it timeless.

* I'm not a fan of bathroom humor, plain and simple. Call me a snob, but farting in movies caters to the lowest common denominator, in my opinion. It's only (mildly) funny if you somehow allude to it rather than flaunt it (like the pelicans in Finding Nemo after the bombs explode). Admittedly, there was surprisingly little of this in the second one, and for that I was grateful.

* Too many of the jokes just fall flat. Rather than taking the time to make sure each gag is quality, it throws out half-ideas at the audience ferociously in hopes that someone will laugh. Some jokes could've been funny with some slight revisions while others just neeed to be axed.

* I have trouble truly caring for the characters. The films introduce us to everyone in ways that show them off in the worst light possible. Make your character's big entrance a scene where's he's being a jerk to someone is a bad way of starting things off if you want this character to be empathized by the audience. Yes, I realize there's supposed to be character development and changes, but the problem is that these characters remain cold for the majority of their screentime. By the time they actually start to care for one another, it becomes too little too late.

Again, I actually enjoy both films. But when pretty decent entertainment is glorified to the heavens (how the HECK did the first one beat Monsters, Inc. at the Acadamy Awards, and how in the BLAZES did the second one manage to beat Spider-Man 2, The Passion of the Christ and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban financially?!), then my mild enjoyment starts to diminish. I was kinda curious about the third one (especially since the second one was a pretty substantial step up from the first), but with Andrew Adamson not involved due to Prince Caspian (yay!) and the negative test screenings, I'm not going to bother checking it out.

[Mr. Toad]

I like Shrek especially the first one. Obviously by the box office I am not alone.

[crunkcourt]

I like the first Shrek as well. The 2nd one I enjoyed the first time I watched it, but did not like it the 2nd time I tried to watch it. One of the main complaints that I have heard is the type of humor, the fart jokes, etc.; also that the movie tries to appeal to adults and children in different jokes, instead of allowing the family to share in the movie.

[slave2moonlight]

Well, I think a big part of the problem is how overrated the first film is. It was ridiculous that "Shrek" should win the Oscar over "Monsters, Inc.," and I seem to forever be complaining about that, ha. I simply cannot get over it. It sickens me. Yet, I do enjoy the first film, and I really do love the second.

As I see it, and I know a lot of this was said before, but the movie just wasn't as "special" as it was made out to be. Eddie Murphy was funnier in Mulan, too. Yeah, it was a bit odd that it started out just making fun of Disney, and then turned into a Disney-like fairytale itself, and, as said before, it doesn't make its point that well. What was its point again? Seeing past appearances? If that was the idea, it would have been so much more meaningful for the "beautiful" (she was really just "okay," ha) Princess Fiona to fall in love with Shrek despite his been an Ogre. The fact that she had to turn into an Ogre for the relationship to work just pushes that "stick with your own kind," ugly should date ugly mentality the film seems to want to be against. However, I see films and stories attempt to do this repeatedly, and they always seem to end up screwing it up. People just don't seem to be comfortable with a story where someone attractive actually goes for someone whose beauty is totally on the inside, but I guess it's just too unrealistic. But if you can't make the point, don't try.

Another thing that really bothered me was the way their "spoof on fairytales" eventually revealed itself to just be Katzenberg poking fun at Disney and getting revenge on Eisner for calling him a dwarf, or something to that respect. This is why Lord Farquad sorta looks like Eisner and is made to be short and always overcompensating, living in that Disneyland like place and all. Yeah, he looks a little like his voice actor, but he also looks a little like Eisner. Anyway, I thought that was in pretty bad taste to use the "Shrek" movie for his own little revenge on Eisner and Disney.

That stuff aside though, it's just plain overrated. I mean, it's not as charming or drop dead hilarious as it is made out to be. It's funny, it's entertaining, but not worthy of the praise it gets, and not some fantastically original idea really. Somewhere, I'm sure people were saying, "How original! A spoof on fairytales! A fairytale where the Ogre is the hero!" But spoofs aren't original, and switching the hero role from knight to ogre doesn't seem all that mindknumbingly original either. At least, it doesn't seem like it'd be this really hard thing to come up with... Hold that up against something like "Monsters, Inc." Now that one was full of great and original ideas, dazzling visuals; it was just a creativity explosion! And totally heartwarming and charming too, without that lingering feeling of one studio exec sticking his tongue out at another...

[TM2-Megatron]

I liked the first movie... I didn't really enjoy the second one as it was the mostly the same jokes recycled and it was just sort of overdoing it. The fact there'll be 3rd and 4th installments is completely ridiculous, and I have no intention of seeing them on the big screen; I may rent them after a while.

There's also the fact that the humour, even that of the first film, is so heavily steeped in pop culture jokes that in probably no more than 10 years time, 15 at the most, nobody will find it funny. It hardly shares the timeless quality that many of Disney and Pixar's movies have.

[Disney-Fan]

On top of that, the transformation directly contradicts the moral of beauty within.

That always bothered me just because it really sends out a horrible message (even if not intentionally). So beauty from within only lies inside an ugly person? Exquise me? I just found that to be a bit insulting to the wide audience that might look pretty good. I know they meant well and tried to go against the norm that usually the good people in movies also look really nice, but boy did it come off wrong.

Anyway, as for the answer. In a nutshell, the way I see it is not that [most] people don't like the movie, whereas it's more a case of hating it's immense popularity and hype. I for one enjoy the fairytale-spoofing nature of it and like the franchise a lot. I just tend to ignore the hype and just enjoy it and have a good time (that also means I need to ignore some horrible potty jokes Oh well).

A bit off-topic: I can't believe Andrew Adamson isn't returning for III! I was certain he was! Oh man, lets hope the movie doesn't fall flat.

[Lazario]

It starts off as a parody of fairy tales (...) and ends up becoming the very thing it's making fun of.

seems like something out of Three's Company.

not a fan of bathroom humor, plain and simple. Call me a snob, but farting in movies caters to the lowest common denominator, in my opinion

Too many of the jokes just fall flat.

Completely agree on all of this. I was going to make my own long, drawn-out, and painfully in-depth prognosis on this series. But you pointed out all the major elements. Basically, Roger Ebert and Leonard Maltin should be ashamed for their overly positive reviews of the first movie.

there are just way too many modern references in both films.

This I admit I agree with, for the most part. On the first movie, it hindered it tremendously. But there were some incredibly funny moments in the sequel because of this very fact. Especially the "Bibbidy Bobbidy Bo" rip-off sequence with the Fairy Godmother (or whatever she called herself in that movie). And I thought the Cops moment was funny as well.

I like Shrek especially the first one. Obviously by the box office I am not alone.

Oh yeah? People liked Jackass: The Movie too. Just goes to show, there's no accounting for taste.

On top of that, the transformation directly contradicts the moral of beauty within.

That always bothered me just because it really sends out a horrible message (even if not intentionally).

You know something - that part of the movie never bothered me. Because if the movie really is making that message, I feel like it was unintentional on the filmmakers' part. I think they were just trying to do what the audience would respond to the best. Plus, in a way, it really set up some interesting elements in the sequel. The "human" family now has to deal with the fact that their once glamorous and beautiful human daughter is now an ogre. So now if they try to not accept Shrek because he's an ogre, it will be hypocrasy because their daughter is an ogre too. I think if there's any real problem with the ending of Shrek 1, it's probably that the filmmakers were afraid to use the union of ogre-Shrek and human-Fiona because of audience's instinctively negative reactions to Interracial relationships / couples. Because that would be cowardly. Plus, let's not forget that if human Fiona is human on the inside... than it doesn't really matter if she looks like an ogre on the outside, because she still sees herself as human and fell in love with a man/male who does not look like a human. She still sees him for what he is, even if he doesn't her for what she is. If anything - we are the only ones who ever saw her beauty as once human at all. Shrek loved her no matter what she looked like. Her decision was actually a much more interesting one that appearences may suggest. Because now he had to get used to her not looking like the human she was when they met.

Or something.

[dvdjunkie]

I think that all of you are way off base here.

Until I started coming to UD, I never heard any complain about either of the Shrek movies, and I for one think that the first one is much better than the second, but for totally different reasons than anyone stated here.

There are lots of Disney movies that I think are more overrated than the Shrek series is, and I would rather watch Shrek 2 than Mulan any day of the week, any day of the year.

I know that this is just a forum for discussion of movies that we like and dislike, but I think you are all taking this way to far. Sure this is a Disney site and we should all be pro-Disney, but believe me there are a lot better animated movies out there right now that are truly family fare (Shrek 2 not being one of them).

I think that we should all quit comparing one to the other, and just discuss the pluses and minuses of the film we like and don't like.

We don't get paid for being so hyper-critical of films, and there are critics out there who do.

If you don't like the film, don't buy it, and don't be such a hypocrite when it comes to animation whether it be Disney or Warner Brothers, or Sony or Dreamworks or Aardman or whatever. They all have their own niche' in the movie kingdom.

I personally think that Disney animation went down hill with "Pocohontas", "Hercules", and "Emperor's New Groove", but you don't see me ranting about it. Except maybe now. I'll just be quiet and go away for now.

[blackcauldron85]

It was ridiculous that "Shrek" should win the Oscar over "Monsters, Inc.," and I seem to forever be complaining about that, ha. I simply cannot get over it. It sickens me.

I agree. I don't like the "Shrek" movies because they're DreamWorks. I despise DreamWorks. They try to be as good as Disney, but they just aren't. And, they steal ideas from Disney.

It's weird that this is the third DreamWorks rant I've typed this morning!

[Lazario]

dvdjunkie - you are preaching to the converted. You may have heard the expression, everyone's a critic... Think about it for a minute.

You regard Disney films as simply family fare? If that were how we all felt, I don't necessarily think we'd all be here right now. And the funny thing I think you'll notice about families - someday the kids do grow up. It happens, don't let it get you down. So, Family is the most dated of all genres. But art - true art, lasts forever.

Thank you for your concern. But I think our arguments are more than fair and warranted. Films should be art and quality first, before we think of just how much they appeal to the family. Then, as far as one person doesn't like Warner, one doesn't like DreamWorks - preference. You can't argue with that and they're not trying to anyway.


And then, Pocahontas was amazing. Sorry if you don't agree - if you don't, that's your prerogative. The truth is, it's a good movie.

I think that we should all quit comparing one to the other, and just discuss the pluses and minuses of the film we like and don't like.

I saw pluses and minuses. You didn't?

[blackcauldron85]

Speaking of "Shrek", check out http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/ ... /6599.aspx. Shrek's Christmas Special coming to a TV near you... on ABC!!!

[Caballero Girl]

I agree with nearly all the critiques I'm reading here, particularly the points Disneykid made.

And true, I think my own hostility (or at least ambivilence) toward the Shrek movies stems mainly from all the hype and acclaim that surrounds them than the films themselves.

The long and the short of it is that the basic concept behind them isn't nearly as refreshing or innovative as people made them out to be. The whole fairy tale spoof thing has been done dozens of times before, and I'm sure that's an understatement. Personally, I have fonder memories of the David Henry Wilson anthology There's a Wolf in my Pudding, with its own inspired twists and turnings upon fairy tale conventions, than I do of Shrek.

As Dreamworks goes, I can pretty much handle the Shrek films. The overbearing presence of celebrity voices (in ways that detract from the characters themselves) and substitution of pop culture references and movie spoofs for real humour had me tearing my hair out in Madagascar and whatever small portions of Shark Tale I could sit through. Shrek 2 was certainly very indulgent with the spoofs and references, but at least there was enough else going on, for much of the time, to distract me. On the whole, I think I prefer Shrek 2 to the original, for the reason that I found Donkey and his endless monologues to be terribly annoying in the initial outing (I'm sorry...please don't lynch me ). Adding Puss in Boots to the equation, as a sort-of counterpoint to Donkey's constant jabbering, certainly helped. Plus, I enjoyed John Cleese's performance as Fiona's father.

I was as disappointed as everyone else who's raised the issue about Fiona's final transformation. Had she remained human, and still got together with Shrek at the end, then I might have come away with a better impression of the story overall, while the storyline of Shrek 2 was essentially just a thinly-plotted reaffirmation of the first. To be honest, I don't think that Dreamworks really think things through with their morals. It's just not their thing. They're into crude and cynical humour, and whatever moments of warmth they try to flash now and then usually feel muddled and contrived.

Other than that, it's more the 'little things' which I dislike about the Shrek movies. The villains are dispatched of way too easily. The soundtracks are too intrusive. And please, for the love of pancake, give that ongoing sight gag with the three blind mice a rest! Every time you see the blind mice, they ALWAYS have one of them facing in the wrong direction, which usually irritates me. (Even if they are blind, wouldn't they still be able to HEAR what direction a person's talking from? Are they trying to infer that they're deaf too? )

[Simba3]

In my opinion Shrek was a cute movie, but I feel as a whole it was very overrated.

[2099net]

I don't like Shrek, because I don't like any of the characters. Its as simple as that. Shrek is undefined apart from a "silly" Scottish accent, Donkey was written to be annoying and - surprise - he is annoying. None of the others are that great either (again Robin Hood resorts to a "silly" accent - this time French) and in the sequel they have to resort to a "silly" Spanish accent for Puss-In-Boots (who, incidently, should be French, and Robin Hood should be English - although I'll accept French at a pinch due to the Norman conquests a few hundred years before).

The films don't even use the fairy-tales they parody to their fullest. Puss-In-Boots was a Ogre-Killer, who used his cunning to trick the Ogre. I dread to think what they'll do to Arthur and Merlin in Shrek 3. And I mean "Justin Timberlake as Arthur"? Doesn't that just demonstrate everything wrong with the films in a short 4 word sentance.

[BrandonH]

Personally, I got some great entertainment from both movies. They will not date well, but for a while, the jokes are still funny.

I have more beefs with the DVD releases of the series than I do with the movies themselves.

[Leonia]

Speaking of "Shrek", check out http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/ ... /6599.aspx. Shrek's Christmas Special coming to a TV near you... on ABC!!!

Think it'll be on the scale of the Star Wars Holiday Special?

[Lazario]

I don't like Shrek, because I don't like any of the characters.

Oh I forgot all about the characters. Yes, they all pretty much stink. But the Fairy Grandmother character was very funny at times. Donkey was incredibly annoying!

"Justin Timberlake as Arthur"? Doesn't that just demonstrate everything wrong with the films in a short 4 word sentance.

UG! I had no idea of this. What film series with any integrity would make such a dreadful mistake?!

[PixarFan2006]

I also like both shrek films but they are overrated compared to disney. There were just too many pop culture refrences to call it "original" and I agree that they could have toned down a bit on the crude humor.

[indianajdp]

Loved both of them, although I did think the first was much better than the second.