When it came out in 2001, Shrek was one of the very first movies that played with dissacrating the ordinary fairy-tail. The result was funny, fresh and original. Many productions have been following this style ever since, including the sequels to Shrek themselves.
Let me recap the plots very quickly:
- Shrek (2001). Fall in love and get married
- Shrek 2 (2004). Meet the parents
- Shrek The Third (2007). The kids
- Shrek Forever After (2010). The alternative life
As you can see, this is very complicated stuff!
Jokes aside, the simplicity is one of the key to Shrek's success, because it allows for that irony that sets it apart from the ordinary children movie where Prince Charming is awesome and the princess beautiful and the ogre evil. Also, it allows for a lot of referencing to real life or famous movies without complications.
The other key component are the characters and their witty dialogues. The dynamics and the jokes between Shrek and Donkey set the tone to the whole movie. The secondary characters as well are a great asset, from Pinocchio to the blind mice.
All this is in perfect armony in the first two movies: few characters, few things, linear plot, great music and a lot of jokes. Puss in Boots is a great add on and the upside-down fairy world in which the fairy god mother is a bitch gives space to a series of funny and unexpected situations.
The last two movies, however, lost a little of that spark. Of course, writers and producers knew that no matter what, any Shrek sequel would have been a box office success. However, I think they could have put a little more effort into it...or leave it alone.
The Third and Forever After are still quite funny and pleasant to watch because they are familiar. Yet, I found them very redunt and with little to add to the previous two. The new characters leave little space to the old ones, which I frankly liked more; Shrek and Fiona's ups and downs start to be a little bit of a pain; the turns and twists become too many and the whole thing gets purposless. I mean, it is still very easy and it was always quite purposless, but this was compensated by the originality of the idea. I guess it is just that it is hard to keep it original throughout four movies.
In fact, the discussion about franchise is open and anyone has its own idea. Franchises give cash to the industry so that they can keep producing all the movies we like; plus, they are loved by the audience because they are familiar and keep us company throughout different stages of our lives. On the other end, plainly leveraging on cash cows damages the image of the industry and people get easily tired of seeing the same characters doing purposeless things just for the sake of being in a movie.
The one of Shrek is a good example because it is average: it did not manage to keep it up till the end like Toy Story; but it did not go completely ridiculous like Pirates of the Caribbean either! I am personally pro-franchise: I am always sad when a good movie is over and I like to see it keep on living through the years.
No comments:
Post a Comment