Magic Missing in Shrek Forever After

The movie's not bad, just phoned in
By Jane Yager,  Newser Staff
Posted May 21, 2010 5:20 AM CDT

Shrek Forever After, the supposed last film in the green ogre franchise, isn't terrible, critics unanimously agree. But neither is it remotely necessary. Here's what they're saying:

  • “There's a soft, middle-aged complacency to the well-oiled mechanics of Shrek Forever After,” writes Lisa Schwarzbaum of EW. “What was once a fresh, self-referential twist on the vulturish consumption of pop culture when the first Shrek debuted in 2001 has become a lazy corporate tic.”

  • “ If there were a Shrek TV show, this could be the two-part finale of, say, Season 3,” writes Eric Snider of “The difference, of course, is that a so-so episode of a TV show doesn't cost ten bucks to watch.”
  • It's just “a recycling machine that recalls the high points of previous installments without demonstrating the need for a new one,” complains Joe Morgenstern of the Wall Street Journal. “There's also a sense of filmmakers searching for whatever will help fill the running time."
  • But James Bardinelli disagrees. “Even though Shrek Forever After is obligatory and unnecessary, it's better than Shrek 3” and you won't regret seeing it, he writes in ReelViews. "As It's a Wonderful Life knock-offs go, this one isn't half-bad.”
(Read more Shrek Forever After stories.)

We use cookies. By Clicking "OK" or any content on this site, you agree to allow cookies to be placed. Read more in our privacy policy.
Get the news faster.
Tap to install our app.
Install the Newser News app
in two easy steps:
1. Tap in your navigation bar.
2. Tap to Add to Home Screen.