Shrek Forever After Movie Review

[PressBot]

By Pam Swartz



"Shrek Forever After" is the fourth and final instalment from the Shrek franchise, and the series' first movie to be shown in stereoscopic 3D.
Time flies when you are having fun! Shrek's journey began in 2001 with an unconventional and amalgamated take on children's fairy tale stories. Shrek (Mike Myers) was the feared ogre that lived in a swamp and with the help of a smart-mouthed donkey (Eddie Murphy), he saved his half-human, half-ogre better half, Princess Fiona (Cameron Diaz). After being kissed by Shrek (her "one true love"), the curse was broken, and Fiona became a full time ogre, and lived happily ever after with Shrek. Or so we thought.

In 2004's "Shrek 2" , Shrek had to fight off Prince Charming and his magical mom to keep Fiona. This also marked the introduction of Pussin Boots (hilariously voiced by Antonio Banderas).

"Shrek The Third" was released in 2007. A vengeful Prince Charming brought together several fairy tale villains to help him capture the kingdom of Far Far Away. With order restored, Shrek and Fiona go back to their swamp to raise their family of three (ugly!) baby ogres.

This brings us to "Shrek Forever After"!  What began as the ideal life,has grown monotonous. Waking up, farting babies, working, sleeping,etc...it all takes its toll! Poor Shrek has grown dissatisfied with his life, and longs for the days when he was the town's feared ogre.

The fact is, the townspeople have grown to love Shrek. Instead of being the feared monster he remembers, he has become something of alocal celebrity - complete with tour buses of people taking snapshotsof his house and family!

At his children's first birthday party, Shrek's frustrations come to a boil and he blows up in front of everyone.  A chance encounter with Rumpelstiltskin (very well done by Walt Dohrn) changes everything. Together, they work out a deal to change Shrek back to a scary ogre again for one day. The twist is that Shrek must agree to give up another day in return, and offers any day from his childhood that he doesn't remember. Poor Shrek gets swindled out of the day he was born, and runs the risk of being erased from existence!

In Shrek's "alternate day universe", Shrek is back to his scary self.  Everyone is terrified of him again, and he once more has the run of the town!

Sort of. Shrek's swamp is now deserted, and Ogres have become an endangered species that are being hunted down by flying witches, and taken to Far Far Away Palace, property that is now owned by Rumpelstiltskin.

We don't want to spoil all the surprises, but nothing is what it was in Shrek's real life. He is not married to Fiona, he isn't friends with Donkey (yet), and Puss in Boots (the highlight of the movie) has becomea morbidly obese cat who lives for feeding time and petting sessions!

Will Shrek be able to save himself, the ogre population, and the town? Will he ever get his life back? What is this "true love's kiss"anyway, and how do you find it in less than 24 hours?!?

This is the first Shrek movie in 3D, and I liked it. In fact, I think that all the Shrek movies would have been great in 3D. I've stated before in some of my other reviews that I really find this tech lends itself better to animated features rather than live action movies. This is true with Shrek as well.

The animation is really good in this film, and the 3D makes the cartoon characters seem more life-like. Even the witches almost looked like real actresses. There aren't that many pop-out moments in the movie,but that didn't bother me. The depth was there when the script required it.

I have read that a lot of reviewers didn't like this movie. Some called it boring and flat - even in 3D. Others have even gone so far as to say that the franchise is played out. I enjoyed the movie, and the 3D was an added element. It didn't make the movie, but it was a nice touch.

As a final bow from the Shrek franchise, it gets a thumbs up from me!

Movie rating: 7.5/10
Read full article...

[cybereality]

I saw this too and I thought it was just OK. The 3D could have been a lot better though. It did seem rather flat compared to other films.

[Neil]

I don't want to ruine it for anyone, but what did you think of...the golden goose? That was one of my favourite characters. I didn't like the way they...depicted...the goose in the ending montage.

Regards,
Neil

[cybereality]

Maybe I wasn't paying attention, I don't remember anything about the golden goose in the end scene. My favorite character was the fat puss in boots because he reminded me of a cat my mom has (its the biggest cat in the world!).

[metalqueen]

My favorite character was Puss in Boots, too!

[Addict3d]

I have to disagree with your view in saying the 3D looked flat. One memorable seen was with the carriage and the depth it gave through the window. I'd go so far as to say any CGI animated film can't be flat period. Sure the presentation of a particular scene, like static dialogue can give less effect, I think the real problem lies in theaters hardware.

My local theater has RealD and the pictures presentation is blurry to varying degrees. This just kills delicate 3D shots with little or no movement on screen. I've only been able to compare the difference in anaglyph, but the 3D retention on 1080p high definition is staggering. I just take note of that when I see 3D films in the theater. I remember thinking the same thing about Up.

[android78]

I have to disagree with your view in saying the 3D looked flat. One memorable seen was with the carriage and the depth it gave through the window. I'd go so far as to say any CGI animated film can't be flat period. Sure the presentation of a particular scene, like static dialogue can give less effect, I think the real problem lies in theaters hardware.

My local theater has RealD and the pictures presentation is blurry to varying degrees. This just kills delicate 3D shots with little or no movement on screen. I've only been able to compare the difference in anaglyph, but the 3D retention on 1080p high definition is staggering. I just take note of that when I see 3D films in the theater. I remember thinking the same thing about Up.

Part of the problem with the 3D cinemas is that the film is usually only rendered once. This has to be rendered with the biggest cinemas and smallest audience in mind since, if your eyes are very close together or you enlarge the image too much, you won't be able to comfortably see the objects at a distance.
Therefore, if you have widely spaced eyes then they will look flatter then if you have narrow spaced eyes. Also, if you are in a small cinema then it will look flatter then in imax. I believe that children will probably have the best experience with the most depth since they have closer spaced eyes then adults.
I have fairly wide spaced eyes so find that, even in imax (apparently the second biggest screen) the objects in the distance are still not at sufficient depth, but I understand that it's best that it looks a little on the flat side to me so that everyone can enjoy it... maybe I should get some prisms for watching these 3D movies.

[Fredz]

You just need to change your place in the cinema to accomodate for your different eye separation. It's the same at home.

[android78]

You just need to change your place in the cinema to accomodate for your different eye separation. It's the same at home.

That doesn't make sense. Maybe you can explain how that can work?

[Likay]

You can try this phenomena yourself at home with your own screen. Usually when moving closer to the screen the depth is experienced less and when moving further away depth seems to increase. It's the same at the cinema. If sitting to close to the screen the image seems to be more flat than if sitting in the centre/back. The backseats (like when watching in 2d) aren't so good either because of the less field of view. It may be a conflict between the brains assumed accomodation and the reception of the images to each eye that cause the brain to assume the less depth at closer distances.
I'm a little curious if everyone experiences less depth at closer ranges?

[android78]

You can try this phenomena yourself at home with your own screen. Usually when moving closer to the screen the depth is experienced less and when moving further away depth seems to increase. It's the same at the cinema. If sitting to close to the screen the image seems to be more flat than if sitting in the centre/back. The backseats (like when watching in 2d) aren't so good either because of the less field of view. Basically it's a conflict between the brains assumed accomodation and the reception of the images to each eye that cause the brain to assume the less depth.
I'm a little curious if everyone experiences less depth at closer distances?

The effect when moving away from the screen increasing depth is true, but mostly for the foreground objects in front of the TV, not those background objects the other side of the TV. The dept will be extended, but generally the background objects will appear the same depth behind the screen. Screen size will have greater impact for the depth behind the screen.
Maybe I should draw another diagram for how this works.

[cybereality]

At home I agree that moving further back seems to increase the stereo effect. However in the cinema I think FOV plays a big part too, because the IMAX 3D certainly has better 3D than a RealD theater. In general I find sitting in the middle to be a good compromise.

[Fredz]

From : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereoscop ... e_pictures" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How far you are intending to view the pictures from requires a certain separation between the cameras. This separation is called stereo base or stereo base line and results from the ratio of the distance to the image to the distance between your eyes. The mean interpupillary distance (IPD) is 63 mm (about 2.5 inches), but varies with age, race and gender. The vast majority of adults have IPDs in the range 50–75 mm. Almost all adults are in the range 45–80 mm. The minimum IPD for children as young as five is around 40 mm. In any case the farther you are from the screen the more the image will pop out. The closer you are to the screen the flatter it will appear. Personal anatomical differences can be compensated for by moving closer or farther from the screen.

For example if you are going to view a stereo image on your computer monitor from a distance of 1000 mm you will have an eye to view ratio of 1000/63 or about 16. To set your cameras the correct distance apart you take the distance to the subject (say a person at a distance from the cameras of 3 metres) and divide by 16 which gives you a stereo base of 188 mm between the cameras.

If you intend to view the stereo image from the same distance as it is captured (e.g. a subject photographed three meters away, projected on a movie screen at a distance from the viewer of three meters) then the stereo base separation will be the same as the distance between the viewer's eyes (about 63 mm).

[crim3]

True assuming that the separation of the cameras axis is kept when the two images are projected on the same screen.