Academic

I'll be the first to tell you that when I saw the premiere for what should be called "Shrek 4," I groaned, and grimaced, and thought "I sure hope Patti Lawless takes the kids to see that."  I loved Shrek, and I loved Shrek 2, but the third Shrek I seem to have repressed all memory of.  I think Justin Timberlake was involved somehow, but it's all fuzzy to me.  But somehow all five of us ended up in the movie theater Friday afternoon, in celebration of turning grades in only 36 hours after the deadline.  And you know what?  I thoroughly enjoyed it.

The plot is not new.  Shrek is George Bailey, looking around at his life and being annoyed at everyone in it, including his little daughter, who is squeaking his toy in his ear (not playing Hark the Herald Angels Sing over and over on the piano).  Now Shrek is not as pitiful as George Bailey, who thinks the world would be a better place without him.  True to his character, Shrek thinks that a day without everyone else where he could be a mean ogre again would be great for him.  Unfortunately, to achieve this wonderful day, he stupidly (and I guess drunkenly, if we want to be truthful) makes a deal with Rumpelstilskin that results in the same "It's a Wonderful Life" scenario:  what Far, Far Away would be like if Shrek had not been born.  It's not Potterville; Rumpelstilskin world is worse.

So, there's the set-up.  To break the spell and return the kingdom to its rightful owners, Shrek has to go on yet another quest, although this one is a little more internal than his others.  Along the way, we see his old friends and see that they have fared worse without him.  The thing that I loved about Shrek and Shrek 2 was the strength of Fiona's character and how anti-fairy tale the stories were:  Fiona's true form turns out to be an ogre, not a princess, and when given the choice to change back, she chooses to stay an ogre.  This theme continues in the fourth installment.  Fiona, tired of waiting for some prince charming to rescue her (remember, Shrek was never born), she rescues herself from the castle and leads an underground band of ogres, training to defeat Rumpelstilskin

The vaguely disturbing anti-feminist thread is that Rumpelstilskin, a diminutive guy with seemingly no magical powers suitable for battle, is protected by an army of witches on brooms, who all seem very deferential and afraid of him.  One sits still while he throws water on her, melting her.  Why?  It seems like the witches could get rid of Rumpelstilskin prettty quickly and have the kingdom to themselves.  I was hoping they would break out into a rendition of "All the Single Ladies," but I guess that's too obvious.

So, the end result is a good story, much better than the forgettable Shrek 3.  However, it's different from the others, particularly Shrek 2.  There are very few double entendres, in-jokes and pop culture references.  Shrek 2 was chock full of them, and some only apparent on viewing the second or third time.  I didn't miss that, really.  However, the really funny ensemble cast of Shrek is pushed into the background.  The band of "fairy tale creatures" that Shrek befriends in the first are merely cameos here.  Even Donkey is a bit player.  This is the story of Shrek and Fiona and how Shrek comes to realize that he really does have a wonderful life.  Sweet, but not a rollicking romp.

What I realized only today in writing this post is that the actor voicing Rumpelstilskin is not a recognized actor.  I waited for the credits to see who the voice actor was because I thought the Rumpelstilskin character was perfect.  I didn't recognize the name -- Walt Dohrn.  Today, when I looked to see what other movies Dohrn had been in, I was surprised to see that the answer is not really any.  Dohrn is an animator and a writer for SpongeBob SquarePants and the other Shrek movies.  Well, it seems like a brilliant choice -- Rumpelstilskin makes the movie just as Fairy Godmother made Shrek 2.  Enjoy!