Shrek is released on DVD...

November 2, 2001 8:37 AM

Shrek is released on DVD... I've got mine, and it is great! In all seriousness, I think this film is one of the finest artistic achievements of *all time* (and damn funny), and furthermore I predict that animation (particularly computer animation) will be the preeminent artistic form in the next 10 years. So, that's my opinion clarified. What do you guys think? Away you go, esteemed fellow MeFi people!
posted by rikabel (37 comments total)

When someone pulls a DVD out of his pocket, invites me to view it, and then tells me to argue its merits, I feel like a talking donkey.
posted by rory at 8:41 AM on November 2, 2001

I liked Shrek a lot, but I still don't like how the characters look. They almost look realistic, but too plastic.

The kid in Monsters Inc is more to my liking. Doesn't that come out today?
posted by jragon at 8:57 AM on November 2, 2001

if u think the film is funny - go have a look at the technical goofs - fuzzy donkey is the best
posted by monkeyJuice at 8:58 AM on November 2, 2001

Oops. Heh. Yes, Monsters Inc does come out today.
posted by jragon at 9:00 AM on November 2, 2001

sucked sucked sucked. sanctimonious, unfunny (please let the era of flatulence humor end), hypocritical (embrace your inner beauty, but we GOTTA get cameron diaz as the voice!), and that goddamn cover of 'i'm a believer' by smashmouth.
posted by maura at 9:12 AM on November 2, 2001

It was, like, totally the best of all time ever forever till the end of time to the max.
posted by bryanboyer at 9:28 AM on November 2, 2001

Please stop posting, Mr. Katzenberg.
posted by thebigpoop at 9:31 AM on November 2, 2001

naaah ... stop motion is waaay better ... and no slower to make. (I am biased tho...)
posted by MintSauce at 9:32 AM on November 2, 2001

You're absolutely right, rickabel. Computer animation is the art form of the future. Shrek, for all the shortcomings of its script and conventionality of its sentiments, has a visual quality that is unique in the history of visual art. It is more dreamlike than the self-conscious dream imagery of the surrealists, more real than the hyperrealists, and the quality of its not actually being "there" in any traditional sense of the word, makes it more philosophically challenging than anything the current avant garde is capable of imagining. However, for a movie that combines great computer visuals with a powerful, even profound screenplay, you have to go to "Toy Story" and especially "Toy Story 2" Both of these films are existential masterpieces, and way beyond anything that's being done with live actors. If "Monsters, Inc." is anywhere in the neighborhod of those two films, it will be a wonderful experience indeed.
posted by Faze at 9:53 AM on November 2, 2001

Shrek was fun, but not the best ever. Most of the characters were okay, but the big dragon was very plastic-looking.
What's with the 11HOURS of bonus stuff, though? There's some other movie recently released that announced they've got like 14. Value-added, sure, but that's overkill.
posted by Su at 9:54 AM on November 2, 2001

Some DVD features can't be measured in hours, anyway. If they include the script, I'm sure they get the world's slowest reader to time how long it takes to read it, just to inflate the number of hours of extra "content" is included. Same thing goes for galleries of still images.

When it comes to DVD these days, I think there is far too much emphasis on "extras" and not enough on picture and sound quality. Bucking that trend, though, is Superbit. I've picked up one of these discs and been impressed at the increase in quality. It's the best thing to happen to home video in a while. Although some people still don't get the idea, I think. You mean, actually devote as much disk space as possible to the actual movie in order to reduce compression artifacts? That's crazy! I want my 14 hours of commentary tracks and trailers!

Now if only they would release a Superbit version of Lawrence of Arabia. The current version has some serious compression problems.
posted by Potsy at 10:15 AM on November 2, 2001

I predict that animation (particularly computer animation) will be the preeminent artistic form in the next 10 years.

Well, I still see Rocky and Bullwinkle are doing fine and still have lots of fans after all these years.

It always irks me when, among animation circles, there are those who have been predicting the inminent death of 2D in favour of 3D animation. I dunno which crack are they smoking, but I think the medium you use to tell your story is irrelevant, it's what and how you tell it what counts. People will still find the classic Disney movies funny even 50 years from now.. and some of us do relate better to so-called 2D art than to the current 3D craze. I'm not saying the recent hightech flicks aren't worth s***, it's only that my impression is that people pay more attention nowadays to the special effects hodgepodge current pictures burst at the seas with than to what really matters in a movie - the story.
posted by betobeto at 10:39 AM on November 2, 2001

embrace your inner beauty, but we GOTTA get cameron diaz as the voice

Funny...I assumed it was for her comedic talents. Silly me. (Have you seen _Being John Malcovich_?)
posted by brittney at 10:39 AM on November 2, 2001

Pppphhhtt. I'm with Maura, who I quote: "sucked sucked sucked. sanctimonious, unfunny (please let the era of flatulence humor end), hypocritical (embrace your inner beauty, but we GOTTA get cameron diaz as the voice!), and that goddamn cover of 'i'm a believer' by smashmouth."

And I'd add, if it's all about inner beauty, why all the short jokes?
posted by Mo Nickels at 10:42 AM on November 2, 2001

I didn't like Eddie Murphy as Donkey, but I thought most of the rest of Shrek was pretty sly. I mean, they came as close as their G-rating allowed to naming a character in a kids' movie "Lord Fuckwad." You just gotta love that.
posted by kindall at 10:54 AM on November 2, 2001

Shrek was a blast. The criticisms on here remind me of a friend I went and saw "The Mummy Returns" with. He snorted through his nose the entire movie as if to say, "I cannot believe we're expected to be entertained by this terrible dialogue, bad acting and awful special effects." For gosh sakes, it's a movie. Just a movie. Spend 90 minutes in a theatre or at home curled up on the couch on something not 'vital' or 'life-changing.' I'm already sick of the hype surrounding its release today, but it doesn't detract from the movie just being plain FUN.
posted by jaustinspace at 11:02 AM on November 2, 2001

the sendup of the disney empire was what made the movie worth watching. the brief sequence with the big-head farquaad mascot running scared through the roped-off queue was so hilarious for some reason. hmm.... maybe i am the only person who liked that bit... :shrug:

but i have felt like someone on the second string animation team did all of the human-looking humans, like the gaggle of torch-bearing villagers hunting the ogre at the beginning. here you have shrek, well-defined, textured, color-perfect (for an ogre, i guess), articulated, then you have the villagers looking like scared mannequins in a department store.
posted by grabbingsand at 11:05 AM on November 2, 2001

I found Shrek phenomenally disappointing. Too busy snorting into its milk to have very many real comedic moments (although I found the "Muffin Man" bit to be brilliant), too busy being inane to have any lasting effect on the viewer. Toy Stories 1 and 2 were vastly, vastly superior, and I have high hopes for Monsters Inc. (Although I don't usually agree with Harry Knowlees, he and I seem to be on the same plane when it comes to Pixar. Check out his Monsters Inc review at AICN. I hope he's right!)

Oh yeah, and what Mo & Maura said.
posted by Marquis at 11:10 AM on November 2, 2001

For all you Waits/Sparklehorse fans, check this out: The Quay Brothers' animated short film accompanying "Dog Door". Warning: minorly disturbing.
posted by Kafkaesque at 11:17 AM on November 2, 2001

Nothing will ever beat the awesome and wonderful Mr. Resistor.
posted by mrmanley at 11:45 AM on November 2, 2001

Faze - You're joking, right? It's hard to tell. Reasonably entertaining though it was, Shrek did not in fact outstrip the last 100 years of artistic achievement. I'm sorry, it just didn't.
posted by Hildago at 11:52 AM on November 2, 2001

face it Mo, Maura, Marquis, as long as there's sound, flatulence humor is here to stay.
posted by srw12 at 12:14 PM on November 2, 2001

That's right fool, now I'm a flyin' talkin' donkey!
posted by bob bisquick at 12:23 PM on November 2, 2001

I'd agree with Kafkaesque in saying that the Brothers Quay are genius. If you like them, though, also check out Jan Svankmajer. His version of "Alice In Wonderland" is a twisted, dark beauty.
posted by almostcool at 12:58 PM on November 2, 2001

Didn't he also do a version of Faust?
posted by Kafkaesque at 1:00 PM on November 2, 2001

You guys wanna see some good animation? Check out Mark Osbourne's MORE. It's stop-motion, but it'll move you.
posted by Fofer at 1:26 PM on November 2, 2001

Yes, the movie was indeed a classic...
posted by Yardsale at 2:30 PM on November 2, 2001

Kafka: Yep. He did do Faust, and it's really messed up. Great even to just have going in the background.

I didn't know More was available on the net. I've got it on one of the Short DVD collections. Gorgeous little film. I want my box of Bliss product, damnit.
posted by Su at 6:49 PM on November 2, 2001

Yeah, the future of computer of animated films looks good, but I'm afraid the quality of such films will lean toward the vapidity of Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, and not the cohesive brilliance of PDI's or Pixar's films.
posted by Down10 at 8:49 PM on November 2, 2001

"they came as close as their G-rating allowed to naming a character in a kids' movie 'Lord Fuckwad'"

It wasn't rated G, it was rated PG.
posted by Ben Grimm at 10:47 PM on November 2, 2001

Yep : More is fine stuff.
Yep : Shrek is Hollywood drivel.
Yep : I'm tired of these 'Hey folks what do you think of..?' threads too.
Yep : I'm grumpy today.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:50 PM on November 2, 2001

A character named 'Lord Fuckwad'? Are you serious?
posted by spinifex at 12:14 AM on November 3, 2001

I do believe that it was Farquaad, not Fuckwad. Nevertheless, it was a bit more than I will let my kidlets see at their ages, and I can't imagine where I'd ever find the time for 11 hours of extras on top of a movie. I also can't imagine where I'd ever find the interest. Why can't they come up with a few hours of extras for the grown-up movies?
posted by Dreama at 1:21 AM on November 3, 2001

"they came as close as their G-rating allowed to naming a character in a kids' movie 'Lord Fuckwad'"

And to think I thought it was a simple play on 'quad' = four ;)
posted by eoz at 3:36 AM on November 3, 2001

I didn't realize it was PG, that explains how they got away with "Farquaad." But, yeah, it was obviously, to me, a case of Katzenberg wondering idly, "just how close can I come to calling Michael Eisner a fuckwad in a movie for kids?"

Unless, of course, the character has the same name in the book, in which case my theory falls apart. %)
posted by kindall at 11:32 AM on November 4, 2001

And I've got to say, I liked Final Fantasy a lot more than I liked Shrek. The plot struck me as very Japanese, which might be why it didn't go over so well with most American viewers. Frankly it reminded me just a little of Princess Mononoke. (I should probably mention I have never played any of the games.) The film itself was visually stunning enough to distract me from the plot's flaws.
posted by kindall at 11:40 AM on November 4, 2001

hm, maybe I should stop posting when I am stoned...
posted by rikabel at 3:54 AM on November 5, 2001