The trilogy used to be the golden standard for film franchises prior to the aughts. Every now and then a “James Bond” or a “Godzilla” or a “Star Trek” would come along and break the mold, creating a veritable cash cow for the property’s delighted studio. But properties with that level of fan loyalty and mainstream appeal are rare. Some of the most beloved franchises of all time have wisely capped production at a nice, round trilogy — “Back to the Future” being a prime example.
Oh how times have changed. If “Back to the Future” were made today, it would be utterly inconceivable for Universal to stop at the third installment. We’d likely be seeing at least six or seven, maybe more — at least until they managed to mercilessly drain every ounce of creativity and life out of our poor characters and thoroughly retread tired territory in pursuit of the almighty dollar. But even as tragic as that end would have been, at least we would have had the first three to enjoy forever. The difference today is that any hackneyed, half-baked release that manages to turn a marginal profit is green-lit for a third film sometimes even before pre-production has begun on its sequel.
There’s nothing wrong with looking for lucrative opportunities in filmmaking. It is a business, after all. But the problem is the studio’s now feel so much pressure to find the next “James Bond” that they’ll try to turn just about anything into their next golden goose. The result is that we’ve ended up with hordes of tweener franchises that neither have the legs to become perennial box office and occasional critical favorites, but which have already greedily crossed the trilogy threshold and now live as oddly capped four and five film series. “Pirates of the Caribbean” and “Spider-Man” are slated to shortly enter this ignominious club of cash grab king-making. “Shrek” will be there waiting.
None of the first three “Shrek” films are really all that good. The first is far and away the best of the bunch with its fairly original take on the conventions of the fairytale and its relatively mature commentary on the nature and perception of beauty. But it suffered from unrelenting, unfunny pop-culture references, a jumble of unnecessary and distracting celebrity voice acting and comparably poor computer animation (Pixar being the golden standard). Its two sequels hardly warrant any mention at all. That brings us to the self-billed final chapter, “Shrek Forever After.”
This (hopefully) final installment in DreamWorks’ computer animated tale about a grumpy, ugly, filthy ogre with a heart of gold-turned family man dealing with the rigors and sometimes self-sacrificing demands of parenthood towers above its predecessor, “Shrek the Third,” but is hindered by many of the same problems.
The insufferable pop-culture reference bonanza that DreamWorks movies have come to be known for is toned down a bit in favor of more complex plotting. This time around Shrek (Mike Myers) is going through something of a mid-life crisis. His perpetually ornery children, nagging wife and leeching friends leave him exhausted and pining for his bachelor days as the feared and hated master of his filthy, serenely mucky domain. His longings for the good old days leave him on the wrong end of a magical nefarious contract with devious deal maker, Rumpelstiltskin. This is where the story shows a little promise.
The result of the deal is a kind of “It’s A Wonderful Life” redux wherein Shrek not only gets to see the nature of a world in which he never existed, but, paradoxically, gets to live in it. A slew of interesting and potentially resonant ideas are then raised and just as quickly abandoned in favor of lazy sight gags and more hollow plotting. Chief among those narrative-elevating concepts is the idea that shrek’s wife, Fiona (Cameron Diaz), may actually be better off without him, and that she sacrificed probably more than he did to settle down and devote her life to her family. But the filmmakers apparently aren’t interested in character development or nuance, or at least don’t trust their audience to care enough or even notice.
Aside from the fleeting signs of maturity and creative filmmaking mentioned, “Shrek Forever After” is mostly an uninteresting, lazy piece of commercial cinema made for audiences that DreamWorks hopes are too young to know any better.
