You're wrong. And here's why:
Let's clear things up. The first one? Not that great. You heard me. It was watchable, maybe even buyable, and it gave some literary students who love fairy tales many chances to say "how postmodern!", but it was no classic. But this is a review of Shrek 2.
Let's look at what got the biggest laughs, besides Pinnochio's underwear, which I'd rather not talk about: The references. Hey! Far Far Away is like Hollywood! Take that, Hollywood! Fiona is kissing Shrek upside down, just like Kirsten Dunst did in the that trailer! Look! It's that Mission: Impossible sequence that everybody recognises whether they've seen the movie or not! Ah ha ha! How witty! I wonder how long it took Shrek 2's four (but probably more) writers to come up with all this! It must have taken WEEKS! Shrek 2 was overflowing with these references, and while some (Alien, From Here to Eternity) will be recognisable for years to come, others (the ones I just mentioned, many others) will not. Watch Shrek 2 in ten years. Introduce it to children new to the franchise. See if anyone laughs nearly as much.
The vast majority of the voice actors are completely disposable. Shrek could have been voiced by anyone doing a Scottish accent. Fiona could have been voiced by anyone who sounds young and female. Eddie Murphy probably couldn't have been replaced as Donkey, however. Not many people can be as annoying as Eddie Murphy. And don't get me started on the waste of John Cleese. They get John Cleese and cast him as a short guy, who's not completely inept at everything he does? The hell? I'm not encouraging typecasting here, but I at least want my dose of Cleese to be funny.
And I know this is a stupid complaint, but what was with the dialogue? Other than when someone was making a joke, the dialogue was completely transparent and free of subtext and subtle exposition, only serving a purpose to move us forward to the next joke or "plot" "twist"- which usually consisted of a character making a decision that doesn't fit with what we've seen them do so far (Shrek drinking the potion, I'm looking at you.)
The animation was fine. Probably better than I'm capable. The backgrounds were very good, the characters, especially in their movement, ESPECIALLY when they talk, less so. The only character they nailed the animation on was Puss in Boots.
Funnily enough, Puss in Boots was also probably the redeeming feature of the film, character wise. He's fuzzy, he's camp, he does that eye thing, and he hates Donkey- everybody wins! And, I must admit, it does have some legitimately funny moments, even for me, and I'm a soulless, hard-to-please freak. But then again, the average episode of Just Shoot Me has one or two laughs, and that doesn't cost nearly as much to make.
So, was it the worst movie of the year? Far from it. Most overrated of the year? We may just have a winner.
20 minute making of with actors wanking about how great everyone is.
now you don't have to see the movie