A bunch of us went to see Shrek yesterday at Grand Lake and it was great.
I'll resist a full-blown movie review, but I will say that everyone should go see it. What differentiates it from the regular hit-parade of computer-generated movies, each one refining a bit on the techniques of the last? Well, I'll tell you:
Plot: Even without the amazing production value of the animation, Dreamworks had a good story to tell, very funny, and very witty, appealing to kids and adults, without having to alienate one segment to pander *cough*jarjar*cough* to another.
Economy: The movie tells a good, complete story, and keeps it moving. I can't think of another animated, expecially 3d rendered, movie that avoided grandstanding, gratuitously showing off the computer effects at the expense of moving the story along, even if only for a single scene. Shrek uses the incredible graphics to push the story's points along at every step of the way, without stepping back and saying "Wow, look what we can do with graphics. We'll get back to the story in a minute."
Attention to detail: This is in two areas. The attention to artistic detail is amazing in it's understatedness. The credits had 30 people listed under 'lighting,' an amazing number for a CGI film. It's not like these people are gaffers stringing lamps and changing gels, they're all working inside the computer. Similarly, the creatures are very well done, falling short only when they try to make real people (and this could be seen as an inentional caricature of the human condition itslef, how the 'people' are the only ones that seem phoney). Little touches (watch how the grass that's been walked on stays a little bent) make this film a pleasure to watch. On the other side of attention to detail is the skill which with the writers and animators wove in so many casual (and not so casual) references to other movies, sonetimes nods, sometimes shakes of the head. Particularly brilliant are the 'information booth' nod to South Park, the constant counter-Disney references, and the gingerbread man torture scene.
Talent over Typecasting: I was really disappointed with the CGI animation in Dragonheart, because the director basically filmed Sean Connery saying all the lines, and directed the artists to give the dragon Connery's facial expressions, making a Connery-dragon. Similarly, in Mulan, Eddie Murphy's character, Mushu, was an anthropomorphised pocket dragon, which was basically a wrapper over an Eddie Murphy stand-up routine. Sometimes this works (as in Robin Williams's portrayal of the Genie in Aladdin), but more often it seems a little shallow, and inhibits the suspension of disbelief. In Shrek the characters each have their own personality. Donkey is Donkey, not Eddie Murphy in a Donkey suit. Shrek is great, without a hint of Wayne, Dr. Evil, or even (thank god) Fat Bastard slipping through. Mike Meyers did a teriffic job, and the decision (so I've herad it told) to re-record his part in the Scottish accent was a very effective one. It makes the character more vulnerable and worthy of compassion. The only caricatured role is Lithgow's Lord Farquaad, which is precicely as it should be. It adds shallowness to the character that only furthers the point of the movie.
Now that I've abandoned a short review, I'll close by saying that this really is a movie you should see. My mom saw it opening night and loved it. The kids in the theater (2pm matinee will do that) were all over it, and applause and cheering broke out at several points. This is absolutely a film I'll get on DVD as soon as it's available, if for no other reason than to see all the references and nuances I missed the first time around, or even on the second time, as I plan to see this in the theater another time.