Ya see this is the very problem. Despite making it clear in virtually all the Pimps that I know we shouldn't expect much from mainstream dribbles...seems some of u miss this. Of COURSE I don't expect any better...BUT I demand better. I mean...should we just sit back and ACCEPT things as they are? I don't think so...and I don't for a second believe that most people are even aware of how they are being influenced (not just through one picture but over the course of time by media and society in general) by these films. Shrek and a lot drek like it are quietly reinforcing value systems inside people. The Pimp take on it is simply to breakdown what people are taking for granted and show them that what they assume is NATURAL is nowhere near the case. Kinda like a biology lesson. That saying silence=death exists for a reason. If the Pimp says nothing...we don't have this dialogue. Right?

Pimp, what do you expect? This film was largely a parody of fairy tales (specifically Disney fairy tales) that was intended to appeal to the regular audience for those same fairy tales. If you're looking in a major studio mainstream picture of ANY kind (not just animated) for something that challenges the audience, you must think it's 1967 or something. (For historical reference, that was when "Bonnie and Clyde" was released.) It's a pity that the megacorps who own the major studios don't see that something unexpected, even controversial, might actually attract an audience that's getting bored with the same old thing. As it is, given the environment, "Shrek" was remarkably fresh and appealing. It will be hard for Disney to do their traditional fairy tale movies from now on, just like it was near-impossible to do a real Western, a space opera or a classic horror story after Mel Brooks did his parodies of those genres. You want something to shake you up, stick to films made or shown in college film courses. But don't go to a Don Ho concert if you don't want to hear "Tiny Bubbles."

I agree with all the opinions on the pseudo-progessive stuff attempted in Shrek with regard to relationships, but was that really such a surprise in a movie that was really hiding a totally conventional approach behind an ironic (and sometimes annoyingly smug) facade? It felt it HAD to have the comic sidekick (voiced by Eddie Murphy in exactly the same mode he used for the sidekick he played in Mulan)? He was the Jar Jar Binks of Shrek for me, and everything he did or said grated on my nerves. And there IS something weird about trying to teach a lesson about "looks don't matter" and then keeping the "unattractive" characters together, as if apples are only attracted to apples (figuratively speaking) - not to mention the evil prince being fairly "attractiveness challenged" too, being too short. The relationship snafus didn't surprise me at all, because I thought the movie was mostly bad - beginning w/the rehash of Mike Meyer's Fat Bastard/Scottish dad schtick, and the AWFUL soundtrack choices. That soundtrack will date that movie in six months, when the flash in the pans used on it are history. (yes, I realize there were older songs on it too, but as a for instance--the title song is way too dependent on what's happened in the last five pop culture minutes). I thought the self-referential stuff got old pretty quick and interfered with the sincerity of the movie; seems they should've made a choice either to be ironic or to be sincere...trying to make the two fit in one movie didn't work out. The writers also seemed to be afraid the audience wouldn't be quick enough to catch the jokes and would hit you over the head with them - I thought of Toy Story, and how deftly the writing on that movie was handled. There were adult jokes, jokes pertaining to a broader cultural spectrum than just the animated film, as well as self-referential gags about Disney, but the movie didn't slow down for those, for fear we wouldn't get them. Shrek was overall so heavy handed - dependent on the technology to carry the day, and that was the mistake--it tended to make us too conscious of the rendering process, and less focused on the emotional content. looks like they tried to use a tongue in cheek attitude and slick animation to try to cover up a weak, and extremely conventional storyline. BIG disappointment.

Christ, you all seem to have some kind of problem, including the pimp, i was amazed by this film. Ok, I agree that its not perfect, it has lack of content and gets proud showing FALSE MORALE and stuff. But its about the first animated feature that gets off the naging lovefull, cute stuff, i mean the hero is an anti-hero, and it has courage when the princes doesnt turn beautifull, i mean, everybody was expecting the oposite, i think it is nice to break that scheme for once. About the marriage, fundamentalist you are all, i myself dont like the marriage tradition, and i dont wanna do such thing as marry, but some people live nicely within a marriage, so let it be, besides, i dont think the porpuse of showing the marriage scene at the end is publicity for marriage, christ that kind of interpretation seems as feminist extortion, and well the message remains, we are a generation that doesnt like marriage, we saw all of our families go trough terrible stuff, bue there still the need for relationships in all of us, so, a relationship can be good even if people is digerent, even if they are ugly, so stop wining and get a little real. And if you all are so worryed and shocked by how the movie spreads a message, well be quiet and do a movie yourselfs, that way you can comunicate what you thing, and other people will be able to throw sh8t at you all.

I was hurrying through the entertainment section of the New York times and just got a glimpse of an ad for Shrek. Looking at it I realized that in all the ads they use the HOT princess. Now of course...the producers would argue that they don't want to spoil the picture...but we all know it's nonsense... No uglytubbies aloud I guess.

Thank Goddess for someone with the balls to say exactly what I felt after seeing Shrek! As a female, I had such high expectations that this play on fairytales would have a female lead that kicked a**! Besides belching and not being able to sing, it's the same old, same old. She needs someone else to tell her she's beautiful, she still meets her knight in shining armor, he still saves her and she still ends up tying the knot! BORING!!

Thank God somebody else feels the same, re. Shrek. I'm tired of big name actors used to pull an audience in. Was I the only one who thought the story was less than great. The animation was fab in parts, one can't deny the work or give the artists credit but the story, please! What's with the princess? Why didn't the ugly get the cutie? Now before every body gets wobbly judex is my only name no last name. Thats it.

So, tell me again, how did a critique of a movie turn into irrational Christian and marriage bashing? Man, the millenia speak loudly, and they speak against the senseless drivel this article espouses...we went through this argument in the '60s already, and are living with the consequences - fragmented and disillusioned generations because of this, "free love"-type *propoganda*. This is coming from the child of 2 generations of divorcees who's making it sure it won't happen in his own marriage. Let's get back to discussing animation...

In (part) reply to the Animation Pimp, why oh why, do we have to put up with all those 'cute 'n cuddly' lickle aminules that you Americans seem to put into everything you do? Life would be soooo much NICER if you just didn't bother puttin' 'em in! Can't think of which one I mean? Howsabout Scooby doo, The Simpsons (at least the dog doesn't 'speak') and of course 'Shrek' to name but a few - in fact if you go back a few years, just about every Ha-Ba 'toon you could ever name. Love yer WSite tho' Keep it up Spike (Terry Verney)