I can't believe that they are marketing this movie to younger audiences. Either I've become a prude or I'm underestimating just how much information the younger generations are receiving. I don't fancy myself a prude by any stretch of the word. I mean, I OWN the dvd of 'Freddy vs. Jason' for crying out loud. But besides a few fart and burp jokes here and there, I'd have a hard time imagining that most kids under the age of 15 will "get" this movie's themes or jokes.

Whereas the first movie's message was all about loving yourself no matter what anyone else thinks of you, 'Shrek 2' is more about the inner workings of adult relationships. It's about the anxieties associated with meeting your loved one's parents for the first time. It's about the insecurities that everyone has about being the right type of person for the one you're with. It's about plastic surgery (kind of). It's about loving your significant other so much, that you'd do anything for them, even if that means "setting them free." Ladies and Gentlemen, we're not in "Nemo" land anymore.

Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed the adult nature of this movie. It's just baffling to think that they're marketing this movie to younger audiences. It's just that I'd imagine that most children under the age of 15 would be bored throughout most of this movie. I mean, I AM an adult, and I was bored throughout most of this movie.

Moriarty at "Aint It Cool News" summed the Shrek series up perfectly. To paraphrase, he said that Shrek is like a Teflon frying pan. It's all funny and sweet, but nothing's really going to stick with you after you've seen it. This movie is no 'Nemo' or 'The Lion King.' That's not a fault worth per se, but as I watched 'Shrek,' it just seemed like the creators of the movie felt like they belonged in that higher echelon of animated movies.

Some people at Dreamworks seem to think that 'Shrek 2' will be able to overtake 'Finding Nemo' as the most money making animated movie of all time. For the reasons mentioned above, I find this a bit of a stretch. 'Finding Nemo' was a bona fide classic from the very first frame. It combined everything that you want to see in an animated movie. It had charm, cuteness, comedy, inspired voice talents, great music, memorable dialogue, and a teary eyed factor that was off the charts. It's that last characteristic that puts you over the edge and into the "classic movie" mode. 'Shrek 2' has a teary eyed factor of...3 maybe??? 'Finding Nemo' was somewhere in the teens.

But before this turns into a review where I compare every aspect of 'Shrek 2' to 'Finding Nemo,' I should probably quite while I'm ahead. In my eyes, few animated movies will ever compare to any of the Pixar movies.

To paraphrase Moriarty from "Aint it Cool News" again, 'Shrek 2' is like a hyper Mad Magazine edition come to life. There are enough little pop culture references, and movie parodies spreaded throughout to keep the adults happy. But the weird thing is, is that I wonder if there's enough little things for the kiddies to keep them happy as well. I mean, yeah it's cool seeing a Medievel Starbucks store and Joan Rivers giving the red carpet commentary to an Academy Awards-esque banquet, but are kids really going to get it? And are there enough fart jokes spattered throughout (no pun intended) for the kids to laugh at? Or are they going to be bored? I guess it's not for me to decide.

I did like this movie a lot though. I think it's a pretty fun time at the movies. The last about 15 minutes or so were fantastic. Those last few minutes were probably more inspired and hilarious then the rest of the movie combined.

I wasn't too hip on the voice acting this time around. Mike Meyers and Eddie Murphy were of course pretty spot on, but it seemed to me like Cameron Diaz was reading her lines for the very first time. It sounded like they were recording her first cold read through. Now that I mention it, there were times when it sounded like the entire cast was reading through the script for the very first time. I've always heard that voice acting is incredibly hard work. If Tom Hanks (whom I consider one of the greatest living actors around) says that voice acting is hard work, then it MUST be hard work. So I wonder if my nitpicking the voice acting in this movie has anything to do with the fact that the three main leads were paid upwards of 15 million dollars for what amounts to about 2 days worth of voice work. Cameron Diaz's acting skills are limited at best...I think she should have spent a little more time "nailing it."

The true standouts acting wise were Antonio Banderas' Puss in Boots and Jennifer Saunders' Fairy Godmother. They were the only people that seemed like they were bringing new energy to the table. While Eddie Murphy's donkey stole the show in the first movie, Antonio Banderas' completely stole the show in this one. He was BY FAR the most crowd pleasing element of this movie.

Not that I care, but there were more sexual and drug innuendos in this movie than I've ever seen in an animated movie. Can you think of another movie where a female character exclaims that she wishes she had something to rub, as her sisters rubbed Shrek's shoulders? And Puss in Boots...you'll have to see it to believe it. If I could do that, I'd never leave the house.

But yeah, it was a pretty good movie. Not sure I'd see it again. I'd recommend it to anyone really. It's not that there's anything in this movie that would offend kids or anything, but I'd tell any parent that there is a high risk of their kid getting bored in this movie. If I'm a teacher, this movie gets an 83 out of 100. Why not? :-)

matt out