Bondorf39
Joined Aug 2002
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews33
Bondorf39's rating
I am reminded of an old Disney TV special, in which Donald Duck tries to be a singer, a dancer, a juggler, lots of things he simply is not. Walt sticks him to some very sage advice: "Be yourself." I bring this up because this two word homily is but one of the thousands of lessons Dreamworks could learn from the House of Mouse.
"Shrek 2," the annoyingly popular sequel to the irritatingly successful "Shrek" is a prime example of the serious condition that plagues all Dreamworks Animated Films: DERIVATIVITIS!!! The story of S2 is quite good. No, really, it is. Shrek and Fiona are newlyweds, and when they visit the Princess's parents, they are, to put it lightly, shocked to discover their daughter is an ogre. Their taunts get under Shrek's skin and he starts to think maybe Fiona would be better off with a prince. So he, Donkey and a newcomer, Puss (in Boots!) travel the countryside to make what they assume to be Fiona's dream come true. In the end, of course, they learn the importance of being yourself and that love conquers all, two very useful lessons, I think you'll find.
And if that was what the movie was, it'd be great and I'd gladly show it to my hypothetical kids any day of the week. But the plot is incidental to the main reason they made this picture, which is to cram as many jokes, spoofs, takeoffs, lampoons, references and anti-Disney propaganda gags as they possibly can into 86 minutes of celluloid. And, frankly, it gets old!! Someone needs to tell these people that they don't need all this! They don't need "Little Mermaid" and "Aladdin" jokes. They don't need pop culture references. They don't need poorly cast celebrity voices. They don't need popular singles to sell the soundtrack album. They don't need to over-market their movies. Just make movies! Tell your story. The occasional homage to one of your predecessors is understandable in animated film, but don't make that the point of the movie.
Spielberg...Geffen...Katzenberg...just be yourselves! DONALD: "Be yourself"...think it'll work? WALT: It ALWAYS works, Donald.
"Shrek 2," the annoyingly popular sequel to the irritatingly successful "Shrek" is a prime example of the serious condition that plagues all Dreamworks Animated Films: DERIVATIVITIS!!! The story of S2 is quite good. No, really, it is. Shrek and Fiona are newlyweds, and when they visit the Princess's parents, they are, to put it lightly, shocked to discover their daughter is an ogre. Their taunts get under Shrek's skin and he starts to think maybe Fiona would be better off with a prince. So he, Donkey and a newcomer, Puss (in Boots!) travel the countryside to make what they assume to be Fiona's dream come true. In the end, of course, they learn the importance of being yourself and that love conquers all, two very useful lessons, I think you'll find.
And if that was what the movie was, it'd be great and I'd gladly show it to my hypothetical kids any day of the week. But the plot is incidental to the main reason they made this picture, which is to cram as many jokes, spoofs, takeoffs, lampoons, references and anti-Disney propaganda gags as they possibly can into 86 minutes of celluloid. And, frankly, it gets old!! Someone needs to tell these people that they don't need all this! They don't need "Little Mermaid" and "Aladdin" jokes. They don't need pop culture references. They don't need poorly cast celebrity voices. They don't need popular singles to sell the soundtrack album. They don't need to over-market their movies. Just make movies! Tell your story. The occasional homage to one of your predecessors is understandable in animated film, but don't make that the point of the movie.
Spielberg...Geffen...Katzenberg...just be yourselves! DONALD: "Be yourself"...think it'll work? WALT: It ALWAYS works, Donald.
I wish I didn't have to be this guy. I wish I could be nicer. I wish I could fall in line with the legions of fans who dig this movie's aimless plot, poorly developed characters, banal dialogue, gratuitous low humor and overall feeling of pretentiousness. I wish wish wish that this was the case. Unfortunately, I have a human brain and can tell the difference between dirty water and champagne. This is, unquestionably, a very bad movie.
It's a movie based on a novel about a writer who's writing about himself. Please. Think back to how many pseudo-independent, underdog, art-house, pretentious as all git out flicks you've seen about writers. It's self-indulgent, that's what it is. Someone needs to tell these writers who are writing these movies about writers that, to paraphrase Watterson, saying something isn't the same as being understood. You're just muttering to yourself. That's what this movie is. Probably the author needed to write it for his own reasons, but did the rest of us really have to hear this story? The plot goes nowhere. It's a formulaic repetition of self-destructive behavior. They're driving, they're drinking wine, they're talking to a girl, hey! Something weird just happened! Maybe now the movie will get interest--nope. Driving. Drinking. Talking. The characters are flat and unengaging. Giamati's Miles is a waste of this man's obvious talent and, for the love of all things wonderful in life, who the hell puts Thomas Hayden Church in a movie? Explain it to me someone! Besides the fact that his character makes absolutely no sense and has ZERO redeeming features, he plays it in the same slack-jawed monotone that served him well as Lowell on "Wings" and nothing else in his career.
If you're a self-absorbed, know-it-all, pretentious snob who thinks he's the smartest thing in the universe, by all means watch this film. If you're instead, you know, someone with taste who likes, what do you call em? GOOD movies, join the rest of us in trying to work out how this piece of garbage beat out "Eternal Sunshine," "Ray," "The Incredibles," and "Phantom of the Opera" for the best musical or comedy Golden Globe.
It's a movie based on a novel about a writer who's writing about himself. Please. Think back to how many pseudo-independent, underdog, art-house, pretentious as all git out flicks you've seen about writers. It's self-indulgent, that's what it is. Someone needs to tell these writers who are writing these movies about writers that, to paraphrase Watterson, saying something isn't the same as being understood. You're just muttering to yourself. That's what this movie is. Probably the author needed to write it for his own reasons, but did the rest of us really have to hear this story? The plot goes nowhere. It's a formulaic repetition of self-destructive behavior. They're driving, they're drinking wine, they're talking to a girl, hey! Something weird just happened! Maybe now the movie will get interest--nope. Driving. Drinking. Talking. The characters are flat and unengaging. Giamati's Miles is a waste of this man's obvious talent and, for the love of all things wonderful in life, who the hell puts Thomas Hayden Church in a movie? Explain it to me someone! Besides the fact that his character makes absolutely no sense and has ZERO redeeming features, he plays it in the same slack-jawed monotone that served him well as Lowell on "Wings" and nothing else in his career.
If you're a self-absorbed, know-it-all, pretentious snob who thinks he's the smartest thing in the universe, by all means watch this film. If you're instead, you know, someone with taste who likes, what do you call em? GOOD movies, join the rest of us in trying to work out how this piece of garbage beat out "Eternal Sunshine," "Ray," "The Incredibles," and "Phantom of the Opera" for the best musical or comedy Golden Globe.
