Magic Missing in Shrek Forever After

Shrek Forever After, the supposed last film in the green ogre franchise, isn't terrible, critics unanimously agree. But neither is it remotely necessary. Here's what they're saying:

• “There's a soft, middle-aged complacency to the well-oiled mechanics of Shrek Forever After,” writes Lisa Schwarzbaum of EW. “What was once a fresh, self-referential twist on the vulturish consumption of pop culture when the first Shrek debuted in 2001 has become a lazy corporate tic.”

• “ If there were a Shrek TV show, this could be the two-part finale of, say, Season 3,” writes Eric Snider of Film.com. “The difference, of course, is that a so-so episode of a TV show doesn't cost ten bucks to watch.”
• It's just “a recycling machine that recalls the high points of previous installments without demonstrating the need for a new one,” complains Joe Morgenstern of the Wall Street Journal. “There's also a sense of filmmakers searching for whatever will help fill the running time."
• But James Bardinelli disagrees. “Even though Shrek Forever After is obligatory and unnecessary, it's better than Shrek 3” and you won't regret seeing it, he writes in ReelViews. "As It's a Wonderful Life knock-offs go, this one isn't half-bad.”

(More Shrek Forever After stories.)