Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users

Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
Shrek is:
Racist 22%
Sexist 11%
Ablist 33%
Downright Irresponsible 33%

Votes: 9

 Shrek: the greatest basest fairy tale never ever told

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Nov 14, 2001
On November 2, Shrek was finally released on DVD amidst great fanfare. Shrek was supposed to be a delightful children's movie the whole family could enjoy, so like so many others, I threw my twenty dollars on the $100-million pile Dreamworks raked in from the first three days' video sales alone.

But by the end, I was fuming: the audience hadn't received an educating parable about the value of difference and diversity. Instead, Shrek turned out to be nothing but a vile reformulation of the same tired stereotypes that perpetuate strife between peoples and among nations. This film is downright irresponsible.


More stories about Cinema
Review: Jurassic Park III
Review: Planet of the Apes
Rock Star: Headbanging Nights
Monsters Incorporated: Film Review and Merchandise Buyer's Guide.
Not just harmless fun
Looking Forward: Cinema in 2002
America - Land of the free ? Or home of the DEPRAVED ?
Anakin Loses a Hand
The New Faust

More stories by
Anne Marie

Seeking a Sensible Tomorrow: The Media Marketing Accountability Act
Urban Scavengers
The Time is Right for Manual Sex
First up is our protagonist, the eponymous Shrek, a dour lumbering ogre. While we may safely ignore the mannerisms he displays at the beginning as sheer comedic effect, there is one matter we cannot forgive: to play the role of Shrek, the director has cast a misanthropic green Irishman. Worse yet, his is a rather poor imitation of an Irish brogue, spoken by none other than Fat Bastard himself, Mike Myers (and a Canadian to boot!). I suppose it was too much to expect Hollywood to remember the difference between Irish and Scottish accents -- as bad as Mike Myer's Scottish accent as Fat Bastard in those wretched Austin Powers movies, his butchering of the mellifluous timbres of Gaelic is worse. No, it is indeed expecting too much to hope that Hollywood could understand, much less convey, the intricate and important differences between Scotland and Eyre, separated by geography, language, and religion. While we're at it, let's lump all those brown people in central Asia together with the ones in Africa -- there's hardly a difference.

Accompanying Shrek on his quest is his loveable smart-aleck sidekick. After all, what movie would be without one? And Shrek, like most movies, has gone for the tried and true: make the sidekick a token African American. Sure, he looks like a simple grey donkey, but beneath that exterior beats the Uncle Tomming heart of Eddie Murphy. Humbled by his slavemaster and shunned by society for his inability to fit in, the donkey resorts to the final refuge of the weak and powerless: flattery. It's all he has; he doesn't even merit a name -- just Donkey, an ass, the butt of countless jokes. And as much as he is kicked around, he still crawls back for more, servile and obsequious as ever.

It almost goes without saying that they're on a mission to rescue the princess from her imprisonment in a distant castle. Every fairy tale since time immemorial has used this plot, and the writers, by missing their opportunity to tell a modern narrative, demonstrated their full complicity in the underlying messages of conservative patriarchal oppression. Yet again, the woman is helpless and the man is omnipotent: it is by his kiss and not her hard work that the precious princess may be lifted from her downtrodden posture and placed on her crystal pedestal. Our daughters are told: marry or rot -- there is no room on this green earth for single women.

There is a dragon, female of course. The epitome of the Dragon Lady, an Asian character type with a long but ignoble history. For its entire history, Hollywood has never shrunk from the chance to cast yet another Asian actress as yet another evil seductress -- a veritable man-eater. Though she is powerful beyond compare, don't think for a moment that she is content with her station in life. No, she too seeks a man to flatter her feminine graces and her beauty as she demurely bats her eyelashes. It's little wonder so few seats in Congress are filled by women: they're all at home where they belong literally wed to a jackass. Don't forget to catch that bridal bouquet, Mrs Dragon! Marriage for you as well!

And don't believe for a second that Shrek only played on racial stereotypes. Persons with disabilities received no better treatment. Lord Farquaad (hah hah, please) is somehow less a man because of his diminished height. And not just his height, mind you. His adapted conveyance, a horse with a booster seat, is somehow supposed to embellish his absurdity. Let me tell you: wheelchairs are nothing to laugh at. Handicapped parking plates are nothing to laugh at. Is it any surprise many persons with disabilities are reluctant even to show themselves in public for fear of such ridicule? And lest you think I'm imagining these things, I need only point you to those rascally visually-impaired mice who can do nothing but trip over themselves and each other, as though blind people are incapable of anything but an eternity of Gerald Ford impersonations.

I'm told the DVD edition has special footage and features not available in the theater or vhs versions: filmmakers' commentary, behind-the-scenes glimpses, and more. I'll have to take others' word for it, because there is no way in heaven or Texas I'm going to sit through any more of that bigotry; I'd return my DVD to the merchant who sold it to me if I could only be assured that it wouldn't be re-sold to someone less educated and more impressionable. If these extra bits are anything like the rest of the film, I wouldn't be surprised if they're nothing but ribald epithets and the sort of filth that makes even jaded Hollywood censors blush.

Shrek: the greatest fairy tale never told ought have stayed that way. Buy it only if you seek a first-rate lesson in moral bankruptcy.


Cartoons are the most insidious assault on our (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Adam Rightmann on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 08:53:05 AM PST
society practiced by the secular humanist conspiracy. Something about the animation, saturated colors and exagerrations causes most peoples' critical thinking skills to be turned off, allowing Hollywood an unfiltered gateway to pour their filth into.

I was struck by this epiphany as a young child, watching the Flintstones. I realized that every episode had the same theme; Fred and Barney, the good hearted but bumbling and incompetent men, would get into a dire situation, only to be saved by their shrill, competent wives. This theme bothered, for in my own personal experience, my father was strong and competent, and my mother was warm and welcoming. They worked together to raise their children in a God-fearing, right-thinking environment. Where were the families that the Flinstones were modeled upon?

Later on I realized the truth. The Flintstones were a template to overlay on young, impressionable minds, causing children to grow up into these roles, and causing the destruction of the nuclear family. The creators of the Flintstones, and other members of the media, will not be content until every man is unemployed, on welfare, away from his family, and all children are raised by man-hating feminazis. People raised in these divorced families will be filled with self-loathing, and easily controlled by the Satanist secular-humanist conspiracy. Please, turn off the cartoons.

A. Rightmann

it is true (none / 0) (#4)
by nathan on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 09:06:19 AM PST
Cartoon imagery undermines critical thinking.

Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Actually, (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by tkatchev on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 10:31:52 AM PST
all good art undermines critical thinking. The problem isn't a weakness on the critical thinking front per se, the problem is in the message art brings. Sadly, most art nowadays is perpetrated by deranged individuals, sometimes ourtight perverted ones. We need more love in art, and less nihilism.

Peace and much love...

Hey, tkatchev, (none / 0) (#9)
by nathan on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 12:33:08 PM PST
You've got something on your gnosis.

Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Please enlighten me. (none / 0) (#10)
by tkatchev on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 12:48:37 PM PST
What exactly do you mean by that? If you are implying that I'm some sort of gnostic adherent, you are wrong. What's so gnostic about my posts?

Peace and much love...

gnosis (none / 0) (#11)
by nathan on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 01:20:21 PM PST
I mean, sure, art can break down critical thinking. It's just that that wasn't what we were talking about at all, and it seems as though you are taking every opportunity to beat a drum for your viewpoint, which is only polite if it's on topic.

I'll admit my post was pretty flippant - sorry. What I should have said was that not every discussion needs to be about mysticism and how rationalism has and will always fail us in the end.

Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

You're projecting. (none / 0) (#14)
by tkatchev on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 10:42:23 PM PST
When have I said anything mysticism? All I said was that good art breaks down critical thinking; (which is true) since you said cartoons like Shrek break down critical thinking skills, then they are obviously "good" art. (In some sense.) Like all good art, they must communicate some sort philosophical outlook on life and society.

So, I think it's wrong to claim that cartoons are "just for fun".

Peace and much love...

this must be mysticism (none / 0) (#20)
by nathan on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 08:05:26 AM PST
considering the syllogism is flawed.

I'm sorry I convinced you that I'm that stupid (=

Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

All cartoons? (none / 0) (#16)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 02:29:29 AM PST
How about Scooby Doo as a product of the englightenment? That a cartoon encourages critical thinking (which is, correct me if I'm wrong, encouraged by the bible yes?) is surely a good thing isnt it? Also animation from other parts of the world, such as Japanese animation, carries lots of other messages. Take Neon Genesis Evangelion for example. On the surface its yet another mecha anime, but delve beneath that exterior and you see a tale of the destruction that is caused when man turns his back on God and tries to take creation into his own hands. Not to spoil it for anyone out there who is watching it, but nothing good comes of it. The end is bleak and unforgiving, as it rightly should be.

Sure, there are cartoons such as the Flintstones which are pure evil, but you really shouldnt turn your back on this artform as a whole. Just like any other medium, its how its used that counts.

"fly me to the moon, and let me play amongst the stars..."

Ouch. (none / 0) (#17)
by tkatchev on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 05:39:39 AM PST
Linking to is considered bad form here. Please contribute original material instead of regurgitating groupthink from other sites, OK? If we wanted to read kurodrivel, we could get plenty of it from kuro5wank in the first place.

Peace and much love...

You apparently have not watched Scooby Doo (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by Adam Rightmann on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 06:34:12 AM PST
or you have been brainwashed by it. Let me give you some clues:

Fred: Wears an ascot, agent of the homosexual conspiracy. Velma: Wears large glasses and sensible shoes, an agent of the lesbian conspiracy. Shaggy: A consumptive build and wears a goatee, an agent of the drug conspiracy. Scooby: An anthropromized dog, an attempt to undermine the dominion over animals that God gave us. Stock Villian: A capitalistic man who is attempting to better himself.

All in all, Scooby Doo is a rank piece of subversive propaganda, courtesy of the secular humanist conspiracy, who won't be happy until we're all pot-smoking sodomists talking to our dogs and afraid of hard work.

A. Rightmann

You forgot Daphne (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Blue Aardvark House on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 08:35:38 AM PST
The typical eye-candy female character.

The newer cartoons emphasize this more than the origianl ones.

Fred's not gay (none / 0) (#41)
by NAWL on Fri Nov 23rd, 2001 at 07:50:26 PM PST
There is no way Fred could be gay. Also, in reference to his clothing, you can usually catch yuppies wearing stuff like that in old 70's TV shows. A sure fire way to know he's not gay is because he's always going off with the 2 girls.

Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

Honeymooners (none / 0) (#23)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 04:50:53 PM PST
The Flintstones was a direct ripoff of the Honeymooners. Same basic setup, same mentality, same type of action, etc.

Far from a template for molding children, it was a carbon copy of a successful product. Hollywood simply found that the same formula appealed to a much wider audience than they though. A quick buck without an original thought.

But that was my third favourite movie ever... (none / 0) (#5)
by jin wicked on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 09:12:31 AM PST
right after Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas and Yellow Submarine. How could you say such things? :(

"Ars longa, vita brevis...Art is long, life is short."

That's too bad (none / 0) (#13)
by zikzak on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 10:07:02 PM PST
You need better taste in movies.

You expect us to take seriously... (none / 0) (#26)
by em on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 11:49:50 PM PST
...somebody who hates the master, Pablo Picasso?

Damn, I should have bought the Picasso Erotique Catalog when I went to the exhibition in Montreal, instead of that stupid French-Spanish dictionary that translates all the French into stupid European Spanish words I don't understand...
Associate Editor,

Hey... (none / 0) (#29)
by hauntedattics on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 05:32:59 AM PST
You saw the Picasso Erotique exhibit in Montreal? I was there in August. It was cool, but after a couple of hours I felt like I needed to see some art that had absolutely nothing to do with the human anatomy. Either that or run back to my hotel with my husband.

it is true (none / 0) (#30)
by nathan on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 10:07:31 AM PST
Picasso is the most erotic artist ever. Some of his paintings are the most compelling renditions of the experience of arousal that I've ever seen. It's the very subjectivity that makes it great!

Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

hey, EM, (none / 0) (#33)
by nathan on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 03:45:19 PM PST
Ever read John Berger's The Success and Failure of Picasso? It's really something else.

Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

And let's not forget... (none / 0) (#6)
by hauntedattics on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 09:46:06 AM PST
...the fact that the creators of Shrek gave Princess Fiona magical kung fu powers to fight bad guys like Robin Hood and his men. At first glance, this might seem like an admirable, feminist act but a bit of deconstruction shows us otherwise.

If the princess truly were 'empowered' she would have saved herself from the 'Dragon Lady' a long time earlier, rendering Shrek's rescue unnecessary. This raises the point that the princess perhaps didn't want to be 'saved' by a man and was in fact happy living with her female dragon companion. Having Princess Fiona 'fight' the 'bad guys' is simply pandering to the safest, least threatening part of the struggle for liberation while still bowing down overall to the patriarchal oppressor.

Dont think she wanted to esape (none / 0) (#37)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Nov 20th, 2001 at 09:38:59 AM PST
My take on that was I didnt think she wanted to escape at all, she was pretty much just there cause she wanted to be rescued by a prince and break the spell that was put on her etc. etc.
I liked the movie, great graphics on my 56" big screen tv. and I rented it first, I also cant belive this guy bought it before he rented it, I dont go buying movies before I am sure I like it, and also that it will have reply value, suck as pulp fiction, tombstone, slingblade, porn etc...

I think (none / 0) (#38)
by nathan on Tue Nov 20th, 2001 at 09:51:20 AM PST
It's a satire against the mentality of the colonized. They have everything they need to free themselves except a belief in their own rights to be free.

Naturally, upon freeing one's self from the oppressor, the next step is to set up a peaceful, matriarchal collective to non-exploitatively administer the resources bestowed upon us by Mother Earth (in her wisdom,) not to mention presiding over the ritual sacrifices every spring.

As for magical kung-fu powers, I certainly can't give any credence to that.

Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

the princess's magical kung-fu powers... (none / 0) (#39)
by hauntedattics on Tue Nov 20th, 2001 at 10:10:02 AM PST
are just the patriarchy's attempt to appease the masses hungry for such collectives as you describe in your post. By showing the princess as having powers that are generally attributable to males (and Keanu Reeves), they 'throw a bone' to those of us who fight for true equality on our own terms. The fact that the princess has to have "male" powers in order to be validated shows the the cynicism and manipulative capabilities of the creators of the film. This may appease some of us, but I must say those of us who are enlightened see through all the oppression.

Or maybe it was all just for laughs (none / 0) (#44)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Dec 1st, 2001 at 12:22:13 AM PST
Everything in the movie was a spoof on one or more movies and characters. Try just watching one to enjoy it and don't break out the disecting lab tools your anal retentive prof gave you at graduation.

You are right. Shrek SUCKED! (none / 0) (#15)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 12:06:37 AM PST
Shrek was all wrong. First of all, shrek was the wrong colour. It clearly states in Monster Manual, Third edition, that Ogres are, and i quote: "yellowish-brown to tan in color, standing 7-8 feet tall". The ogre in Shrek was friggin' GREEN! and had these like stalks! sticking out of his head! What was he, an Andorian?1?! LOL!

Second of all, Shreks' girlfrieind, was obivously a shape-changing ogre mage, level 7 at least. She could easily have used a teleport spell to escape a simple castle. Expecting her to remain captive like that is just streching the bounds of credability a LITTLE to far!

Third of all, according to the monster Manual, third ed., a dragon of the size shown in the movie (about 40-50 feet long, by my estamite), would clearly be a huge size, very old or ancient dragon. Such a beast would definitely have speech abilites, it would probably speak common tounge, dragonish and ogrish too! Instead,the dragon in the movie didn't say a word! what was it, a dyslexic Dragon?!?

This commercialization of classic themes in the movies is getting way out of hand. With Shrek, we have an example of what could have been a great film, and they have to go and dumb it down for the kiddie crowd. Plus, you dont get to see cartoon Cameron Diaz' tits, like my (lying bastard) friend Murray said was in the movie. Overall a complete waste of time.

P.S. is there any nudity in the DVD?

Wooo! (none / 0) (#19)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 07:26:30 AM PST
Lets take a ride on the Kook Express! Lighten up its a fricken toon. Its not like this thing is trying for best picture. It is merely an hour and a half diversion from RL.

Besides, everyone knows this movie is a dig at Disney and Michael "short guy" Eisner.

Really? (none / 0) (#25)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 11:41:28 PM PST
Are you telling me someone spent millions of dollars just to take a dig at Disney? Why didn't they just go spray "Disney sucks!" across the entrance? Even if they got caught it would have been cheaper.

It doesn't make sense. Something else must be going on in this movie, and your postmodern deconstructed lit-crit bullshit hasn't caught it. I think we have to face the very distinct possibility that this film is part of the global fascist conspiracy's propaganda effort.

yea, really (none / 0) (#28)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 01:27:29 AM PST
Could it possibly be that they set out to take a dig at Disney while at the same time try to make a profit? Astonishing. This movie was most definately a parody of disney films and 90% of what the author of this article noticed is complete bs. For example, when did the movie say that Shrek was Irish? It didn't. Yes this is the same poor Scottish accent found in Austin Powers but that doesn't mean they're trying to paint Irish people as some stupid, green wearing people. This was a kids movie designed to be fun for them while still entertaining their parents. It accomplished this goal pretty well.

As a side note, why would you buy this video if you haven't seen it before? That make littel sense to me at all. I don't know anyone that goes out buying movies when they don't even know if they like them first.

because (none / 0) (#32)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 03:35:21 PM PST
this way they make million of dollars to boot.

shrek review (none / 0) (#22)
by moggums on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 02:56:10 PM PST
<A HREF="">THIS</A> is all you need to read to understand Shrek. I, a critical vangaurd and writer for <A HREF="">DUMBASS AND THE FAG</A>, must commend this "Spigot".


Spigot (none / 0) (#24)
by nathan on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 06:17:54 PM PST
I too would like to extend my HUGHULGHLUGHLUHL congratulations LAHGLAHGLHGLHGALAH Lord God I'm not even done the sen HUUGHLUHLUGHLUHLHGHUL

Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

accents (none / 0) (#27)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 12:41:56 AM PST
"the director has cast a misanthropic green Irishman. Worse yet, his is a rather poor imitation of an Irish brogue"

You arse. That's a Scottish burr.

whaaaaaaaaaaaa.................???????? (1.00 / 2) (#31)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 03:33:09 PM PST
You got issues.

Get a life (none / 0) (#34)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Nov 17th, 2001 at 11:54:47 AM PST

Get a life. Grow a sense of humor.

Not every thing in the world is meant to shit on women and suppress black people.

The fact that you automatically make such ridiculous connections may be the root of your problems.

Shrek Is Not Harmful (none / 0) (#35)
by VelvetRose on Sat Nov 17th, 2001 at 08:18:39 PM PST
If you looked deeply enough at any cartoon, you could find something to twist into a woman-oppressing, animal-harming, subliminal message.

Get over Shrek. I'm sure it's not going to stain any developmental or feminist fabric by the time it's made it's run. Children wonder why the princess didn't save herself. It turns out that she wasn't beautiful for her size 3 (size 10 in the US, I suppose) waist, or for her pretty blonde hair. That could be looked at as something good, if you fear chidren learn anything substantial from cartoons. The point of the princess was to twist the story into a surprise ending. That would have been difficult if the writers had been politically correct from the start and made the dwarves tall, the princess masculine, and the ogre an impecible, clean-shaven non-orgrous ogre.

What the hell is this shit (1.00 / 4) (#36)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Nov 18th, 2001 at 02:12:33 PM PST
You are probably the biggest uptight asshole that iv ever heard of. Your reading to much into the movie. Here is a word of advise get a fucking life.

dragon types (none / 0) (#40)
by NAWL on Fri Nov 23rd, 2001 at 07:47:12 PM PST
There is a dragon, female of course. The epitome of the Dragon Lady, an Asian character type with a long but ignoble history.

I fail to see why there is the Asian reference when referring to the dragon. Dragons are also exited in European legend as well. Eastern Dragons have a thinner body type and an elongated head. Any pictorial representation of the Eastern dragon is this way.

Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

polish it (none / 0) (#42)
by NAWL on Fri Nov 23rd, 2001 at 08:01:50 PM PST
I'm sorry things can be a lik big shiny perfect sphere sitting in museum. Oh make sure no one puts a scratch or a nick in it. Make sure we don't piss off the blacks, make sure the Native Americans are ok, oh and the women's group, and the blue collar American society, make sure you don't potray white's as racists. Don't make the movie in color because you might piss off the color blind. But black and white movies might start protests about race. Don't show people using computers because it might create stereotypes. Don't show any images of running water because you'll piss off people with bladder problems. You know what BREAK THE FUCKING SPHERE! If you look too hard at ANYTHING, you'll find something that pisses someone off.

Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

WTF is rong wit hyou people (none / 0) (#43)
by mike from canada on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 09:53:47 PM PST
"Fat Bastard himself, Mike Myers (and a Canadian to boot!)." omg you need help have you ever met a canadian befor relly this sight is a goof lauf at perticular views but its best to not judge people befor you met them a good example of canadians is a story that came on tv a while ago i forget the netork but it was a big us 1 it was about how the diverted planes from the WTC attack were diverted to my provience it explained how nice we were and how great they weere treated my cousan gave up her week for thos people and got nothing in return my mother went out and baut over 50$ worth of supply for them caus she heard they dident have enugh supplys you people relly have no idea of what your talking about on this sight perhaps you should research your opinions first sherak is made for adult audiences however kids can also enjoy this it was marketed to kids becaus of views on cartoons in this part of the world people are so NON opean minded as some of this places writher have shown me espically that anime post(witch sickens me in its unjust look at the truth) you see if shreak was marketed at older people spacificly no 1 would of watched it in fear of percuaction and stuborn ideals shur its fu nfor th ewhole family but its making fun of other old cartoon ideas to amuse the parent more than the child and where this stereotype(lol and you say "a Canadian to boot!".....)

aney ways sorry for aney spelling errors or grammer im 2 lazey to correct this im done with my rant

I like that movie (none / 0) (#45)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Dec 5th, 2001 at 11:49:53 PM PST
How dare you bash that movie. I liked it a lot and I find stuck up fucks like youself to be rather apalling. Just because you dont have a sense of humor, doesnt mean you can ruin it for me, or anyone else that wants to see that movie. Youre worse then the "dour lumbering ogre" you talk about. Why cant you assholes get some brains and not act like movie critics. You guys criticize everything and always think youre right. Well youre not, loser. Shrek is a great movie, and youre the one with the stereotypes and the one thats irresponsible. Go spread your mindless rambling elsewhere you jerk.


All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 The name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to