[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/tv/ - Television & Film


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: s-l1200.jpg (114 KB, 1114x604)
114 KB
114 KB JPG
Choose the better movie
>>
Choose it yourself you lazy fuck
>>
>>200628227
Shrek, although Shrek 2 was excellent as well. I really appreciated them a lot more when I became an adult.
>>
>>200628227
1
>>
Same director. Andrew Adamson
>>
Joe Stillman was a screenwriter on both movies. He was previously a writer on Beavis and Butt-head/King of the Hill.
>>
Shrek 1 is like a solid 9/10 all the way through until you get to the end and the climax just has zero energy, whereas Shrek 2 is a consistent 8/10 all the way through.
>>
Both movies last exactly 83 minutes if you remove the credits. They're pretty short.
>>
>>200628227
shrek is better
shrek 2 was the fun sequel that for awhile did not get much attention but is appropriately recognized today.



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.