Aisha Harris

And he also called this movie an astonishing visual delight, which I mean, maybe then it was.

Now this movie is an eyesore to me.

Like it's not

It's not a pretty movie.

It looks like it was made in not even 2001, but honestly, it looks like it was made in 1997.

I can understand why some people might find this such a fun oddity to pull from as a cultural artifact, but it's not a movie that I probably ever want to rewatch again.

So when it came out and it was making all these references to Disney, it was clearly doing so in a way as the underdog.

You know, Ants had been a success, but it wasn't like... You the ant!

I was waiting for you to bring that out.

It had been a sort of success, but it didn't have the back catalog that, you know, the Disney company did.

And also you have the whole Jeffrey Katzenberger

notoriously leaving Disney and then coming to DreamWorks.

And it seems clear as an adult that they had an ax to grind in a way.

What I find just ironic about it is that it's making fun of Disney's sentimentality throughout the film.

But if you watch it, it's really digging into all that sentimentality.

And its basic MO is like...

will still be sentimental, but will just add some really lowbrow, mad TV-level humor to it.

It's like, there's a scene where Fiona and Shrek are, it's like a montage, and they're having their bonding moment

The eels is my beloved monster is playing over it.

And they take these two live animals and they rearrange them and then blow into them and they become balloon animals.