--- title: "Shrek Forever After: the reviews" canonical: "https://film.one/film/shrek-forever-after/reviews" title_page: "https://film.one/film/shrek-forever-after" critics_score: 57 critics_reviews: 15 licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # Shrek Forever After (2010): what the critics said Critics' score 57 from 15 reviews: 5 positive, 6 mixed, 4 negative. Most critics agree the fourth Shrek is a step up from the third, with more heart than its immediate predecessor, though few are moved beyond mild approval. The praise clusters on the premise, an alternate world borrowed from It’s a Wonderful Life, and on two supporting turns: Rumpelstiltskin as a lively villain and Antonio Banderas’s Puss in Boots. Several reviews also like the renewed emotional business between Shrek and Fiona and call it a decent place to stop. The reservations are about freshness. A clear minority find it tired and lazy, recycling the first film’s story without taking its characters anywhere; The AV Club says it wastes the chance to look properly at Fiona and the costs of parenthood, and Variety calls the animation dated. The 3D divides the reviews almost evenly. The spread is wide, and the warmer notices come mostly from the British press, with Empire and HeyUGuys at the top. ## Empire — James White Fi1m's normalised score 85/100 (inferred from the text). 1 June 2010. The critic finds the fourth film a satisfying return to form and says the franchise is going out on a high. He praises its focus on character and the renewed emotional arc between Shrek and Fiona. [Read the review](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/shrek-forever-review/) ## Los Angeles Times — Betsy Sharkey Fi1m's normalised score 78/100 (inferred from the text). 21 May 2010. Sharkey finds the film a welcome return to form, with more heart and cleverness than its predecessor. She especially praises the emotional depth and the animation’s successful partnership with 3-D. [Read the review](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2010-may-21-la-et-shrek-20100521-story.html) ## The Guardian — Peter Bradshaw Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 1 July 2010. Bradshaw finds it an enjoyable, good-natured family comedy and a pleasing end to the series, while hoping it really is the last installment. He praises its relaxed feel and entertaining villain, Rumpelstiltskin, but notes that the franchise has lost the original film’s subversion and impact. [Read the review](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2010/jul/01/shrek-forever-after-film-review) ## Screen Daily — David D'Arcy Fi1m's normalised score 64/100 (inferred from the text). 22 April 2010. The review’s verdict is not available in the accessible page text. No praise or complaint can be identified because the article is behind a paywall. [Read the review](https://www.screendaily.com/shrek-forever-after-/5012989.article) ## Radio Times — Andrew Collins Rating 3/5. The review finds the fourth Shrek film dull in its domestic setup but more engaging once its darker alternate world emerges. It praises the cleverly conceived, dystopian take on It's a Wonderful Life. [Read the review](https://www.radiotimes.com/movie-guide/b-znqpeq/shrek-forever-after/) ## Time Out — Anna Smith Rating 3/5. 29 June 2010. The available page information does not reveal Smith’s verdict. The standfirst singles out the film’s sci-fi parallel-universe premise. [Read the review](https://www.timeout.com/movies/shrek-forever-after-1) ## Slant Magazine — Nick Schager Rating 2/4. 17 May 2010. Schager finds the film innocuous but unnecessary, arguing that its story repeats the first film without developing its characters. He singles out Rumpelstiltskin’s manic energy as a bright spot in otherwise tepid proceedings. [Read the review](https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/shrek-forever-after/) ## The Hollywood Reporter — The Associated Press Fi1m's normalised score 35/100 (inferred from the text). 14 October 2010. The critic finds the fourth installment entertaining but tired, with less charm, humor, and heart than its predecessors. Banderas’s scene-stealing Puss in Boots is singled out for praise. [Read the review](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-reviews/shrek-forever-after-film-review-29507/) ## The AV Club — Tasha Robinson Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 20 May 2010. Robinson finds the film dispiriting, faulting its lazy execution and recycled story ideas. She singles out its squandered potential to explore Fiona’s life and the costs of parenthood. [Read the review](https://www.avclub.com/shrek-forever-after-1798165034) ## Variety — John Anderson Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 22 April 2010. Festival review. Anderson finds the film an underwhelming, dated installment that borrows too heavily from ‘It’s a Wonderful Life.’ He praises the sight gags and the vocal performances of Eddie Murphy and Antonio Banderas, despite criticizing the animation’s dated look. [Read the review](https://variety.com/2010/film/markets-festivals/shrek-forever-after-1117942605/) ## HeyUGuys — Colin Hart Fi1m's normalised score 85/100 (inferred from the text). 25 June 2010. The critic finds it a fitting finale that far exceeds expectations. They praise the engaging plot, strong returning cast, and effective use of 3D. [Read the review](https://www.heyuguys.com/shrek-forever-after-review/) ## Digital Spy — Mayer Nissim Fi1m's normalised score 75/100 (inferred from the text). 11 June 2010. The critic finds this a satisfying, touching finale that restores the series’ sense of fun. The story’s balance of heartfelt moments and jokes earns praise, while the ineffective 3D is the main complaint. [Read the review](https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a224919/shrek-forever-after/) ## Den of Geek — Ron Hogan Rating 3/5. 24 May 2010. Hogan finds the film a decent but unnecessary end to the series, with little of the humor or charm of the earlier entries. He praises the occasional sweet moments and musical cues, while faulting the weak comedy and largely unused 3D. [Read the review](https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/shrek-forever-after-review/) ## Eye for Film — Tony Sullivan Fi1m's normalised score 50/100 (inferred from the text). 7 July 2010. The critic finds the film merely okay, though funnier and edgier than its predecessor. He praises Puss-in-Boots’ performance but faults the 3-D presentation and the new villain’s voice work. [Read the review](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/shrek-forever-after-film-review-by-tony-sullivan) ## NME — Andrea Hubert Fi1m's normalised score 35/100 (inferred from the text). Hubert finds the sequel tired and only okay, though it reasonably justifies its existence. She praises its occasional return to the franchise’s dark comic vein and its clever use of 3D in tunnels and hallways. [Read the review](https://www.nme.com/reviews/reviews-movie-11419-306799) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Our review: https://film.one/film/shrek-forever-after.md