[Licensed-To-Carry]

Media elites cannot even write a movie review without taking a big bash at President Bush. This Kelly guy needs a good Freep. His name, email, and phone number are listed at the end of the article.

I don't know anything about this movie but based on the review it must be pushing the queer agenda stongly.

[DallasMike]

Kelly at the Star-Telegram always pushes the gay agenda and has a sideline hobby of reviewing gay porn movies on the internet. I think I'll pass judgment on Shrek II until I see the movie or at least get a wider range of reviews.

[Mr. Jeeves]

Adding overt gay propaganda to the scatological bent of the original? Sounds like another "must miss" film.

[My2Cents]

In this year when a certain head of state seeks to write an exclusionary definition of "marriage" into the U.S. Constitution, Shrek 2 contends otherwise: No one has the right to tell you whom you can love; those who preach the loudest about the right way to live are often the biggest hypocrites.

I'd like to see this critic attempt a similar pompous pronouncement if Shrek 2 had been about two gay orges.

[Lunatic Fringe]

Puss in Boots (Antonio Banderas)

No surprise here, given the roles he has played in the past.

[bpjam]

Actually, the movie isn't pushing a gay agenda. The review is trying to hijack a movie to promote a gay agenda he would LIKE the movie to be promoting. Its somewhat akin to when gay groups go back in time and label every famous person is history as being secretly taking it in the *ss. Its revisionist history, but its not true just because they say it is.

[bmwcyle]

Another movie I won't see.

[Pikamax]

"Co-director/co-screenwriter Andrew Adamson, in an article in the Los Angeles Times, has already 'fessed up to the movie's central metaphor, but you don't need a road map to see what Shrek 2 is getting at. Not when one of the characters, just after expressing distaste at the notion of two ogres in love, hastens to add, "Not that there's anything wrong with that." In this year when a certain head of state seeks to write an exclusionary definition of "marriage" into the U.S. Constitution, Shrek 2 contends otherwise: No one has the right to tell you whom you can love; those who preach the loudest about the right way to live are often the biggest hypocrites. This is a movie that is ogre and proud. "

this would make sense if it was 2 ogres of the same sex, this is someone trying to hijack a quote/theme.

[BSunday]

you may find yourself (as I did) wanting to leap out of your seat and start cheering long before it has ended

That dude needs to get a life.

[aruanan]

Hey, it's a male ogre marrying a female ogre. Now, the donkey had something going with that female dragon, but they're weren't trying to get married.

[reagan_fanatic]

The coward couldn't even bring himself to mention Bush by name. Typical.

The Left's hatred of Bush has permantly warped their senses.

[love n hate tattoo]

Errrrrr, how is this a Bush bashing? Am I missing something?

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

"Not that there's anything wrong with that."

It was a reference to "Seinfeld"...not Bush. Kelly's a moron.

[Skywalk]

The title of this thread was very poorly chosen. The only one bashing Bush is the damn reviewer. The ogres in question in Shrek are opposite sex.

I doubt there's any gayness in the film.

Sometimes, FReepers jump way off the deep end. Not everything is about Bush, our politics, etc.

[Spok]

My boys want to see the new Shrek-I think I'll buy three tickets to 'The Passion' and sneak in...

[Agnes Heep]

What's really needed is a nice story about a beautiful girl in love with a German Shepherd, and how they get married in the end, and live happily ever after, despite the evil machinations of President Bush and the Moral Majority.

[Grig]

It's the reviewer pushing his own agenda, and projecting it onto the movie. Shrek and Fiona are clearly male and female and married. A conservative reviewer could just as easily see it as an alegory of the attack on traditional marriage by society's elites.

[MississippiMan]

I was on a screenwriters message board a few weeks ago, where a number of successful screenwriters hang out, when somebody started bellyaching about the FCC trying to clean up the airwaves a bit. Oh, the horror of it all. Censorship. They made it sound like every writer in the country was stifled and strangled. It was a ridiculous show as to how out of touch Hollywood is, and the thread itself was of course FILLED with incredibly vulgar language as some kind of nose-thumbing exercise, I suppose.

I weighed in and called the thread what it was: ludicrous. I also pointed out that it was a shame that a writer couldn't participate on a board of alleged professionals without worrying about his kid coming up behind him and wondering what kind of place Dad was frequenting. The last time I visited that board, the thread was near 100 comments, and there was not ONE post in support of my position. Not ONE.

I knew Hollywood was liberal, but I was honestly surprised to find myself COMPLETELY alone in taking a moral stance.

MM

[k2blader]

Mel Gibson "bashed" President Bush. But that'd be a stupid reason to not see "The Passion".

[wayoverontheright]

I took my six year old yesterday to see it. I didn't see it the same way the author of this article did, after all, the central relationship was a heterosexual one. The little one's favorite part from Shrek I had to do with the farting under water, which was replicated in the sequel. I don't know, I feel the movie could be done just as well without that. My spousal unit says to get a life.

All that said, the bartender at the local pub was a crossdressing male with a deep masculine voice, something for which I see no place in the movie except to foster acceptance of the bizarre in kids, and once again, I think the movie could have been done just as well without this as part of its agenda.

Hollywood simply will not miss an opportunity to push PC will they?

[Sicon]

In this year when a certain head of state seeks to write an exclusionary definition of "marriage" into the U.S. Constitution, Shrek 2 contends otherwise: No one has the right to tell you whom you can love; those who preach the loudest about the right way to live are often the biggest hypocrites.

Classic case of liberal illogic here. No one is trying to tell anyone whom they can or cannot LOVE, just whom they can and cannot marry. Note to liberals: marriage is not a "right"!