Work has begun on it. It will be an origin story.

Title announced. Currently scheduled for May 21, 2010 release.

New trailer is up.

And the updated title is "Shrek: Forever After".

Rumpelstiltskin, last seen in Shrek 3 (aka Shrek the Third, aka Shrek the Turd), is recast. Not only in voice, but in character model. The same goes for the Pied Piper, previously seen in Shrek the First (aka Shrek).

RUMINATIONS: They saved the best for last. Almost like they planned it this way. It's like the first three chapters, while all competent fairy tales within fairy tales, were just preliminary installments before showing this darker, more "grim" fairy tale. Well acted and directed, and the animation, while gorgeous previously, is especially breathtaking here. And the soundtrack: awesome!

Rumpelstiltskin is the best cartoon villain to come down the pike since Syndrome. Both diminutive. Both geeky and child-like. Both wicked i.e., playfully malicious or mischievous.

And it's like SKG learned their lesson from the previous film. They kept the Disney jabs and the contemporary society winks to a minimum. The jokes were spot on. There was nothing lazy about this film. I was telling my neice and nephew a quarter of the way in, "I don't want this to end".

Yes. Everyone can and will draw the obvious comparisons to It's a Wonderful Life and all the other sci-fi stories that deal with alternate realities. But this tale was especially refreshing and believable. And with 3 Shrek films already under their belt, anyone can follow along without getting lost. This film is competent even if it stood alone.

Some of the dialog, often catchphrases, were reused here, which in other franchises tends to be annoying and off-putting. But here, it feels appropriate. As if everything is tying up a loose end or coming full circle.

I've declared this film the Best of the Year, so far. Toy Story 3, Tron Legacy, and Harry Potter 7.1 will give it a run for its money. But Shrek 4 will be a tough act to follow. I'm pleased it's doing well at the box office.

I read what the critics think of Shrek 4. Almost all of them panned the film. The grades ranged from B- to D. However the higher grades when fleshed out in words sounds like they're reviewing a D film.

Almost all of them begin a sentence with "After nearly a decade...", And "neither fresh, nor imaginative..." Hardly any of them could bring themselves to saying 4 was an improvement over 3. Only Heather Huntington seemed to give this film a fair review by not fixating only on the flaws.

Almost all the critics fixated that whatever good elements were in this story were negated by all those pop-cultural references. Were there really that many? It's a good thing for me that I've abstained from active TV watching and movie going because I didn't detect that many. Plus, pop-culture references have been standard operating procedures for many Hollywood films, not just Shrek. Anyone watching this film should know going in, it's not going to be 90-minutes of Mommy or Daddy reading a centuries old fable. But a modern, hipper, dazzling adventures. You want the pop cultures removed? Go read a book.

Almost all of them criticized the 3D, saying how distracting or how unimpressive it is. Now THAT, I can agree with. After seeing two other films in 3D, I will not waste another dollar on it -- NEVER AGAIN!

Almost all said the jokes were mediocre. Well, NEWS FLASH: It wasn't about the jokes, IMO. It was about the story with a little comic-relief sprinkled in. These are the same critics who think the jokes, mainly in the form of catchphrases and pop-culture, crippled any of the previous films. Just because we're watching a cartoon, albeit highly-stylized CG animation, doesn't demand it be all set-up/joke, set-up/joke. Maybe that was the driving force behind the first 3 Shreks, but here, the jokes sat in the back seat. This is a good thing. I'd like to remember the tale, not memorize the jokes to share on message boards as the only great lines such a film has. Jokes are often the filler of weaker films, even comedies.

"After almost a decade, this tired franchise..." Well, maybe it IS tired. It takes longer to crank out these CG features, unlike other franchises where they can crank out sequels yearly. It's only tired if you're the one who's yawning. And a film doesn't have to evolve into a franchise to become tired. What keeps a film from becoming a franchise is if a film bombs on its initial outing. I've been to a few bombs and found myself yawning within the first act (Battlefield: Earth). If that film is ever sequeled, and bombs, then somebody didn't learn his lesson.

Or by "tired" do they mean the first sequel that grosses less that the previous chapter? Screw all of them. This Shrek, is better than the critics give it credit for. It's at $210M at the box office as of this posting. Only $89M behind Iron Man 2. Both of which will fall off the charts once Toy Story 3 opens this week.

Shrek 4 would've been crippled had I seen any of the trailers before seeing it in theaters. For all the best jokes and visuals were, for the most part, in the trailers. They try to sequence them out of context, but I would still be anticipating them, and therefore not be taken by surprise. Trailers shouldn't be more than a minute in length anyway. Especially if there are going to be alternate cuts of trailers.

Well, if this isn't the most ringing endorsement of Shrek 4 you've read, I don't know where else you're going to find one. Usually, I am an opposite. What most people find brilliant, amusing and epic, I go "Meh"!

P.S. One critic comes close to hitting "tired" on the nose when describing how the birthday party scene showing Shrek surrounded by the usual characters and annoying villagers all getting in his face performing their usual schtick and hijinks. Only when Shrek was transported to his alternate reality does the film start to become compelling. In other words, the payoff doesn't only come at the climax (sorry), but on Shrek's Day Off.

Another critic called this film a mix-mash musical montage. Alliterative, isn't he? Was there music? Yes. A musical montage? Please! I'm sorry he was put off by the Pied Piper in action, however, I saw nothing wrong with it. Better executed than other films. Short, sweet, and to the point.

All the critics were unanimous in that Puss steals the show wallowing in his fatness. I agree, but when Puss stopped feeling sorry for himself and got involved in the cause was he even a better asset to the story. I.E., not just along for the ride. And all those other moments where he ceases to be anthropomorphic and reverts to just being a simple cat is an added bonus.

I guess the critics just aren't used to a Dreamworks feature not unapologetically deriding and stealing from Disney. There was some of that, but it was more subtle. I liked the "redonkulous" reference from Bolt. Because Disney's (not Pixar's) invention of that catchphrase was, IMO, redonkulous!