Theatrical Review of Shrek the Third

---

Tools:
Send to a friend »

---

Almost without fail, the third installment in any movie series falls short of its predecessors. Whereas part I defines the world the characters live in and part II spirals to dizzyingly high heights, the third can´t help but be anything but a let down. Look no farther than this summer´s "Spider-Man" installment. Or any franchise in history: "Return of the Jedi" was inferior to Episodes IV and V; "Jaws 3" was just a disaster; "Star Trek III," while the middle of a three act story, found itself lower in quality than either of its bookends; "Die Hard 3," "Superman 3"…the weakest in their franchises to that point.

Which is what makes "Shrek the Third" all the more baffling. Here is a character beloved by children and their parents, full of snarky jabs at previous animated films, yet accessible to the entire family. When the first "Shrek" film hit the scene in 2001, it was a breath of fresh air and helped usher in a new era of animated films. In 2004, with "Shrek 2," more characters and asides were added to the universe of Far Far Away. But with the newest installment, the magic, the awe, is missing from the screen.

When Princess Fiona´s father dies, he leaves the throne of Far Far Away to his daughter and her husband, he titular ogre. But Shrek wants nothing to do with it. He longs to return to his swamp, far far away from his glare of the palace. So when it is revealed there is a cousin next in line to the throne (Arthur, as in King Arthur…and the Knights of the Roundtable…Sir Lancelot…Merlin the Magician…), Shrek, Donkey and Puss in Boots set out to find the boy. While they´re gone, Prince Charming (the son of Number 2´s villain The Fairy Godmother) takes over the kingdom with the help of a rogues gallery of fairy tale baddies. Shrek and his crew must reclaim Far Far Away for the magical creatures while teaching Arthur he can be a king.

"Shrek the Third" is an uneven mishmash of humor and adult themes, more characters than anyone can possibly recount and none of the fun quotient of either of the first two films. The problem rests solely in the execution of this tale of revenge and death. This film is darker, both in tone and in look, than either of the other two. Charming morphs from the goofball we previously saw into someone who is out for vengeance, presumably for his mother´s fate. As he recruits his rogues gallery including Captain Hook, what look to be castoffs from Treebeard´s people in "Lord of the Rings," one of Cinderella´s ugly stepsisters, Snow White´s wicked stepmother, he makes sure to list how they have each been hurt by the protagonist in their respective stories. Do any of us really need this history lesson to understand everyone´s motivations? Doubtful, based on the audience "Shrek the Third" is aimed at.

It gets even worse with the ostensible good guys. After Charming takes over, Fiona leads a group of princesses (her mother, Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty and Rapunzel) through the castle´s tunnels only to be double crossed by one of their group. The others constantly bicker as if they were back in princess high school. Then in a wildly psychotic moment of girl power, Mother knocks down two brick walls using her head and Snow White turns into a female version of Tarzan, commanding a legion of birds and other forest animals against the invaders. With the rest of the fairy tale folks remaining at least halfway true to the personae, what in the world happened here? It screams of the writers trying to throw everything into the movie they could think of in case a fourth film wasn´t given the green light. (Which t has been, for the record.)

There are no signature moments in this film as there were in the previous two. Remember Smash mouth´s "Allstar" during the introduction of Shrek? Or "Holding Out for a Hero" from the finale of the second? Any moment remotely close to those is missing from this movie. Instead, we´re given heavy handed moralizing from Shrek about Arthur fulfilling his responsibility, moralizing to Shrek about the virtues of being a father and a wholly action-free coda on a theatrical stage.

This is really a tale of two films. The first half, which is just as laugh-filled as either of the previous entries, starts the film in the right direction. A simple montage of Shrek and Fiona´s disasters filling in for the king and queen is sidesplitting: he destroys a new boat instead of christening it and a banquet hall is set on fire, among others. Absolutely uproarious gags when Fiona tries to tell Shrek she´s pregnant and the accompanying discussion about how that happens set the stage for a worthy ending.

But it´s not to be. Around the time Merlin the Magician comes into the picture, the jokes become forced and the story seems to be reaching for additional material to pad the running time. The aforementioned girl power of the princesses, for instance, is jaw-droopingly out of place and lends to the downfall of the second half.

One particular scene I wanted to specifically mention is the death of the frog king near the start of the film. With his wife, Fiona, Shrek, Puss and Donkey gathered around a min-lake with lily pads, the king proceeds to die not once, not twice but three different times. It´s a gag that runs on far too long and is perplexing in the treatment of death. Yes, this is a children´s movie and humor is needed to keep the audience happy, though a fly jumping out of the frog´s mouth and landing on his eye is distasteful to say the least. It´s not funny in the least.

The voice talent is the one portion of the film which doesn´t disappoint. Everyone from the "Shrek 2" returns: Mike Myers, Cameron Diaz, Eddie Murphy, Julie Andrews, John Cleese (to name a few). And at least one major name is added to the voice cast: the much-heralded Justin Timberlake as Arthur-or Artie, whichever you prefer. It´s not that the returning voices are the be-all of animation voice over work; in a movie full of new characters and a departure from the series, the return of all the participants is the draw.

Coasting on the goodwill of the previous two entries and the marketing push toward the kids, "Shrek the Third" will be a bigger success than it has any right to be. DreamWorks has taken a decidedly adult direction for this story, which is fine except they forget the appeal is to both kids and their parents. What will this approach hold for movie #4? Only time will tell.

"Shrek the Third" (which I´ve resisted calling "Shrek 3" for this entire review) rates a 6 on the scale of 1 to 10. It´s main problem is the competition for itself the series has spawned. It tries to compete with those other films as opposed to staying true to the premise of the series.

---

---