Shrek the Third

---

Tools:
Recommend review to a friend »

---

Note: In the following joint HD DVD review, John and Jason provide their opinions on the film, while John also wrote up the Video, Audio, Extras, and Parting Shots.

The Film According to John:
Several recent movie continuations worked out fine. "The Bourne Ultimatum" brought that franchise to a fitting conclusion (for now), and "Live Free or Die Hard" recaptured some of the original film's fun and excitement. But most of the newer efforts didn't live up to expectations. "Spider-Man 3" had too many villains and not enough heart. "Pirates of the Caribbean 3" replaced jaunty swagger with a boatload of CGI. "Harry Potter and the Order of Phoenix" was true to the book, but the book was mostly filler. And "The Santa Clause 3" stifled the old joy of Christmas under a barrage of uneasiness.

Which brings up "Shrek the Third" (2007). It's hard to believe that the filmmakers took what started out as a cute, satiric fairy tale that both kids and adults could enjoy equally and turned it into a series of glib, superficial catch phrases and halfhearted attempts at sentimentality that feel forced. Yes, they kept the colorful characters, but they left a lot of the characters' spirit behind. Nevertheless, this isn't to suggest that it's a completely terrible movie or a total waste of time. Not at all, as it does offer some enjoyment, especially in the purely visual department. It's just that there is always that first movie lingering in the back of one's mind as a vehicle of continual comparison. And "Shrek the Third" simply does not measure up.

"I haven't had a trip that bad since college!" --Donkey, "Shrek the Third

The usual characters and voice characterizations are back, with Mike Myers as Shrek, Eddie Murphy as Donkey, Cameron Diaz as Princess Fiona, Antonio Banderas as Puss in Boots, Julie Andrews as Queen Lillian, John Cleese as King Harold, and Rupert Everett as Prince Charming, plus Justin Timberlake, Eric Idle, Larry King, Ian McShane, Regis Philbin, Susan Blakeslee, the list goes on and on. Chris Miller directs, with help from co-director Raman Hui, the supervising animator on the first two "Shrek" releases.

The newest movie takes up pretty much where the second one left off. It's all about the backstage machinations that ensue when the frog king dies, leaving his office to a reluctant Shrek. Jason will tell you more about that below.

Donkey continues to steal the show, of course, with Puss in Boots an able accomplice, and yet they don't seem to have much to do anymore. They just tag along and make wisecracks here and there. Frankly, a lot of the movie is merely tedious, with a few laughs in the beginning, followed by a whole lot of schmaltz, a really flat middle, another good laugh at the end, and then a decline into mushiness. I mean, unless you think butt scratching, puke jokes, poop gags, and slapstick falling down are funny, it's going to be a really long movie for you. And how many cartoons can you remember where a funeral sets the mood, especially one accompanied by Paul McCartney's "Live and Let Die" from the old Bond movie of the same name?

Prince Charming (Rupert Everett) is the villain, and he's more creepy than he is fun or amusing. I found Ian McShane's Captain Hook a better, more traditional scoundrel by overplaying his hand (pun intended). The whole of "Shrek the Third" seems watered down. There is no longer much or any spark, any exaggeration, any outrageousness, any of the silliness or pluck or bedevilment that we found in the first movie. Not even Donkey has very many good lines, and when he still manages to be one of the best parts of the show, you know something is wrong.

The filmmakers try hard to make the characters more lovable than ever, which may have been a mistake. They mainly just seem softer. The movie intends for Artie (Justin Timberlake), the true heir to the throne, to be a dorky loser teenager, yet he comes off looking, acting, and sounding like anything but. What's that about? And how come the kingdom of Far Far Away doesn't have an army or even a few loyal guards hanging around the castle?

The best thing "Shrek the Third" has going for it is its look, which is absolutely stunning. The 3D animation has a wonderful fairy-tale quality to it and may be the most beautifully rendered CGI creation I've ever seen. All the same, it isn't enough to save the film from itself. Let me put it another way: I liked Larry King best of all as one of the ugly stepsisters. Does that tell you anything?

John's film rating: 5/10

"I've been abra-cadabra'd into a Fancy Feastin', second-rate sidekick!" --Donkey, "Shrek the Third

The Film According to Jason:
Almost without fail, the third installment in any movie series falls short of its predecessors. Whereas part one defines the world the characters live in and part two spirals to dizzyingly high heights, the third can't help but be anything but a letdown. Look no further 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. Prince 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, and 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 folk remaining at least halfway true to their 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 it has been, for the record.)

---

---

---

---