Smoreni Zmaj
"Shrek the Third" was made in the same manner as the first two, as a combination of parodies to various fairy tales with references to pop culture. But even though it's a top-quality cartoon, it's not at the level of its predecessors. Animation and music are excellent, but there's less humor and it's less funny. While I was crying of laughter during first two movies, this time I sincerely laughed just a few times. Although, to be honest, I'm not sure if this is due to a weaker scenario or it's simply saturation, because sequels that stick to the recipe of the first film inevitably lack originality and the surprise factor. Movie is great, but it does not bring anything new.7,5/10
ElMaruecan82
In his review of "Shrek 2", Ebert made a very interesting remark, he said that he might have loved the film more if it was the first. By this logic, we can take it that popularity is inversely proportional to the position within the trilogy, with a few exceptions. In the case of "Shrek" franchise, it wouldn't do justice to the original movie to say that the third one plays on the same league, I'm not even sure it plays on the second's league either.Again, it's far from being a bad movie, but it seems like the zany creativity that inhabited the animators had been transferred to some newer and fresher projects. In the end, it's not difficult to point out what went wrong with "Shrek the Third", there were worrying signs already in the second film. "Shrek 2" was funny, original and featured the addition of Puss in Boots, but the main plot was very similar to the first, and the challenge of Shrek being accepted by his in-laws, wasn't the most exciting from a child's standpoint. Yet it worked because of the vital addition of new characters, especially Puss in Boots.In "Shrek the Third", you have the same characters; Charming replaces his mother in the villainous role so it's a good thing they didn't kill him off in the second one. Shrek and Fiona live in Far Far Away, happily we're tempted to say… except that Fiona wants children and Shrek feels like he's not ready for it. Even TV dramas try to avoid these clichés like the plague but the writers thought this would make a good set-up. And it is a situation many people can relate too, but children? Shrek and Fiona act like a normal couple, too normal for the story's own good. But things start happening, a dying King Harold names Shrek as his only heir, but the ogre doesn't feel like King material (tell that to a frog), he learns that the only one who can sit on the throne, is Arthur. Yes, THE king Arthur. Why not after all, The start is a little slow but at that point, there's still some hope that we're heading toward an interesting quest, but despite all the film's efforts, each idea falls flat, at least by the first film's standards. Charming meets all the Fairy Tales villains in a tavern (Hook, the Queen etc.) and they form a sort of squad determine to take the ultimate revenge against their respective antagonists, fair enough, but too many villains make their characterization superficial and only foils for punctual gags. The same with the discovery of Arthur in a college, it starts well, but the way Shrek manages to convince the frail and insecure Arthur voiced by Justin Timberlake, feels rather anticlimactic.On its way home, the ship runs aground an Island where they meet Merlin and the Island sequence is the occasion for some heart-to-heart talk about responsibilities, Shrek realizes that Artie's reluctance to become a King reflects his own attitude toward fatherhood. As an adult, I found that part well-written although predictable, it's precisely because Shrek is such a fully developed character that I was drawn into it… can't say I cared for Arthur. But the question is not whether I like it, but whether kids would. Themes of responsibility and self-questioning are relevant, but not when you go to see an ogre story set in a medieval fantasy world. To make it worse, even the fight sequence between the heroes and the villains has a feeling of déjà-vu. Show us something we don't see coming.And when our heroes use Merlin's magic to go back to Far Far Away, one side-effect consists on Donkey and Puss exchanging their bodies, and that's perhaps the only memorable use of the two sidekicks, but it's not saying much, because there's never a point where this reversal plays a pivotal role to the story, to distract the enemy or something else, it's just an excuse for one or two funny one-liners and that's all. The exchange bit (and its mildly amusing punch line) illustrates how imagination has slipped. In the end, there's no memorable line from either Antonio Banderas and Eddie Murphy, and Shrek isn't strong enough to carry the whole film, and certainly not Artie with his frail shoulders, and his capricious and inconsistent persona. We're Far Far Away from the level of the first film.There was one little bit that worked though, the subplot involving Fiona and the fairy tales heroines, immortalized by Disney: Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty to name the most instantly recognizable. I must say it was quite fun to see them talking and behaving like the real housewives of Beverly Hills before turning into Charlie's Angels, so for the first time, they wouldn't wait for any Prince or hero to save the day. But it's the same problem than the villain, too many characters. Basically, the film is overflowed by its creatures, even the little sidekicks Pinocchio, Wolf, the Three Pigs must join the show creating the most confusing feeling of chaos, weakening even more the climax that should have consisted on one confrontation, like in the first… and to some extent, the second.But six years have passed between these films and many other DreamWorks films so my guess is that even the creators knew they weren't making a masterpiece. And it's very revealing that the DVD features don't even bother to show any interviews of the makers. So, maybe it's the kind fo movie to look at with forgiving eyes, and I wonder if the ending montage wasn't meant to a little self-parodying. As a recent father, I could totally relate to the milk preparations, the diaper changing (with growing dexterity) and especially the 'what next?' bit. But then, I was thinking what's next indeed? Shrek looking for a job? Midlife Crisis? An affair with Dragon?
Python Hyena
Shrek the Third (2007): Dir: Chris Miller, Raman Hui / Voices: Mike Myers, Cameron Diaz, Eddie Murphy, Antonio Banderas, Justin Timberlake: Disappointing third film in the Shrek franchise. The theme is empowerment as ogre Shrek learns that he is next in line as King. When he learns of Fiona's cousin Arthur he sets out to bring him back in hopes that he will take responsibility as King and leave him to his comfortable ogre lifestyle. Structure is routine and similar to the first film. Mike Myers voices Shrek who learns of Fiona's pregnancy and stressed with the thought of fatherhood. He is the only character with any broad development as he attempts to ditch his responsibility yet accept another. Eddie Murphy voices Donkey and Antonio Banderas voices Puss N' Boots but both are more or less along for the ride as mere road movie props. Even Princess Fiona, voiced by Cameron Diaz seems to merely exist after informing Shrek of his future role as father. This is all done in glorious computer animation that is colourful and bright but without a decent screenplay it comes off as a great painting. Justin Timberlake voices Arthur, Fiona's cousin and second heir to the throne, and the role is a steal. Directed by Chris Miller and Raman Hui whose combined talent cannot bring life into this third and forgettable entry in a franchise that has just hit its last chapters. Score: 4 ½ / 10
