Login
Due to the tremendous box office success of Shrek and its sequel, 2007's Shrek the Third was inevitable. While this second sequel to 2001's Shrek was justified from a business perspective, the question looms: was it necessary from a creative perspective? Moreover, if it was necessary, why couldn't it have been at least somewhere near the quality of its forerunners? Almost without fail, the third part of any movie series falls short of its predecessors (see other 2007 threequels: Spider-Man 3 and Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End), and Shrek the Third is further evidence of this. Despite the main voice cast returning and despite a clever concept, this third Shrek movie lacks the magic, awe and inspiration of the preceding pictures, leaving an empty carcass. The problem lies with the sluggish pacing, the uninteresting way the plot plays out, and the boring characters.
In this sequel, Shrek (Myers) and Fiona (Diaz) are poised to become the rulers of Far Far Away after King Harold (Cleese) dies. Shrek dreams of returning to his swamp with Fiona, however, and is less than enthusiastic about enduring the responsibility of being a king. Therefore, Shrek and his proverbial crew of companions - Donkey (Murphy) and Puss in Boots (Banderas) - set out to find a replacement for Shrek. The only possible candidate is a distant relative of Fiona's named Arthur (Timberlake). You know, as in King Arthur, Knights of the Round Table, etc. Anyway, the trio of heroes set out on a quest to find Artie and convince him to be king, while Prince Charming (Everett) seizes control of Far Far Away with the help of an assortment of fairytale villains.
One word is guaranteed to repeatedly run through one's mind throughout Shrek the Third: forced. The comedy is forced, the emotion is forced, and everything in general is forced. The characters, meanwhile, have developed surprisingly boring personalities. A few films ago, Shrek was a cranky ogre, Donkey was Shrek's obnoxious sidekick, and Fiona was a spoiled princess. These conflicting personalities played well against each other, but as the series progressed everyone has mellowed out and become amazingly bland. Their psychiatrist is probably thrilled, but for movie-goers it's disappointing. No longer are the characters fun to hang out with, and no longer do they do anything of interest. Worse, Shrek the Third is one of the talkiest animated movies in history. There are too many long, awkward, uneventful stretches of dialogue marred by flat staging, and the whole enterprise feels like a forced sitcom (there's that word again). Not that the film needed frequent action, but a sense of enchantment is pivotal in order to keep the pace going (Pixar movies generally do this skilfully). With boring characters, dull humour and few exciting set-pieces, the movie is a snooze.
The problems stem from the fact that Shrek the Third doesn't adhere to its own advice: it is not itself. The first two Shrek flicks were family movies with an adult edge, whereas this third film is a dull, watered-down kid's picture in which the level of fun is reduced. It's difficult to believe what started as a satiric fairytale eventually spiralled down into a series of superficial catch-phrases and half-hearted attempts at sentimentality. Not even Donkey has many good lines, nor does Puss in Boots. Yet, these two are still the best parts of the show, which is an indicator that something is wrong. And how many cartoons can you remember feature a funeral sequence that's accompanied by Paul McCartney's song Live and Let Die from the old James Bond movie of the same name?
The best aspect of Shrek the Third is the look, which is stunning. With this entry to the franchise, the filmmakers raised the bar yet again, with marked improvements in textures and several character-based elements (most notably motion). On the other hand, the human characters have become citizens of the "uncanny valley"; the creepy region between real and unreal (the same problem has plagued other animated movies, most notably The Polar Express). Additionally, the film's grand finale is a speech, meaning there's no stunning visual sequence to blow your mind like the first two movies. At least the voice talent does not disappoint (for the most part) - virtually everyone from Shrek 2 returns, including Mike Myers as Shrek, Eddie Murphy as Donkey, Cameron Diaz as Fiona, and John Cleese as the King of Far Far Away, just to name a few. Another major name was added to the voice cast this time around: the much-heralded Justin Timberlake as Arthur. Truth be told, Timberlake does his job well enough, but his performance lacks the proverbial zing of his fellow cast-members.
What's perhaps most disappointing about Shrek the Third is the lack of content for older viewers. Oh sure, kids will likely enjoy this one, but the first Shrek worked on different levels for viewers young and old. Unfortunately, Shrek the Third is just a painfully dull, unimaginative animation effort, and with the first movie at the back of one's mind as a vehicle for continual comparison, the picture is made even worse. While the movie may offer three or four good laughs, it provides less enjoyment and more time to ponder whether this series should go far far away for eternity. Unfortunately, a fourth Shrek - Shrek Forever After - followed in 2010.
4.2/10
