Eric D. Snider
Shrek the Third
Movie Review
"Shrek the Third"
Review by Eric D. Snider
Grade: B+
Rating: PG
Released: Friday, May 18, 2007
Directed by:
Cast:
The cast of characters continues to expand in "Shrek the Third," the latest rowdy adventure in the ever-amusing fairy-tale-spoof series. A petulant young King Arthur and a baffled old Merlin are among the new arrivals, while princesses such as Snow White and Rapunzel -- previously referred to but not given much screen time -- get a chance to demonstrate their unique skill sets. (We knew Snow White could summon birds with her voice. Who knew she could make them attack by singing Led Zeppelin's "Immigrant Song"?)
This outing looks toward the next generation, as Far Far Away's King Harold (John Cleese) is dying, and he's named Shrek (Mike Myers) as his heir. The ogre doesn't want the gig, though, and defers to Plan B: a royal nephew named Arthur (Justin Timberlake) who is presently a gawky teenager who gets picked on even by the Dungeons & Dragons geeks. (Shouldn't there be a joke about playing Dungeons & Dragons at a time when there really ARE dungeons and dragons?) Artie doesn't want the job either, once he learns how hard it is, so Shrek has to persuade him, lest he be saddled with it himself.
Meanwhile, Shrek's beloved wife Fiona (Cameron Diaz) is pregnant, sending more ripples of panic into Shrek's green heart. Ogres aren't known for their nurturing, fatherly attributes, after all. Sure, Donkey (Eddie Murphy) and the dragon have spawned a litter of happy, if horrifyingly freakish, donkey-dragon hybrids. But is there any hope for a pair of swamp-dwelling ogres?
Meanwhile (there is a lot of meanwhile in this movie), Prince Charming (Rupert Everett) is enduring nightly humiliation playing himself in a bad dinner theater play. Determined to seize the throne once and for all, he rallies all the other fictional losers -- Captain Hook, Snow White's wicked queen, various witches, and so forth -- and stages a coup while Shrek, Donkey, and Puss-in-Boots (Antonio Banderas) are off looking for Arthur. Fiona, Queen Lillian (Julie Andrews), and their bickering princess girlfriends are tossed into prison.
One of the few film franchises to retain a high level of quality even on the third outing, "Shrek the Third" is loaded as ever with anachronism-based jokes, raucous parodies, and good old-fashioned silliness. It's fast becoming a "Simpsons"-like universe, where any member of the huge cast of characters can get a laugh just by delivering one line. Puss-in-Boots, the great discovery in "Shrek 2," is used (but not overused!) to great effect here, and the Gingerbread Man (Conrad Vernon) has some of the film's funniest non-sequitur moments. (You have not truly lived until you have seen a Gingerbread Man's life flash before his eyes.) Likewise, there are winning cameos from the Three Pigs, Pinocchio, the apple-throwing "Wizard of Oz" trees, and a host of other familiar characters.
That said, it could be that the film (directed by regular "Shrek" contributors Chris Miller and Raman Hui, and written by a gaggle of scribes) emphasizes the auxiliary characters at the expense of the central ones. Fiona, for example, feels like a non-entity in this chapter. That's a shame, considering her relationship with Shrek was the central element of the first two films.
Furthermore, several of the movie's funniest elements -- such as Arthur's high school, where teens talk in a mix of King James English and modern slang, and the gaggle of diva-like princesses (voiced by various "SNL" alum, plus Amy Sedaris) -- are gone before they've fully lived up to their comedic potential. And why go to the trouble of hiring Ian McShane (the terrifying villain on HBO's "Deadwood") to play Captain Hook if you're only going to give him a few lines?
On the whole, there's not nearly as much depth of emotion here as there was in the previous installments. Shrek is supposed to be the giant monster with a soft heart, and while he's as lovable as ever, here the "tender" moments -- as when he mentors young Arthur -- feel obligatory. Which is a fancy way of saying the movie focuses more on laughs than on feelings, which probably won't register as a very serious complaint.
Nor should it, really. It means the film doesn't resonate as a classic, that's all. For giddy, rude, daffy humor, it works just fine. Because really, once you've seen a chorus of frogs singing Paul McCartney's "Live and Let Die" at the funeral for their king, whose body is in a shoebox floating away on a lily pad, what else do you need?
Grade: B+
Rated PG, some crude humor, some mildly suggestive references
1 hr., 33 min.
Copyright © Eric D. Snider.
This work may not be transmitted via the Internet, nor reproduced in any other way, without written consent from Eric D. Snider.
This item has 13 comments
May 18, 2007 at 4:36 pm
I've been hearing this is the worst of the lot. I was really excited to see it at the theater but now I'm thinking maybe a rental. What should I do?!?!?!?!?!
May 18, 2007 at 6:32 pm
Eric's review is the kindest I've seen for this movie so far.
May 18, 2007 at 10:16 pm
We saw it Thursday night at a preview and the theater was empty. It was just us and our little kids, so that was fun. It is definitely the least imaginative and most illogical of the Shrek series, but still a good time. And fear not. The obligatory fart bubbles are in there.
May 19, 2007 at 10:12 am
I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed the movie. But it may have been because I went in with low expectations. I liked this one more than the second installment. I'd say Eric's review closely sums my feelings on the movie. If you're not sure whether to see this movie in the theaters, the review I probably agreed with most was an NPR review that can be found here.
May 22, 2007 at 10:13 am
While I did find the formula a rehash of Shrek 2 mixed with Happily N'ever After, and the end certainly is a snore, I really enjoyed the movie. I took my grandmother and my 5 year old, and we ALL enjoyed it. Is it better than number 2? No. Is it as original as the first? No. Is it a good time spent at the movies? Most certainly.
May 22, 2007 at 10:41 am
Why does everyone have to analyze everything? I went with my two daughters(ages 70-35-39) and we thoroughly enjoyed everything and so did all of the small kiddies who were mysterously quiet-only laughing at the funny parts and the comments I heard in the ladies room were all positive. Loosen up and enjoy a movie for what it is-entertainment. We plan to go again--nuff said?
May 23, 2007 at 6:11 pm
The first 1/2 hour was funny, really funny. The rest felt flat. It wasn't bad, and it was better than Spidey-3. However, I don't think it's worth $8 or even $4 (for a matinée). Watch Shrek 1 or 2 again. But then again, I feel I may have lost touch with the common man since I thought Pirates 2 was sub-par along with Spidey-3.
May 27, 2007 at 12:43 am
As an avowed fan of the first two Shrek movies, I have to say that this one felt rehashed and recycled. There was very little actual conflict (Prince Charming made for an extremely weak villain, and the Artie plotline really went nowhere). I believe these faults are mostly due to the absence of Andrew Adamson (who co-directed the first two, then left to work on the Narnia movies). I think everyone involved did this one for the paycheck.
May 29, 2007 at 12:30 am
Didn't it feel like the promotions promoted the triplets and the baby angle, and completely avoided the Justin Timberlake plotline? I don't know if they were afraid of a Cameron Diaz hissy fit, but I really think that with Justin being as hot as he is right now, that emphasizing his presence, and his plot (he didn't even get a cup at McDonalds) would have made more sense. I definitely didn't get what I was expecting from the movie based on the previews. I saw for a friend's birthday. On my own dime, I would recommend waiting for the DVD.
July 2, 2007 at 7:44 pm
I liked Shrek a lot, and loved Shrek 2. But I had to walk out of this one. Just TOO DUMB. No characters that I cared about. At all. There was one good thing though. I got my money back in cash and not one of those gift certificate things. Don't even rent it. Just watch Shrek 2, which is really good.
August 14, 2007 at 12:29 am
My mom convinced me to go watch this in the cheap seats with her today...bah. The other two were better. I thought the Shrek/Arthur relationship was downright hokey, the princesses all annoyed the heck out of me--and did anyone else think that Rapunzel winding up being bald had to be a cliche somewhere?
I agree that these people must have just done this for the paycheck. They all sounded a bit tired and sick of this and bored.
I did enjoy Shrek's one-liners at the end, or really, most of the one-liners in the movie and the Led Zepplin part was great. If I could have any superpower in the world......
December 9, 2007 at 10:50 pm
I think this movie's hillarious.....the first couple of times. But then, since the plot really never defers from hillarity, I think I would tend to get sick of it upon the third time watching. =]
April 22, 2008 at 3:10 pm
This movie is so good!! I had to watch it for a class. I was cracking up through the whole thing. My favortie character is Puss in boots lol!!