Shrek the Third (2007)

Such a frustrating disappointment

Sorry, this movie sucks

Nice effects though.

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

When King Harold falls ill, Shrek is looked at as the heir to the land of Far, Far Away. Shrek recruits his friends Donkey and Puss in Boots to install the rebellious Artie as the new king. Shrek the Third is fun but not as fun as the first 2 i'm afraid and it makes sense why some viewers were left a bit disappointed. The story for sure was entertaining but not that needed to be fair plus the humor at times can get a bit tame but the likes of Myers, Murphy and Diaz make for an entertaining although a bit disappointing follow up to Shrek and Shrek 2 but still good. (8/10)

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?

I don't know what the freak the critics are thinking. Shrek was the best freaking movie ever. Are they smoking the good good or something? If so, I would like some because anyone who could rate Shrek the Third 6/10 should eat their own fecal matter and deposit the fecal matter just to eat it again, like the little fecal matter they are. The concept of Shrek the Third was just phenomenal. The characters, the plot, the animation, it was just bliss, like your mom's reproductive organ. You had Shrek, the OG baller baller, swag swag money, vagina-getter, and the most bad ass character you could ever find. Then you had that fine piece of butt, princess Fiona, providing fan-service, just like most of your right hands. In my honest opinion, I believe and pray that Shrek the Third deserved a 10/10.

The story of Shrek the Third (2007) is not quite as good as the first or second films but the comical lines and visual comedy is still right up there with the first two movies.Some of the new characters are not quite as enduring and memorable in Shrek 3 but they are quite likable and entertaining.The animation in this 3rd installment of the film series is still awesome.All I can really say is I enjoyed this 3rd film. And I do recommend it if you enjoyed Shrek and Shrek 2.8.5/10