Shrek The Third (2007)Plot In A Paragraph: When the King dies, Shrek goes on a quest to find a new king. Whilst he is gone, the jilted Prince Charming takes over Far, Far AwayWOW. This was awful. None of the brilliance of the first movie, none of the charm of the second, and certainly none of the laughs. The funniest character in both of the precious movies was Eddie Murphy's Donkey, and he is pushed onto the background here, along with Antonio Banderas' Puss In Boots. I did make it to the end, unlike my girlfriends daughter. Shrek The Third grossed $322 at the domestic box office, to end the year the 2nd highest grossing movie of 2007.

What made the first Shrek enduring & charming has been completely lost over the course of the sequels, resulting in a lackluster third installment. Animators claims at advanced technology allowing them to produce better imagery & detail is very questionable, as to ask "so what?". The film is packed full of load, OTT gags & physical comedy to keep you awake, as well as entertain the kiddies with the bright colors & action - but for a more mature audience at whom the dialogue & jokes of the films are aimed, it neither impresses nor amuses. In fact the characters seem to have taken a step back, becoming more slapstick in their behavior & approach. I can't help but feel that the voice cast realize this, & each deliver a bored & tired performance. The comedy is recycled from it's predecessors, it's direction a mystery, it's intentions non-existent. Dreamworks should have quit whilst it was ahead, & should stop cussing on advertising it's star casts & work more on story & script.

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?

Shrek the Third is a bland, uninspired and unnecessary sequel to two masterpieces of animated storytelling. When the King of Far Far Away dies, Shrek and Fiona are set to inherit the Kingdom, but Shrek doesn't want to be King so they must set out to find the new heir, Arthur.While Shrek and his loyal sidekicks seek out Arthur, Fiona is dealing with the idea of motherhood. This is pretty much all Fiona does for the entire movie - the other fairy tale princesses rock up (including Amy Poehler is Snow White in a wasted role) before promptly being taken captive by Prince Charming. The secondary antagonist of the second film, Charming is a bit flat in the villain department because he's already run his course. Shrek the Third feels more like a third act to Shrek 2, with nothing particularly groundbreaking in its own right. There's a couple of Arthurian legend references, but they lack the fun and role reversal that made the first two Shreks so funny. Eddie Murphy as Donkey and Antonio Banderas as Puss in Boots both get left on the sidelines as the film packs with too many unnecessary characters, not least of which is Arthur himself. Justin Timberlake's breathy Mark Wahlberg impression is grating on the ears, and the fact that he doesn't have any scenes with Fiona (Timberlake's real life ex-girlfriend Cameron Diaz) means we can't even laugh at it.The writing takes a huge hit in Shrek the Third. The first two films are incredibly witty with jokes that are subtle enough for adults to love but kids to innocently miss. A typical insult in this film is "the only thing you're going to be king of is king of stupid!"Yeah.During the film's climax, Donkey, Puss and Fiona lead forces to save a captured Shrek on stage before everyone. The fact that Fiona rocks up just as Donkey and Puss do pretty much renders her entire plot pointless, as their escape has ultimately no impact on the story. The battle itself has none of the emotional stakes of Shrek 2, but rehashes the same antagonist and the same setting with many of the same heroes. However, unlike the satisfying conclusion of last time, this battle is saved by Artie who delivers a sappy and cliché "Lets All Love One Another" speech which has all the villains throw down their weapons.Then in the most excruciating moment possible, Charming stabs Shrek - only to miss and go under his arm. Then Dragon knocks Rapunzel's tower on him, presumably killing him instantly.That's messed up.Shrek the Third was wholly unnecessary. Its too tied to the second Shrek (the kingdom of Far Far Away and Charming's claim to its throne). Surprisingly I almost preferred the ending from Shrek 2 regarding Charming, where the Ugly Stepsister snaps him up for a dance. I can see the logic for bringing him back to resolve in another sequel, but the result is a film that has no ground to break on its own. Its a breezy 93 minutes, which contributes to its "blink and you'll miss it" vibe, because outside two flimsy stories no one has anything to do here.