Hey folks, Harry here... I've been concerned about SHREK THE THIRD - why? Well, frankly it hasn't looked all that great thus far. The trailers haven't sold me that there was a reason to make the movie, other than purely as product. Having seen SPIDER-MAN 3, there seemed to be the opposite in play, rather than not having anything to say, Raimi was attempting to fit too much in. The result isn't a bad film, but one that is a bit schizophrenic. A film that clutters too much in - and the whole suffers. Now with this report on SHREK THE THIRD, it seems the sequels might not be the best thing to look forward to this summer. The best films I've seen that are coming this summer are STARDUST, KNOCKED UP and SUPERBAD... all of which are original content. Let's hope at least a few of these sequels are great. As for SHREK THE THIRD, don't worry - this is just the first report, there's always hope that the reviewer is insane. Isn't there?
I recently won tickets to a screening of Shrek the Third in Chicago. Here is my review: So I went into this screening of Shrek the Third with little anticipation. I had really enjoyed the first two films, but every single trailer for this third installment looked painfully unfunny. Sadly, the trailers were predictive of the quality of the final film. Lazy writing, painful jokes, and even poor voice acting make this a disaster of epic proportions. I haven't seen an "event" film of such low quality in a long while. As you probably know, Shrek the Third continues the adventures of Shrek, the green ogre; Fiona, his princess-turned-ogre wife; Donkey, the annoying sidekick; and Puss in Boots, a slick and stylish cat. This time around, Fiona becomes pregnant and a death leaves a vacancy on the throne of Far, Far Away. The two main problems, I would say, are the story and the jokes. The story feels like a rehash of stuff we've all seen before. Instead of adding any sort of drama or tension, the plot is a by-the-books fairy tale. For a film that is supposed to be spoofing such fairy tales, this is unacceptable. The few attempts at drama are painfully cliched and seem like a sad attempt to spread a message. A particular scene involving Shrek and Arthur seeing a vision of a father/son relationship is utterly sappy and obvious. Even worse than the story, however, are the jokes. These feel like they are aimed exclusively at the 5 and under crowd. An 8 year old would groan at the majority of these jokes. Where is the subtle humor for adults? Where are the witty pop culture references? Where are the exciting sequences accompanied by meaningful and catchy songs? These were the things that made Shrek and Shrek II quality films, and their absence here is sorely missed. If there is anything positive that I can say, it is that the visuals are stunning. Even this, however, does not impress as much as it might have a few years ago. The advent of such capabilities wears away the novelty and the CGI can no longer hide a weak script. All of the voice cast returns, but the work is truly uninspired and close to the definition of "just for a paycheck." The only notable addition to the cast, Justin Timberlake, plays Artie, a young King Arthur. He does the best that he can with the role, but the fact that it is obviously him is distracting and only worsens the horrible lines he is forced to deliver. I'm sorry if this review seems ridiculously one-sided, but I haven't been this disgusted with the quality of a movie in a while. The fact that this will likely make millions while great films continually fall through the cracks truly infuriates me. If you have a kid under the age of 5, take them to see Shrek the Third. Otherwise, avoid it at all costs. ---The Chicago Kid
