When Shrek married Fiona the last thing he had in mind was becoming the next King of Far Far Away. But when Shrek?s father-in-law, King Harold, suddenly croaks, that is exactly what he faces. Recruiting Donkey and Puss In ... more »Boots for a new quest, Shrek sets out to bring back the rightful heir to the throne. Meanwhile back in the kingdom, Fiona's jilted Prince Charming storms the city with an army of fairy tale villains to seize the throne. Fiona and a band of princesses must stop him to ensure there will be a kingdom left to rule!« less
William J. (billystan3) from AUBURN, NY Reviewed on 8/7/2012...
The funniest of the first three. The Shrek family has grown--and that is where the laughs begin and seemingly roll on forever. Mike Myers and Eddie Murphy are the Dean Martin And Jerry Lewis of the twenty first century.
Third Time's Still Pretty Charming
K. Fontenot | The Bayou State | 05/29/2007
(4 out of 5 stars)
""Shrek The Third" might lack the originality of the original film, but it's still a very good movie. Shrek is once again put into an uncomfortable position, except this time around he isn't trying to win Fiona's heart or impress her parents. This time he's been chosen to replace his father-in-law as the king of Far Far Away. He quickly finds out that there is one other potential heir to the throne called Arthur. Once he figures out where Arthur is located, Shrek, Donkey, and Puss set out to find the boy and convince him that he should be king. Before leaving, however, Shrek is weighed down with more pressure when he finds out that he'll soon be a dad. While Shrek's away, Charming gathers up all of fairytale-dom's meanest villains (including Captain Hook and the Wicked Witch from "Snow White") and stages a successful coup to become ruler of Far Far Away. Using Fiona and her friends as bait, Charming awaits Shrek's return in order to finish him off and become the rightful king.
I think the reason that many people dislike this film so much is that the spotlight shines considerably less on Shrek, Donkey, and Puss than it did it the previous films. Fiona, Snow White, Cinderella, Beauty (of "Beauty and the Beast"), Rapunzel and Sleeping Beauty all get a decent amount of camera time. Lesser sidekicks like Pinocchio and Gingey also take the camera off of Shrek. Even Charming gets ample screentime along with his fellow villains. Does this make the film any better or worse than the others? Not in my opinion. In fact, the princesses add quite a bit of humor to the film (not to mention a sweet action sequence set to a cover of Heart's "Barracuda"). Charming and his companions also offer some fun moments. The addition of two other characters, Arthur and Merlin, also give the viewer more to laugh at.
I'll agree with others who stated that the fart jokes and other sophomoric humor can be excessive, but no more than in the other films. In fact, jokes like that got the children laughing more than in the other two films which, in my opinion, had more humor for the adults than this sequel.
All of the original voice talents make it back for the film, and a few new voices are added as well. These include Justin Timberlake, Eric Idle, and a few old SNLers. It's nice to see that SNL's castmates stick so close together.
Overall, this film is better suited for the youngsters when compared to the other films. However, that doesn't mean that the adults in the audience miss out on any of the fun. This will be a definite purchase when it rolls out on DVD. I recommend it as a buy."
It's No Longer Funny Being Green
Aging Boomer | United States | 05/21/2007
(1 out of 5 stars)
"The original "Shrek" was a postmodern deconstruction of the traditional fairy tale. Its deserved success was sure to result in a "franchise", but what do you do for a sequel? Deconstruct the deconstruction? "Shrek 2" didn't solve this problem, but dodged it through sheer, unrestrained (if also unfocused) energy, and an appealing new sidekick for Shrek (Puss in Boots). Shrek 3, a curiously low-energy effort, neither avoids nor solves the problem. The result is the typical exhausted-franchise work product: a tired, boring, surprisingly conventional movie, with none of the zing of the original. The chief villains are the writers, as the story line is flat and unoriginal, but the lack of inspiration is everywhere evident, even in the animation. As I left the theater, even the kids were complaining."
A good film--but not great and not as good as the first two
Matthew G. Sherwin | last seen screaming at Amazon customer service | 06/15/2008
(4 out of 5 stars)
"Shrek The Third is a good movie with incredible animation. I marvel at that animation! However, the plot is just average and it didn't really hold my attention the way I hoped it would. I think after this Dreamworks needs to move on to new develop new characters in new films; but only time will tell if Dreamworks wants to milk this theme yet again. The voiceovers are very well done and the DVD has a plethora of extras.
When the action begins, Shrek (Mike Myers) and his wife Princess Fiona (Cameron Diaz) are filling in for the ailing King Harold (John Cleese). Unfortunately, King Harold passes away and, with his dying wish, names Shrek as the rightful heir to the throne. This doesn't sit too well with Shrek who has been suffering from public relations embarrassment to public relations embarrassment as he launches ships with such strength that the ship blows a hole and sinks--and more. King Harold says, just before he dies, that the only other heir to the throne would be a young man at school named Arthur (Justin Timberlake). Immediately after the funeral for King Harold, Shrek, Donkey (Eddie Murphy) and Puss-in-boots (Antonio Banderas) set sail to find Arthur at school. Things go downhill even more when Artie (as Arthur is called) is ambivalent at best to become a king; and it's up to Shrek and his buddies to convince Arthur to become king.
Of course, things back in Far, Far Away Land aren't much better. Prince Charming (Rupert Everett) and his cronies take over the kingdom and imprison Fiona and her friends including Fiona's mother. Things look pretty bleak.
Of course, the plot can go anywhere from here. (Yes, I know, you've read the spoilers by now but I won't give them away anyway.) Will Fiona and the other women be able to break free and fight the evil Prince Charming? How does Shrek react when he finds out he's becoming a father? What happens to Puss-in-boots and Donkey when an old wizard accidentally casts a spell on them so that they are trapped in each other's bodies? Watch the movie and find out!
The DVD extras are very extensive. The commentary is great; and I like the bonus feature that includes a man going through a storyboard of a deleted scene at the school where Arthur is standing on line to get his lunch. There are funny "suggestions" from Donkey, Shrek and other characters as to how to deal with the problems of parenthood; and there are web links as well.
Overall, this is a good effort and a movie to watch when a better one is unavailable. However, Shrek fans will love this movie. This is best suited for families with kids that are at least 8 or 9 years old because of some crude humor that you wouldn't want younger kids to experience. "
Worst movie I have seen in a while
poppy | 11/24/2007
(1 out of 5 stars)
"How can I begin? I was so looking forward to this installment of the Shrek movies, that when I finally saw it, I was in shock! It was hands down the most terribly boring movie I had seen all year! I fell asleep about 30 minutes before it ended (something I never do watching a movie) so I asked my husband if I had missed anything good. He laughed. He thought it was as terrible as I did. Come to find out every single person I talked to after watching it said that it was as terrible as I did. Shame on the writers for making such a dull and boring movie after the first 2 were so lively and wonderful. Hopefully the next one will be more like the first 2, I would hate to see them end with such a horrible conclusion like number 3!!"
A funny movie that is lacking something monstrously importan
SteakSalad101 | Madison, NJ USA | 05/18/2007
(2 out of 5 stars)
"I got out of classes this fine Friday for some special school occasion, so the entire middle school went over to the movie theater to see Shrek The Third at a discovered matinée showtime at the local theater. A week ago, when the faculty first announced we'd be seeing this instead of Spider-Man 3, I was pretty excited. I mean, come on, it's Shrek--you really can't go wrong with the charming, funny, brainy-as-hell movies coming out of Dreamworks, with voice talent by Eddie Murphey, Mike Myers, and Cameron Diaz...right? Wrong. Let's start by examining what Shrek The Third DIDN'T have. The first "Shrek" was loved by me--and pretty much every other Shrek fan who is mature enough to understand its witty humour, special heartwarming touch, and its meant-for-adults-that-goes-way-over-little-kids'-heads type content. The filmmakers of the first Shrek really had some awesome material up their sleeves--stuff that truly made a fantastic movie, and if I do say so myself, one of the best animated films ever to be pumped out of LA.
The second Shrek, "Shrek 2," was a slight decline in entertainment. It was still funny, and still had half a tank of movie magic gasoline--not a full tank like the first Shrek possessed, but half--good enough to make a decent and enjoyable film, but not nearly enough to quite match up to the original.
And now, sure enough, as every successful movie must have, a second sequel. "Shrek The Third" is a complete and utter mess. Remember those special little tricks the filmmakers had up their sleeves for the first Shrek, and even some for the second Shrek? Well, they're all GONE--not missing, no, they're completely GONE. What made the first two movies enjoyable for me had completely been used up, proving to us moviegoers and critics that sequels to big blockbusters are gigantic wastes of money.
Sure, it was FUNNY. It was really funny, I laughed a lot. But where was the brain behind the comedy? Where was the backbone, the spine, the rock where instead of St. Peter builds the Church, where the filmmaker is supposed to base the movie on, where was that? It wasn't there--it was like the filmmakers pretended it was there, when it really wasn't, and just ignored that fact and continued to make the movie with no worries. A "ghost comedy" I like to call it. Now I know what you're asking yourself--how could I enjoy a "ghost comedy" like "Anchorman," but not this? Well, this leaves me into my next point.
The direction of the movie was an embarrassingly bad joke. It was like the director was sitting back smoking bongs and drinking Guinness while the sound editors filled in for him. The story didn't flow like the first two, it wasn't interesting, and after a while, I just got bored with the whole thing and started thinking about other, more important aspects of my life. The storyline felt like the film caterer used a knife to chop up it into little bits of segments and then mixed them around, making the movie almost as pointless as "Larry The Cable Guy: Health Inspector." A stupid comedy that is directed well can be a VERY FUNNY AND ENJOYABLE FILM. But when it's not? The essence of the film drains away to leave just empty-hearted and hollow laughs that don't mean anything.
AND THE ENDING! OH GOD, THE ENDING! What were they thinking?! I was pretty much asleep! They tried to make it funny and give the audience the warm fuzzy feeling they felt in the first two movies, and they failed miserably! It was almost like they tried to justify the crappiness of the rest of the movie with a satisfying finale, and ended up doing the opposite and making the rest of the movie even crappier than it was. Which is truly saying something.
Overall, "Shrek The Third" got me out of class, and that really was the only good part about seeing it. A huge, and unfortunate, disappointment. Save your money and rent the first two. I hope there's no "Shrek The Fourth.""