Publications
Partners
Now that Shrek and Fiona are happily married, they are looking forward to moving back to the swamp. But then his father-in-law, King Harold, falls ill and Shrek is forced to find a new heir or become the next king himself. To make matters worse, Prince Charming is plotting a coup d'état and, with Shrek away, it’s up to Fiona and her pals to battle the army of baddies.
What we thought of it:
Can a movie franchise suffer from a mid-life crisis? That would certainly explain the problems with Shrek The Third. There’s no doubt that the series is in the prime of its life – the latest edition opened at number one in America and a fourth is already in the works – but something is rotten in fairytale land.
It’s not that the movie is bad per se, it’s more that what seemed so easy in the first two films now feels too much like hard work. Oh, there are plenty of gags, some of which are quite funny, but few as sharply honed as in the first two films. The writers’ emphasis used to be on clever visual puns and witty verbal exchanges, now they favour laboured slapstick and toilet humour.
Here’s an example of the kind of lacklustre writing that drags down Shrek The Third. In this scene Shrek and Artie (the nerdy heir to the throne) are finally bonding, and Artie is explaining what Shrek needs to be a better mentor:
Artie: With less yelling, and more soap.
Shrek: Thanks, Artie.
Artie: The soap is because you stink. Really bad.
Shrek: Yeah, I got that.
Compare that to the scene in the second film when Puss-in-Boots decides to switch sides:
Puss-in-Boots: Stop, ogre! I have misjudged you.
Shrek: Join the club. We got jackets!
Now that’s the kind of snappy line that a guy like Eddie Murphy can wrap his tongue around. There are dozens more of these in Shrek 2, but barely a handful in The Third. You can hear the talented voice cast straining to make the most out of the lines, but it’s mostly in vain.
The movie is also a little crowded, both literally and metaphorically. What with old favourites like Donkey and Puss, and new additions like Artie and Fiona’s gang of fairytale ladies-that-lunch, things feel a little rushed for a 92-minute-long movie. Throw in the two completely separate plot lines, and Shrek’s anxieties about child rearing and you have to wonder if anyone under 10 will be able to keep up.
Granted Shrek has never been a true kiddies franchise – the sardonic humour has always favoured teens and adults – but this one is just too adult in structure and content to really hold the tots’ attention. After a (well executed) dream sequence in which Shrek finds himself swamped by hundreds of ogre babies, the kids in the theatre I attended began yelling “Mommy, where have the babies gone?” When kids have to ask a question like that, you’ve lost them.
The movie has other charms though. It’s by far the prettiest Shrek we’ve ever seen, with gorgeous chiaroscuro lighting and fluid “camera” movements. The battle sequences are particularly fun to watch – full of visual tricks stolen from action films. But, you have to admit, if the visuals are the best thing about a Shrek film, then something is very wrong.
- Alistair Fairweather
