I'm a huge fan of the first Shrek and the second one also exceeded my expectations. Both of those movies had an meaningful and multidimensional plot. They also shared clever humor and for the most part unpredictable. I was extremely excited for the the third movie and I have to unfortunately say I was totally disappointed! The whole time I was waiting for it to start, like trying to convince myself, "ok, any second now it will pick up" - but it never did. The plot is so thin and unexciting - Prince Charming wants to takeover the throne while Shrek wants to get a young (King) Arthur to replace him as next in line to the throne. You never really feel any interest in what is happening or what will happen to the characters because you know exactly whats going to happen. Basically I spent the movie forcing myself to laugh because, hey, I was watching a Shrek movie. I know this review will not stop anyone who loved the previous movies from going to the third, but I just want to warn that its nothing to rush to or stand in line for.
432 Reviews
Disappointing . . . kept on waiting for it to "really start"
xxali311xx18 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Enjoyable, but pales in comparison to the first two movies.
TheLittleSongbird12 May 2009
I enjoyed Shrek the Third, but I found a lot of it very disappointing as well. The plot is very contrived, and has been done better many times before. The script, has a number of very bright spots, but is dull in comparison to two very good predecessors. It just goes to show how sequels are nearly always inferior to the original. In fact, the only sequels that surpass their original is Toy Story 2, Home Alone 2 and Garfield 2. There is a very funny scene with Donkey and Puss in Boots having a sort of body swap, and Donkey doing that priceless innocent eye look. But that is pretty much it, though girls may delight in Fiona and all the fairytale princesses having some sort of princess reunion. The animation is mostly well done, and the voice talents are very good indeed, especially Eddie Murphy and Antonio Banderas. However, the film, which showed a lot of promise, is undermined by a contrived storyline and an uneven script. All in all, enjoyable, but it could have been much better. 6.5/10 Bethany Cox.
As clever, but not as funny as the first two
mstomaso3 June 2007
Shrek The Third is another entertaining romp through the erstwhile Hollywood of Far Far Away with a few laughs for adults and a few more for kids. Like all of the films in this series, it has a big and good heart, and occasionally pays homage to or pokes fun at modern films. Unlike the previous films, however, Shrek III is not a source of non-stop hilarity, and contains a little more thematic content.
Shrek finds himself inheriting his father-in-law's crown and learns that Fiona is pregnant. Predictably, both of these eventualities play pretty dissonantly on the big green guy's insecurities, and he goes a-questing to locate the next-in-line of succession - a young, dejected, high school kid. Meanwhile, charming has developed even more of an attitude problem, and is putting together a whole battalion of people with grudges.
One of the themes of the first two Shrek films was 'don't judge a book by its cover'. Shrek III takes the theme a little farther and puts a different spin on it. The lesson learned here is "don't judge yourself superficially." And it works. My rating of six is based solely on the entertainment value of the film. This film is not quite as well-paced and well-directed as the previous two films, and Charming is simply not the heavy-weight heavy that his mom was. Nevertheless, it's still worth a look, and still carries positive messages entertainingly.
Shrek finds himself inheriting his father-in-law's crown and learns that Fiona is pregnant. Predictably, both of these eventualities play pretty dissonantly on the big green guy's insecurities, and he goes a-questing to locate the next-in-line of succession - a young, dejected, high school kid. Meanwhile, charming has developed even more of an attitude problem, and is putting together a whole battalion of people with grudges.
One of the themes of the first two Shrek films was 'don't judge a book by its cover'. Shrek III takes the theme a little farther and puts a different spin on it. The lesson learned here is "don't judge yourself superficially." And it works. My rating of six is based solely on the entertainment value of the film. This film is not quite as well-paced and well-directed as the previous two films, and Charming is simply not the heavy-weight heavy that his mom was. Nevertheless, it's still worth a look, and still carries positive messages entertainingly.
Not Enough to be at level of first 2!
3xHCCH19 May 2007
The movie did not really hold the attention of my two younger kids. Even for me, the funny experience of watching both Shrek 1 and 2 was not really very evident with this installment. I remember in Shrek 2, I was laughing out loud with each passing pop culture reference and innuendo being bantered around. However, that was not so here.
I was not too amused with the Disney princesses characters. Shrek's "baby nightmare scene" was well-executed. Justin Timberlake did well in voicing his "grovelling at Merlin's feet" scene. Overall, this movie was not that bad, but it needed to be much better to be worthy to stand on the same level as the first two Shrek films.
I was not too amused with the Disney princesses characters. Shrek's "baby nightmare scene" was well-executed. Justin Timberlake did well in voicing his "grovelling at Merlin's feet" scene. Overall, this movie was not that bad, but it needed to be much better to be worthy to stand on the same level as the first two Shrek films.
It was good, but it's lacking something
Smells_Like_Cheese18 May 2007
I couldn't wait to see Shrek the Third, especially since I have such a great love for the second Shrek, I'm just in love with Puss in Boots. But, the trailer looked great and the stories have worked so far, my mom and I saw the premier show today and while the movie has great laughs, there seemed to be something lacking in the Shrek world. I think the characters didn't seem to click as well as they did in the first two. Shrek the Third has the return of the whole cast, including the new heir to the thrown, Arthur.
Shrek and Fiona have a problem, Fiona's father, the frog King of Far Far Away, has passed away and now it's up to Shrek to take the crown. But Shrek is too scared to step up and looks to the next man in line, well, actually a teenage, Arthur. Shrek, Puss, and Donkey go to find Artie, but there is one more problem going on, Prince Charming wants his kingdom of Far Far Away back like it was promised to him and he will go through anything to get it back. Fionna and the other princesses are kidnapped while Shrek's life is in danger and they must all pull together to save him in time for Arthur to take over the kingdom.
Shrek the Third has great jokes, terrific animation, and lovable characters, especially the character, Merlin, he was just a terrific spoof. But the characters seemed to be lacking the same chemistry as they did in the first two films. I would recommend Shrek the Third, it's a good movie for the family and for a summer movie, because I do guarantee a fun time. I don't know if everyone will agree, but so far I know a few people know that there is something lacking from the world of Shrek.
7/10
Shrek and Fiona have a problem, Fiona's father, the frog King of Far Far Away, has passed away and now it's up to Shrek to take the crown. But Shrek is too scared to step up and looks to the next man in line, well, actually a teenage, Arthur. Shrek, Puss, and Donkey go to find Artie, but there is one more problem going on, Prince Charming wants his kingdom of Far Far Away back like it was promised to him and he will go through anything to get it back. Fionna and the other princesses are kidnapped while Shrek's life is in danger and they must all pull together to save him in time for Arthur to take over the kingdom.
Shrek the Third has great jokes, terrific animation, and lovable characters, especially the character, Merlin, he was just a terrific spoof. But the characters seemed to be lacking the same chemistry as they did in the first two films. I would recommend Shrek the Third, it's a good movie for the family and for a summer movie, because I do guarantee a fun time. I don't know if everyone will agree, but so far I know a few people know that there is something lacking from the world of Shrek.
7/10
It's Just Decent
moviewizguy25 May 2007
When his new father-in-law, King Harold falls ill, Shrek is looked at as the heir to the land of Far Far Away. Not one to give up his beloved swamp, Shrek recruits his friends Donkey and Puss in Boots to install the rebellious Artie as the new king. Princess Fiona, however, rallies a band of royal girlfriends to fend off a coup d'etat by the jilted Prince Charming.
I have to admit, I really wasn't as hyped to see this film than Shrek 2. The trailer was okay, the plot sounds less interesting, and many critics didn't like this film. Yeah, this film is full of energetic characters and some visually dazzling scenes, but it's not as funny, entertaining, or as great as the last two films.
If you've seen the trailer, that's probably all the good jokes that they got in the film. I expected to laugh as much as I did at Shrek 2, since this film is more for the adults than the kids to enjoy. It's a sad fact that more of the jokes comes from secondary characters than the main ones. The action scenes were good, not great, but the story just doesn't interest me.
And the Shrek and Fiona spark isn't as much there as it were in the previous two films. Now here's the good: I liked the secondary characters. They are all funny. This is the most visual Shrek film, having colorful scenes pop out.
This film seems to rely more on the slapstick humor to cover up the weak plot, seemed to not be filled with originality. I didn't mind that. There are some pretty good jokes and some good action scenes. Don't watch this film expecting a great film like the first two, although I wanted this to be a worthy sequel.
I have to admit, I really wasn't as hyped to see this film than Shrek 2. The trailer was okay, the plot sounds less interesting, and many critics didn't like this film. Yeah, this film is full of energetic characters and some visually dazzling scenes, but it's not as funny, entertaining, or as great as the last two films.
If you've seen the trailer, that's probably all the good jokes that they got in the film. I expected to laugh as much as I did at Shrek 2, since this film is more for the adults than the kids to enjoy. It's a sad fact that more of the jokes comes from secondary characters than the main ones. The action scenes were good, not great, but the story just doesn't interest me.
And the Shrek and Fiona spark isn't as much there as it were in the previous two films. Now here's the good: I liked the secondary characters. They are all funny. This is the most visual Shrek film, having colorful scenes pop out.
This film seems to rely more on the slapstick humor to cover up the weak plot, seemed to not be filled with originality. I didn't mind that. There are some pretty good jokes and some good action scenes. Don't watch this film expecting a great film like the first two, although I wanted this to be a worthy sequel.
I actually thought this movie was funny... Is that bad?
poseyfan21 April 2022
This movie gets a lot of hate. It definitely pales in comparison next to the other 3 though.
The message of the movie isnt very frofound and it was stuffed with tons of characters. Also Prince Charming was an uninspired villain. We already saw him in Shrek 2 a bunch.
However, i didn't dislike this movie. I thought it was pretty funny at parts. Especially the nightmare part. Overall, it's not as bad as people say.
The message of the movie isnt very frofound and it was stuffed with tons of characters. Also Prince Charming was an uninspired villain. We already saw him in Shrek 2 a bunch.
However, i didn't dislike this movie. I thought it was pretty funny at parts. Especially the nightmare part. Overall, it's not as bad as people say.
A Shrek Too far
Eschete29 May 2007
A movie too many, a laugh too few. This installment of Shrek is so unlike the first two in terms of energy and humor that its almost like one of those cheesy made-for-TV or straight-to-video versions that the studios make just to cash in on the popularity of a title.
The movie slogs through a story about Shrek and Fiona having to replace the deceased frog king unless they can find another heir. Shrek's time at the "high school" is so tortured that you can almost smell the coffee the writers had to brew to get through the brainstorming sessions.
Not good, I'm sorry to say. The first two were so clever that this ends up seeming...well...crappy by comparison.
Part of success is knowing when to stop.
The movie slogs through a story about Shrek and Fiona having to replace the deceased frog king unless they can find another heir. Shrek's time at the "high school" is so tortured that you can almost smell the coffee the writers had to brew to get through the brainstorming sessions.
Not good, I'm sorry to say. The first two were so clever that this ends up seeming...well...crappy by comparison.
Part of success is knowing when to stop.
Shrek 3, a pleasant surprise after all the hideous hype.
Denden66729 October 2007
I have just been pleasantly surprised by Shrek 3. Trying to ignore all the hype around it, I tried to watch it (on DVD) as the second sequel to one of my favourite films, nothing more. Although it comes nowhere near the quality of the first film, it does try to recreate its pleasant pacing and isn't overstuffed with easy film/commercial/real life-reference jokes (I'm looking at you, Shrek 2). And if one pops up, than it got more laughs out of me than Far Far Away ever did in Shrek 2. The Medieval high School was just hilarious, especially the mix-up between today's teen slang and Middle English. As an English student, it really appealed to me.
I really liked the dialogue between the characters like in Shrek 1, it's something I kind of missed in Shrek 2, where the characters just jumped from one crazy situation to the next with a few one-liners her and there. What I did miss, was the bickering between Puss and Donkey. Both characters do in fact get way too little screen time, and that's a big mistake since both characters were the highlights of Shrek 2. Somewhere near the end they do get in a situation that brings back some of the comedy gold of Shrek 2, but it's too little and too late.
All the old characters get to do something funny, but in the end they are all just great to see as old friends you know from the past. It's nice to see Donkey, Puss and Shrek get along so well with each other, but there's nothing more they can do to fill another film. We know the characters, and they have all found a place in the world they live in. I have gotten all I wanted out of the overall storyline, I'm happy with the way things are for the characters now, and I don't mind that the third journey had to replace the "insert joke every few seconds"-mentality of Shrek 2 with a bit more storytelling. There were still plenty of big laughs left, I can tell you.
Ultimately, Shrek 2 was funnier, but I think I like Shrek 3 better. I felt that this adventure was more meaningful for all the characters, and I know that this is the part where a lot of critics thought it wasn't necessary. But if you ask me, Shrek 3 was unnecessary. But since they really had to make a Shrek 3, I think they did well to make the adventure a bit more meaningful and make it really count in the end. It's only too bad that the message is the same of the previous two films, we get it already.
The only thing I really didn't like was one of the major characters they used to tell us again that you must accept yourself and others as they are. Artie was a really un-Shrek character. His speeches were dull and Justin Timberlake does nothing to make the character more likable. Of course, he has little to work with. I liked Justin timberlake's part better as a poster in Shrek 2 with the text "Sir Justin". It was funnier than anything Artie said or did in Shrek 3. Let Shrek, Donkey or Puss do the talking, dude.
As far as I'm concerned, Shrek 3 was an unnecessary sequel that still worked for me with some good humour and the characters being as charming as ever. The story was more meaningful for the main characters. The end of this adventure, even though repeating the message of the previous films, provided me with satisfying closure on the story of the happy Shrek family. Too bad that another unnecessary sequel is coming, undoubtedly with even more hype and more dull characters like Artie. Sadly, the Shrek franchise seems to be the most inspired thing coming from Dreamworks Animations.
I really liked the dialogue between the characters like in Shrek 1, it's something I kind of missed in Shrek 2, where the characters just jumped from one crazy situation to the next with a few one-liners her and there. What I did miss, was the bickering between Puss and Donkey. Both characters do in fact get way too little screen time, and that's a big mistake since both characters were the highlights of Shrek 2. Somewhere near the end they do get in a situation that brings back some of the comedy gold of Shrek 2, but it's too little and too late.
All the old characters get to do something funny, but in the end they are all just great to see as old friends you know from the past. It's nice to see Donkey, Puss and Shrek get along so well with each other, but there's nothing more they can do to fill another film. We know the characters, and they have all found a place in the world they live in. I have gotten all I wanted out of the overall storyline, I'm happy with the way things are for the characters now, and I don't mind that the third journey had to replace the "insert joke every few seconds"-mentality of Shrek 2 with a bit more storytelling. There were still plenty of big laughs left, I can tell you.
Ultimately, Shrek 2 was funnier, but I think I like Shrek 3 better. I felt that this adventure was more meaningful for all the characters, and I know that this is the part where a lot of critics thought it wasn't necessary. But if you ask me, Shrek 3 was unnecessary. But since they really had to make a Shrek 3, I think they did well to make the adventure a bit more meaningful and make it really count in the end. It's only too bad that the message is the same of the previous two films, we get it already.
The only thing I really didn't like was one of the major characters they used to tell us again that you must accept yourself and others as they are. Artie was a really un-Shrek character. His speeches were dull and Justin Timberlake does nothing to make the character more likable. Of course, he has little to work with. I liked Justin timberlake's part better as a poster in Shrek 2 with the text "Sir Justin". It was funnier than anything Artie said or did in Shrek 3. Let Shrek, Donkey or Puss do the talking, dude.
As far as I'm concerned, Shrek 3 was an unnecessary sequel that still worked for me with some good humour and the characters being as charming as ever. The story was more meaningful for the main characters. The end of this adventure, even though repeating the message of the previous films, provided me with satisfying closure on the story of the happy Shrek family. Too bad that another unnecessary sequel is coming, undoubtedly with even more hype and more dull characters like Artie. Sadly, the Shrek franchise seems to be the most inspired thing coming from Dreamworks Animations.
Too many characters to love--and that's a bad thing. And the spark is gone.
mollymormonbrat20 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I have been bouncing around for weeks in anticipation of this movie. As a huge fan of the first two movies, I was sure this one would not disappoint. But, oh, how wrong I was! While not as bad as many a film out there, this installment is yet a sad shadow of its series.
And it tries, it really did try. To its credit, there were several very clever scenes. The typical Snow White's gift with animals takes an awesome turn, and I can guarantee that you will never laugh harder at a death scene than the one of this movie. The animation? Top-notch.
I just guess effort doesn't always beat out sheer inspiration. A film with a few moments does not win against a good, simple movie.
The desire to produce a film merely ended up as a plot device to get Shrek and Fiona back to their beloved swamp. A long, boring plot device. With the passing of King Harold, Shrek and Fiona are heirs to the throne of Far, Far Away. Unfortunately, that does not interest them, so Shrek goes on a journey to bring back the next guy, a young Arthur "Artie" Pendragon. Heck, why not? Everyone loves a good Camelot infusion, and Artie is as flawed and as likable as you could want. Unfortunately, he is only one character in a cheesy madhouse of minor characters and cameos. In the effort to get everyone their screen time, that whole plot gets lost in the background.
Which normally wouldn't be a problem. After all, the original movie did not have the most complex of plots. What it had was a few incredible characters. The second movie added a few more, but still kept it delightfully manageable. This time, it seemed that the powers that be assumed we already knew everything about Shrek, Donkey, Puss, and the rest of the bunch that we really didn't need to see them. Hey, let's bring in one more characters for the audience, but refuse to give them time to get to know them! Poor, pathetic lack of character development.
So back to the plot. The few times that came around, it was pretty much a tacky, forced attempt to create some pseudo father/son relationship between Shrek and Artie. Good intentions, but no cigar. Maybe if we had more time... But we don't, so let's just wrap it up with a few corny lines about understanding and rising to the occasion. Yeah, we got that the first time around, and without any of the verbal commentary.
On top of that, this film misses that inexplicable spark of the first two installments. I'm sorry, but I just didn't feel it. Just as a lukewarm attempt of continuing the series and aiming at a five-year old audience.
Sorry. Not my favorite of the series by any means, leaving me to wonder how a sequel to films of such genius as "Shrek" and "Shrek 2" could make something so average?
And it tries, it really did try. To its credit, there were several very clever scenes. The typical Snow White's gift with animals takes an awesome turn, and I can guarantee that you will never laugh harder at a death scene than the one of this movie. The animation? Top-notch.
I just guess effort doesn't always beat out sheer inspiration. A film with a few moments does not win against a good, simple movie.
The desire to produce a film merely ended up as a plot device to get Shrek and Fiona back to their beloved swamp. A long, boring plot device. With the passing of King Harold, Shrek and Fiona are heirs to the throne of Far, Far Away. Unfortunately, that does not interest them, so Shrek goes on a journey to bring back the next guy, a young Arthur "Artie" Pendragon. Heck, why not? Everyone loves a good Camelot infusion, and Artie is as flawed and as likable as you could want. Unfortunately, he is only one character in a cheesy madhouse of minor characters and cameos. In the effort to get everyone their screen time, that whole plot gets lost in the background.
Which normally wouldn't be a problem. After all, the original movie did not have the most complex of plots. What it had was a few incredible characters. The second movie added a few more, but still kept it delightfully manageable. This time, it seemed that the powers that be assumed we already knew everything about Shrek, Donkey, Puss, and the rest of the bunch that we really didn't need to see them. Hey, let's bring in one more characters for the audience, but refuse to give them time to get to know them! Poor, pathetic lack of character development.
So back to the plot. The few times that came around, it was pretty much a tacky, forced attempt to create some pseudo father/son relationship between Shrek and Artie. Good intentions, but no cigar. Maybe if we had more time... But we don't, so let's just wrap it up with a few corny lines about understanding and rising to the occasion. Yeah, we got that the first time around, and without any of the verbal commentary.
On top of that, this film misses that inexplicable spark of the first two installments. I'm sorry, but I just didn't feel it. Just as a lukewarm attempt of continuing the series and aiming at a five-year old audience.
Sorry. Not my favorite of the series by any means, leaving me to wonder how a sequel to films of such genius as "Shrek" and "Shrek 2" could make something so average?
Pretty Good Third Film
Rainey-Dawn23 October 2014
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
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
What A Disappointment
AfterBuzz18 May 2007
So, I just caught the 10 pm show of Shrek 3 and I gotta say, as a fan of the first two I was not impressed. In fact, I was very disappointed. It literally was the same movie the third time, and instead of infusing it with tons of fun and pop culture references like the second Shrek did, it just relied on its plot and genre convention to further it. There was ONE funny moment. The Led Zeppelin reference was good and was funny, but as a whole, the movie was a phoned in experience. Again, what a disappointment. At least most of the stuff shown in the trailer was in the first fifteen minutes or so and you get fresh stuff from there on out. The sad thing is that this fresh stuff feels dull and rehashed even though you've never seen it before.
Terrible effort all the way around.
Terrible effort all the way around.
Great, but not amazing
Bored_Dragon13 May 2018
"Shrek the Third" was made in the same manner as the first two, as a combination of parodies to various fairy tales with references to pop culture. But even though it's a top-quality cartoon, it's not at the level of its predecessors. Animation and music are excellent, but there's less humor and it's less funny. While I was crying of laughter during first two movies, this time I sincerely laughed just a few times. Although, to be honest, I'm not sure if this is due to a weaker scenario or it's simply saturation, because sequels that stick to the recipe of the first film inevitably lack originality and the surprise factor. Movie is great, but it does not bring anything new.
7,5/10
7,5/10
Skip it
onepotato29 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Shrek 3 trusts it's audience so little and has squandered so much good will in it's effort to milk cash from viewers, that it places it's characters on screen and nervously has them do stupid, "funny" things to reignite your interest and get the movie rolling. For fifteen minutes it barely considers plot, because maybe you don't like plot. So how about another pratfall?
When a funeral is held and the song "Live and Let Die" is mined for unavailable laughs, you begin to understand just how bad this is going to be. The creators talked themselves into a dumb pop culture reference without any understanding of the damned song. The song is about revenge: The scene is about revenge about as much as Star Wars is about French Structuralism... so what the hell is it doing here? Hey guys, consider reading a book some time; then when you propose a joke you can know when what you have isn't funny. It's called "having depth." Instead of admiring a writer's cleverness, a viewer sits in the theater envisioning the limp team meeting where that idea was born, accompanied by desperate, wrong-headed titters from weak minds.
Mike Myers should move on and find yet another movie to shoehorn his tiresome Scottish accent into.
For the record the humans in this series have always creeped me out.
When a funeral is held and the song "Live and Let Die" is mined for unavailable laughs, you begin to understand just how bad this is going to be. The creators talked themselves into a dumb pop culture reference without any understanding of the damned song. The song is about revenge: The scene is about revenge about as much as Star Wars is about French Structuralism... so what the hell is it doing here? Hey guys, consider reading a book some time; then when you propose a joke you can know when what you have isn't funny. It's called "having depth." Instead of admiring a writer's cleverness, a viewer sits in the theater envisioning the limp team meeting where that idea was born, accompanied by desperate, wrong-headed titters from weak minds.
Mike Myers should move on and find yet another movie to shoehorn his tiresome Scottish accent into.
For the record the humans in this series have always creeped me out.
Ogre and out...?
Lejink22 August 2008
It took me a while to catch up with the third edition of the money-spinning "Shrek" franchise and I was vaguely aware of a less than positive critical, if not popular response, to it but was pleasantly surprised with the product on show. Okay, it's pick-your-cliché from "the law of diminishing returns", "familiarity breeding contempt" and "too much of a good thing", but hey, I still like these characters and whilst I now would doubt whether the characters and situations can be developed any further at least on the big-screen, it's certainly been one of the better trilogies of recent years. The graphics and animations are as before so good as to make you think you're wearing 3D spex and the story, while contrived (I'm not quite sure how Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table actually qualify as classic children's fairy-tale or cartoon favourites) shares the laughs around before winding up at the by now familiar happy-ending finish with a romp-out to a classic track from yesteryear, this time Sly Stone's funk-tastic "Thank you...". Best moments are the Gingerbread Man's life flashing before him in a (threatened) pre-death moment and the four Disney princesses (plus one ugly step-sister!) giving it some attitude as they find liberation (even burning a bra symbolically, in the process). Best line, as usual, goes to Eddie Murphy's Donkey "I'm being attacked by an ogre - with issues!". There aren't as many outright belly-laughs as in the peerless first "Shrek", you feel that Shrek and Fiona are more bit-players in their own movie (I can't believe I'm humanising animated characters!) and occasionally you're made to wait for the next really good joke (Eric Idle's Merlin and Justin Timberlake's Arthur don't exactly leap off the page/screen either), so yes, this outing of the not-so-jolly green giant, may not be as good as its predecessors but that's down to the lack of surprise at revisiting these stock characters and, heck, they were mighty good predecessors!
Another few additions!
Majikat768 June 2018
Undeserving of such censure...
funkykitten_712 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
OK so it's not as laugh-aloud as the previous two, but that's because the Shrek franchise has grown up. There are some silly moments just to get laughs (and yes, they do bring up the word "poop" more than enough times just to get kids laughing) but I still enjoyed this movie - and I'm 23.
I think that adults will possibly enjoy this more than the kids - some of the gags are more subtle, or too adult for littler children to understand. For example the horn "bleeping" out certain words, or Artie's fake temper tantrum (funny for adults, kids won't get the joke as it's probably something they do themselves).
That in NO way makes this a bad, boring or tired movie. I just think you have to watch this film expecting something different that appeals to a more adult point of view. Unfortunately if you go into this expecting in-your-face, obvious, don't-have-to-think-about-it laughs like the kids will, you are probably going to be disappointed. But DO give this film a go - you will be pleasantly surprised.
I think that adults will possibly enjoy this more than the kids - some of the gags are more subtle, or too adult for littler children to understand. For example the horn "bleeping" out certain words, or Artie's fake temper tantrum (funny for adults, kids won't get the joke as it's probably something they do themselves).
That in NO way makes this a bad, boring or tired movie. I just think you have to watch this film expecting something different that appeals to a more adult point of view. Unfortunately if you go into this expecting in-your-face, obvious, don't-have-to-think-about-it laughs like the kids will, you are probably going to be disappointed. But DO give this film a go - you will be pleasantly surprised.
A very good sequel
Mightyzebra2 December 2007
As far as sequels go, this is very good. As far as Shrek films go, this is also very good. Like all the others, this one is entertaining, funny and exciting. Despite the plot being slightly unoriginal, this film's plot is very well-planned and fast-paced.
Compared to the second one, the old characters in this "Shrek" film are exceedingly good. Shrek is often a lovely happy old ogre and a lot nicer and more gentle than in any of the other films. Donkey is still an amusing donkey - luckily not too annoying! Princess Fiona (always an ogre) in this film has a strong, quite eager and often relaxed personality, which very much suits her. Unfortunately, Puss in Boots doesn't have the chance to do nearly as well as he did the second film, but still has the same good personality (possibly a little more Spanish!).
The new characters are very well done. The wizard (voiced by Eric Idle) is an incredibly amusing character with a funnily worried personality. Artie is a nice guy, although when provoked can produce quite a temper. Overall he is a good character.
While King Harold (now a frog) is ill, Shrek is taking responsiblities of running the kingdom and feels he is DEFINITELY not cut out to be a king. Just before the poor frog comes to his place in heaven, he tells Shrek that besides him, the only heir is a wee boy called Arthur. Is he cut out to be king..?
Enjoy "Shrek the Third"! :-)
7 and a half out of ten.
Compared to the second one, the old characters in this "Shrek" film are exceedingly good. Shrek is often a lovely happy old ogre and a lot nicer and more gentle than in any of the other films. Donkey is still an amusing donkey - luckily not too annoying! Princess Fiona (always an ogre) in this film has a strong, quite eager and often relaxed personality, which very much suits her. Unfortunately, Puss in Boots doesn't have the chance to do nearly as well as he did the second film, but still has the same good personality (possibly a little more Spanish!).
The new characters are very well done. The wizard (voiced by Eric Idle) is an incredibly amusing character with a funnily worried personality. Artie is a nice guy, although when provoked can produce quite a temper. Overall he is a good character.
While King Harold (now a frog) is ill, Shrek is taking responsiblities of running the kingdom and feels he is DEFINITELY not cut out to be a king. Just before the poor frog comes to his place in heaven, he tells Shrek that besides him, the only heir is a wee boy called Arthur. Is he cut out to be king..?
Enjoy "Shrek the Third"! :-)
7 and a half out of ten.
This ogre is starting to lose his charms
Jay_Exiomo16 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
The phenomenal success of the Shrek franchise - particularly "Shrek 2" - has prompted Dreamworks Animation to yet again squeeze out a story of an erstwhile happily ended tale and return to the screen once again with "Shrek the Third", which brings back most of the original cast, and then some, for another round of jabs at fairy tales and pop culture.
The Kingdom of Far Far Away is faced with another dilemma: King Harold (John Cleese) has just died and next in line to the throne is Shrek (Mike Myers), who doesn't want to have anything to do with ruling a kingdom. So he goes to search for Artie (Justin Timberlake), Fiona's cousin and the third in line to the throne, in Worcestershire (no kidding), a medieval high school where all students seem to have jumped out of a Hollywood teen flick. Meanwhile, Fiona is pregnant with Shrek as a reluctant father; and Prince Charming teams up with villains from various fairy tales in an effort to take over the kingdom.
While, yes, it's considerably better than "Happily N'Ever After", it's hard to define the movie as anything more than a disappointing mediocrity. It had the chance to be just as good as its predecessor, yet except for a few jokes, it doesn't generate consistent amusement or cleverness when it comes to delivering the laughs. Even with new characters that include Snow White (Amy Poehler), Cinderella (Amy Sedaris), Sleeping Beauty (Cheri Oteri), and Rapunzel (Maya Rudolph) voiced by Saturday Night Live comedians, the film seems to have lost all sense of wit and humor that has made its first two predecessors a fun experience.
As for the material itself, the narrative doesn't seem to have any real motivation or progression. It's merely stretching a premise into an hour-and-a-half end product that merely panders to the filmmakers' whims of extending a lucrative franchise that may be starting to run on fumes. It was easy to ride with these characters in the first film because the animated genre is incredibly trampled with clichés. But a joke can only be said so much before it starts to wear out. Here, directors Chris Miller and Raman Hui fail to give the characters any quality that would evoke sympathy, considering that the story falls flat and perfunctory.
"Shrek the Third" might still appeal to younger audiences, but that's about it as far as recommendations go. Save for sporadic chuckles, the audience I watched it with were quiet throughout the film. It feels hastily assembled and thrown together slapdash, without any attention to what made the first two work, and Dreamworks should get a clue that the ogre is starting to overstay his welcome.
The Kingdom of Far Far Away is faced with another dilemma: King Harold (John Cleese) has just died and next in line to the throne is Shrek (Mike Myers), who doesn't want to have anything to do with ruling a kingdom. So he goes to search for Artie (Justin Timberlake), Fiona's cousin and the third in line to the throne, in Worcestershire (no kidding), a medieval high school where all students seem to have jumped out of a Hollywood teen flick. Meanwhile, Fiona is pregnant with Shrek as a reluctant father; and Prince Charming teams up with villains from various fairy tales in an effort to take over the kingdom.
While, yes, it's considerably better than "Happily N'Ever After", it's hard to define the movie as anything more than a disappointing mediocrity. It had the chance to be just as good as its predecessor, yet except for a few jokes, it doesn't generate consistent amusement or cleverness when it comes to delivering the laughs. Even with new characters that include Snow White (Amy Poehler), Cinderella (Amy Sedaris), Sleeping Beauty (Cheri Oteri), and Rapunzel (Maya Rudolph) voiced by Saturday Night Live comedians, the film seems to have lost all sense of wit and humor that has made its first two predecessors a fun experience.
As for the material itself, the narrative doesn't seem to have any real motivation or progression. It's merely stretching a premise into an hour-and-a-half end product that merely panders to the filmmakers' whims of extending a lucrative franchise that may be starting to run on fumes. It was easy to ride with these characters in the first film because the animated genre is incredibly trampled with clichés. But a joke can only be said so much before it starts to wear out. Here, directors Chris Miller and Raman Hui fail to give the characters any quality that would evoke sympathy, considering that the story falls flat and perfunctory.
"Shrek the Third" might still appeal to younger audiences, but that's about it as far as recommendations go. Save for sporadic chuckles, the audience I watched it with were quiet throughout the film. It feels hastily assembled and thrown together slapdash, without any attention to what made the first two work, and Dreamworks should get a clue that the ogre is starting to overstay his welcome.
3rd Times a Charm - or is it?
Neenee-b8 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
A few years ago we got Shrek - the anti fairy tale hero and a movie that made fun of the fairy tales and concepts that Disney has spewed out over the years and as a result we got a fresh, fun and quirky children's film which had some great adult humour too. A sequel followed and who didn't fall in love with Puss in Boots? 2007 is the year of the trilogy and after the letdown of SM3 and POTC3 it is now Shreks turn to attempt an adequate 3rd helping.
Did it succeed? - I just don't know. Not exactly a committed statement from someone who is attempting to review the movie, but I cant figure out if it was good or as good as its predecessors.
The cast were all back and the voices all great as usual - no real qualms there.
The plot - The King dies (in a very funny scene!) and leaves Shrek the new King unless he can persuade a young Arthur, a relative of the Kings to take the throne. Whilst Shrek is off on his quest to persuade Artie to become the new King of Far Far Away Charming enlists the help of the villains and losers of fairytale lore and invades the Kingdom determined that they, for a change, should be the ones to have a happy ending - and to put the icing on the cake - Fiona is pregnant! As usual Pinocchio, Gingy, The Three Pigs and the Wolf are all back to help and are as amusing as they have ever been.
There are some very amusing scenes with Snow White, Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty, who in all honesty were much much funnier than Donkey and Puss. More screen time with them would've been greatly appreciated. I hated Snow White when I was a kid but after seeing her turn all bad ass and sing the Immigrant Song I have changed my opinion.
Artie also had some fun scenes - the overacting scene was very funny!! It was actually Prince Charming who stole the whole show with his very evil, yet also very camp plan to kill Shrek during a play he and the other villains were performing. It was all a bit odd but still amusing non the less.
I felt that Donkey and Puss were a little underused and that the inevitable body swapping storey arc was thrown in at the last minute. It wasn't that funny, or to be honest necessary.
I thought that there were less fart and poop jokes than usual but they were saved until the end of the movie for Shrek and Donkeys kids and lets not forget Shreks "poop speech" This brought a huge wave of silence as those types of jokes stopped being funny a long time ago - and I went to a Sunday afternoon matinée! I did laugh at parts though and there were some genuinely funny and clever scenes don't get me wrong but it just felt that something was missing.
As usual the soundtrack was fun with some good songs on there - not overly convinced by Fergies version of Barracuda but that's a minor issue.
Overall I would give it 7/10. It loses a point automatically for being a sequel (personal rule), losses another for the under use of Fiona, Puss and Donkey and a final point for the very unfunny body swapping idea.
Kids will love it of course, but the magic and spark that attracted adults attention in the first one has definitely gone. It will make millions at the box office and even more in toy and game sales but lets have Shrek end on a reasonable high. It wasn't as much of a let down as some the threequels we have had this year but the franchise has all but run out of steam. Lets just have the Puss in Boots spin off to create some freshness to a very good franchise .
Did it succeed? - I just don't know. Not exactly a committed statement from someone who is attempting to review the movie, but I cant figure out if it was good or as good as its predecessors.
The cast were all back and the voices all great as usual - no real qualms there.
The plot - The King dies (in a very funny scene!) and leaves Shrek the new King unless he can persuade a young Arthur, a relative of the Kings to take the throne. Whilst Shrek is off on his quest to persuade Artie to become the new King of Far Far Away Charming enlists the help of the villains and losers of fairytale lore and invades the Kingdom determined that they, for a change, should be the ones to have a happy ending - and to put the icing on the cake - Fiona is pregnant! As usual Pinocchio, Gingy, The Three Pigs and the Wolf are all back to help and are as amusing as they have ever been.
There are some very amusing scenes with Snow White, Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty, who in all honesty were much much funnier than Donkey and Puss. More screen time with them would've been greatly appreciated. I hated Snow White when I was a kid but after seeing her turn all bad ass and sing the Immigrant Song I have changed my opinion.
Artie also had some fun scenes - the overacting scene was very funny!! It was actually Prince Charming who stole the whole show with his very evil, yet also very camp plan to kill Shrek during a play he and the other villains were performing. It was all a bit odd but still amusing non the less.
I felt that Donkey and Puss were a little underused and that the inevitable body swapping storey arc was thrown in at the last minute. It wasn't that funny, or to be honest necessary.
I thought that there were less fart and poop jokes than usual but they were saved until the end of the movie for Shrek and Donkeys kids and lets not forget Shreks "poop speech" This brought a huge wave of silence as those types of jokes stopped being funny a long time ago - and I went to a Sunday afternoon matinée! I did laugh at parts though and there were some genuinely funny and clever scenes don't get me wrong but it just felt that something was missing.
As usual the soundtrack was fun with some good songs on there - not overly convinced by Fergies version of Barracuda but that's a minor issue.
Overall I would give it 7/10. It loses a point automatically for being a sequel (personal rule), losses another for the under use of Fiona, Puss and Donkey and a final point for the very unfunny body swapping idea.
Kids will love it of course, but the magic and spark that attracted adults attention in the first one has definitely gone. It will make millions at the box office and even more in toy and game sales but lets have Shrek end on a reasonable high. It wasn't as much of a let down as some the threequels we have had this year but the franchise has all but run out of steam. Lets just have the Puss in Boots spin off to create some freshness to a very good franchise .
Shrek dreck
Buddy-5120 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
It would be safe to say that the third time is definitely NOT the charm when it comes to the "Shrek" series, since "Shrek the Third" lacks virtually all the imaginativeness, wit and magic that made the previous two installments such tremendous fun for young and old viewers alike. In this latest go-round, the writers have clearly run out of comical inspiration, leaving us with a humorless farrago of labored jokes and sappy life-lessons (mainly about the joys of prospective fatherhood and the importance of being willing to take a chance in life) guaranteed to please no target audience or age group whatsoever.
In this edition, Shrek's father-in-law, the frog king of the realm of Far Far Away, bequeaths his crown to Shrek on his deathbed unless the reluctant ogre can find a distant heir (the young Arthur) to take his place. Shrek, filled with doubts about his own ability to rule the kingdom, heads off with his faithful companions, Donkey and Puss In Boots, to find the boy and bring him back with them to the castle where he will assume his rightful place on the throne. Meanwhile, the vain, conniving Prince Charming has decided to enlist the aid of all the villains of the kingdom to mount a coup so that he can proclaim himself ruler of the land.
As I reckon them, there are about five hearty laughs in "Shrek the Third," and at least four of them come in the opening scene of the film (a very funny parody of third-rate dinner theater). Unfortunately, it's all pretty much downhill from there, as one ostensibly comic line after another crashes and burns, leaving us with little but the gorgeous backdrops and seamless animation to hold our attention. Regarding the latter point, it must be stated that movie animators have certainly come a long way in perfecting the facial expressions of their characters, but what is the point of such a technological advancement if it is placed in the service of as dismal a script as Andrew Adams, Howard Gould, Jeffrey Price, Peter S. Seaman, J. David Stern, David N. Weiss, and Jon Zack have concocted here? Somehow, you know you're in trouble when no fewer than seven writers have a hand in a screenplay, but couldn't at least one of them have come up with a funny joke or two while they were hammering it all out? Moreover, the story itself is dull and plodding and even the "Shrek" trademark of piling on clever pop culture references falls flat in this instance (and having Medieval teenagers blabbing away in already-dated Valley Girl lingo just doesn't cut it).
Eddie Murphy and Antonio Banderas still provide yeoman service as the voices of Donkey and Puss In Boots, respectively, but even they can't keep the whole enterprise from feeling as if blockbuster rigor mortis has finally set in. Unlike the two earlier films in the series, "Shrek the Third" feels less the product of a magic spell than of a divine curse.
In this edition, Shrek's father-in-law, the frog king of the realm of Far Far Away, bequeaths his crown to Shrek on his deathbed unless the reluctant ogre can find a distant heir (the young Arthur) to take his place. Shrek, filled with doubts about his own ability to rule the kingdom, heads off with his faithful companions, Donkey and Puss In Boots, to find the boy and bring him back with them to the castle where he will assume his rightful place on the throne. Meanwhile, the vain, conniving Prince Charming has decided to enlist the aid of all the villains of the kingdom to mount a coup so that he can proclaim himself ruler of the land.
As I reckon them, there are about five hearty laughs in "Shrek the Third," and at least four of them come in the opening scene of the film (a very funny parody of third-rate dinner theater). Unfortunately, it's all pretty much downhill from there, as one ostensibly comic line after another crashes and burns, leaving us with little but the gorgeous backdrops and seamless animation to hold our attention. Regarding the latter point, it must be stated that movie animators have certainly come a long way in perfecting the facial expressions of their characters, but what is the point of such a technological advancement if it is placed in the service of as dismal a script as Andrew Adams, Howard Gould, Jeffrey Price, Peter S. Seaman, J. David Stern, David N. Weiss, and Jon Zack have concocted here? Somehow, you know you're in trouble when no fewer than seven writers have a hand in a screenplay, but couldn't at least one of them have come up with a funny joke or two while they were hammering it all out? Moreover, the story itself is dull and plodding and even the "Shrek" trademark of piling on clever pop culture references falls flat in this instance (and having Medieval teenagers blabbing away in already-dated Valley Girl lingo just doesn't cut it).
Eddie Murphy and Antonio Banderas still provide yeoman service as the voices of Donkey and Puss In Boots, respectively, but even they can't keep the whole enterprise from feeling as if blockbuster rigor mortis has finally set in. Unlike the two earlier films in the series, "Shrek the Third" feels less the product of a magic spell than of a divine curse.
The Third chapter of Shrek
ja_kitty_714 July 2010
Here we come to the next chapter of Shrek. I went to see "The Third" with my dad, and we loved it; it was the first time my dad ever went to a theatre.
Where we left off in the second film, Shrek and Fiona were taking on the temporary duties of king and queen, and each was a disaster. And it gets worse when Shrek's "frogger-in-law" passes away. Feeling not up to the job of ruling Far, Far Away, he, Donkey, and Puss set sail to find the true heir to the throne-Fiona's cousin Arthur Pendragon. Meanwhile, Prince Charming joins forces with every fairy-tale villain to attack the kingdom, leaving the now-pregnant Fiona and the other princesses to form an underground resistance movement. And that is all I could tell you; see the film for yourself.
So, I love this film from beginning to end, and it goes very well with the first two Shrek films.
Where we left off in the second film, Shrek and Fiona were taking on the temporary duties of king and queen, and each was a disaster. And it gets worse when Shrek's "frogger-in-law" passes away. Feeling not up to the job of ruling Far, Far Away, he, Donkey, and Puss set sail to find the true heir to the throne-Fiona's cousin Arthur Pendragon. Meanwhile, Prince Charming joins forces with every fairy-tale villain to attack the kingdom, leaving the now-pregnant Fiona and the other princesses to form an underground resistance movement. And that is all I could tell you; see the film for yourself.
So, I love this film from beginning to end, and it goes very well with the first two Shrek films.
As good as it gets, for the third in a series.
JWJanneck20 May 2007
There is good things and bad things about this movie, but I'd say that to its credit the main problem with it was unavoidable---it's the third in a series, and the main idea has been used twice already, is familiar to everyone, and the freshness of it is gone. For some franchises, the pain starts already in the second (Men in Black comes to mind, or Analyze That), when really nothing is added to an original (and initially surprising) premise, and it is merely milked for what it's worth, with usually sad results.
I don't think that was the case with Shrek 2, and neither is it with The Third---the writers still find enough interesting and original ideas to weave into the story, they use the old characters to good effect and add interesting new characters to provide some novelty. The dialog is up to the (high) standards of its two predecessors, and the animation is stunning.
All in all, even though it won't set new standards for animated features like the original Shrek might have, Shrek the Third is an entertaining movie that delivers what it promises---a good time with the titular hero and his friends (and family), nothing more, but also nothing less.
I don't think that was the case with Shrek 2, and neither is it with The Third---the writers still find enough interesting and original ideas to weave into the story, they use the old characters to good effect and add interesting new characters to provide some novelty. The dialog is up to the (high) standards of its two predecessors, and the animation is stunning.
All in all, even though it won't set new standards for animated features like the original Shrek might have, Shrek the Third is an entertaining movie that delivers what it promises---a good time with the titular hero and his friends (and family), nothing more, but also nothing less.
The third installment of the Shrek series.
ltlacey28 April 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Of any sequel to any movie I have ever seen, Shrek the Third has to be the worst I have ever had the displeasure of sitting through. When a movie is this bad I usually will stop watching it, but I thought that maybe it would go somewhere. Well, it did. Reference the movie title, Flushed Away. This is what anyone who was connected to this farce should have insisted on happening. The storyline is plausible. The King is dying and must name an heir. At first Shrek is asked to become the new King, but the little experience Shrek has had with being royal has not worked out. The scene where he and Fiona are all decked out in royal attire is painful. Not just to the characters, even though they were just drawn, in wearing such uncomfortable clothing, but to the viewer who must endure this torture as well. So off our hero and his side-kicks must go and get the next in line, a wallflower-type geek, Arthur. Oh yea, before they are out of earshot Shrek learns that he will soon be a dad. I have read that some people say that it's because of Justin Timberlake that this movie was ruined, but like everyone else, all he supplied was a voice. A monotonous, squeaky one, but a voice just the same. In fact, it seemed from what I could tell just by listening to everyone's voices, that no one seemed to be really into their characters at all. Jokes and scenes that worked well for the 1st 2 movies did not work for the 3rd movie, and in fact, besides being stale, no longer had any appeal. That there is a 4th, and possibly a 5th Shrek, is scary. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Shrek the Third is Second
alphac200520 May 2007
The second Shrek film to me was one of the most formulated, only made to make money sequels I've ever seen. The original film was terrific, but number two screamed "lets fill the pockets of Dreamworks SKG." Number three was obviously made with one purpose in mind; making money, however, the film is a pleasant surprise.
The negative reviews of Shrek the Third have been abound, from the papers to IMDb. I personally enjoyed the film and found the animation to be stunning. The layers on the human faces were superb and the animation was throughly fluid.
The film has a lot of subtle jokes and innuendo for adults. If you're like me and couldn't stand the second movie, you might throughly enjoy Shrek the Third.
The negative reviews of Shrek the Third have been abound, from the papers to IMDb. I personally enjoyed the film and found the animation to be stunning. The layers on the human faces were superb and the animation was throughly fluid.
The film has a lot of subtle jokes and innuendo for adults. If you're like me and couldn't stand the second movie, you might throughly enjoy Shrek the Third.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
