Shrek the Third (2007)

good movie

I love animated movies, I like this one, but not as much as I liked the first and the second movies from Shrek. October 3, 2008

Shrek the third

Shrek the third: This movie on its own is very good but I prefer the first 2 Shrek movies. September 17, 2008

Stick with the first

Nothing like the first Shrek. Boring and lame made fall sleep while I was watching. I'm someone who laughs in all movies, but Shrek third was incapable of steal a laugh from me. If you don't want to get disappointed, stick with the first, because neither the second or the third is worth your time. September 10, 2008

Relatively pathetic

Well, one star might be harsh, but I feel it's appropriate given the comparison to its 2 predecessors. Both Shrek and Shrek 2 were outstanding movies, and I had similar expectations for this one. But wow, what a dropoff. It felt like someone kidnapped the original writers and brought in some bad amateurs. This movie is a cheap ripoff of the first 2, with rehashed jokes and gags and a pathetically weak story. My kids didn't think it was so bad, but I felt taken advantage of when it was over. Not worth buying and not worth renting, either. September 3, 2008

The spark is gone

I loved the first two films. I was hoping this would be great as well.

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? August 31, 2008

More reviews at Amazon.com ...