Shrek the Third (2007) July 21, 2007
Posted by gproject in : Cinema, Recently Viewed , trackbackDirected by: Chris Miller
It takes two movies to ensure a franchise is working: one to establish the characters and build popularity, and another to prove that the first was not just a fluke. Conversely, it also takes two movies to kill a franchise, since the momentum built up by earlier successes will result in huge audience figures for any subsequent ‘three-quel’, regardless of its quality. It then requires a further outing for people to be able to learn from their mistake - but rarely does it get this far.
Shrek The Third provides an excellent example of this, continuing the wildly successful franchise by simply leaning on its past achievements and providing diminishing returns for those still excited to see anything Shrek-related. The plot this time around features Shrek, Donkey and Puss in Boots having to go on an adventure to bring back Prince Arthur from a medieval high school, so that he can take over from the recently deceased King Harold, lest Shrek take the throne himself. Meanwhile, with the ogre absent, Prince Charming returns to Far Far Away with a crew of classic villains, where he takes Princess Fiona prisoner and begins his own rule of the land.
Now, I’ve never been a huge fan of Shrek, so while I can admit that the first movie was inventive in its nature; twisting famous fairytale stories and characters, I find even the second film a little bit of a stretch. It did its job though and introduced decent new characters to the fold while playing on similar themes to the original. This time around, much of the fairytale-emphasis has been lost, maybe because the writers have hit the limit on what they can really do with that material, or maybe because it has subsequently been done to death following the success of the original Shrek. They have dropped the number of unnecessarily pop-culture references though, which is a wise move given how they quickly they age.
The story for this third instalment feels overly simple and even verges on obvious (especially the pregnancy thread), which gives the whole film a sense of pointlessness, as if admitting to the fact that people will come to see anything with the green ogre, that donkey, and the little cat in it. The script still throws jokes in by the bucket-load, but there’s way more duds than hits, with some gags not getting enough attention, 
while others more than outstay their welcome. When it’s not trying to be funny, it’s trying to be meaningful, but even that doesn’t play well with a botched effort at doing the father-son relationship thing between Shrek and Arthur, followed by a last-minute “we should all learn to get along” speech that carries almost no weight.
Concentrating on more positive areas, the voice acting is perfectly fine, with everyone returning to their previous roles clearly comfortable enough just to get on with it, while newcomers Justin Timberlake and Eric Idle do good things with under-developed characters. Precedence is clearly given to the ‘funny’ characters though, so it is Myers, Murphy and Banderas (who by popularity of character has leapfrogged many earlier counterparts), who get 90-per-cent of the jokes, with everyone else scrapping over the rest of the comedic material.
Also, the animation is gorgeously presented, especially on Shrek himself. I was very impressed by the bobbles on his cloth undershirt – this is the kind of ‘reality’ that is often lost on CG animation, and results in it looking too clean or lacking in detail. Whether the fact that I noticed this tiny element is a good or a bad thing is probably up for debate, but at least it gave me something to do while the simplistic plot line was plodding along.
Given the general reaction, this should be the beginning of the end for DreamWorks Animation’s star project – yet another franchise driven into the ground by lack of quality control in the sequels. I say ‘should’, of course, because this will not be the last we see of these characters. Dreamworks have already put plans in place for Shrek 4 and 5, as well as the often-awkward spin-off movie – specifically for Puss In Boots. Is this franchise on its deathbed though? Will people avoid subsequent sequels now? I fear not, since what Shrek The Third offers us is a harmless 92-minutes for children, and that’s something that will always be called for in the summer holidays. Whoever takes on the task of making the next film desperately needs to put the magic back in though, if they want to win over critics and parents too.
Comments»
Real shame - I’ve read a number of similar opinions to your own on the internet and, while I’m a fan of the first two films, it seems like they’ve dropped the ball here? There is only so much you can do with this material, as good as it was - certain kinds of films warrant sequels; perhaps those with long, ongoing and possibly complex or in-depth characters/storylines (?), e.g. Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, etc. I don’t know, maybe that’s something open to debate, but if there’s nothing to really add to a mythos then a sequel is unwarranted in my opinion, other than to accrue wealth. Then again, if an unwarranted sequel to a popular film keeps a studio in production/business then maybe that’s a good thing? Either way, unfortunate as it is, I’ll probably give Shrek 3 a miss.
Maybe you’re right - if a struggling studio releases a sequel to a popular film in order to stay alive then it could be argued to have some worth. The problem is, this is never where it ends. As long as the previous film made a profit, the franchise is likely to continue - I’m sure that Shrek the Third will have done very well at the box office, hence the decision to produce two more, regardless of the reviews.
As for what kind of films warrant sequels, I’m not as sure that having complex storylines and characters is the key. I think it’s more about having something that you can keep producing in a way that is different each time. Look at James Bond, it’s hardly complex in terms of characters, but they can keep putting him in very different situations, doing very different things. Shrek will never have this freedom.
No, you’re right - the ‘complex’ thing was only a suggestion of something that could warrant an extended series (hence my insertion of the word ‘possibly’ - contrary ideas such as Bond were coming into mind as I wrote that). It is a point open to debate and I’m sure that any rule you or I could come up with to indicate the worth of making sequels would instigate someone somewhere to come up with a contradiction. I suppose as long as a sequel adds something to an original and at least attempts to maintain the quality then it may be worth bothering with. Then again, I suppose Bond again would pose a problem there… oh well…