Shrek the Third (2007)

SHREK THE THIRD

Ah, summer 2007. Full of mind-numbing, pointless action scenes where millions shove popcorn and ding-dongs down while silently praying for a better escape. As loads of dollars pour into the studio's pocket, we the audience, are left with cinema which is, of course... lackluster at best. Summer 2007 is also the "year of the trilogies." The second of the trilogies, Shrek the Third, unfortunately falls into the pit of popcorn flicks-- fun, somewhat engaging, and ultimately without a backbone. Before I begin, note that I enjoyed Shrek and its sequel very much. The pop references, solid animation and voice acting, and the overall story was actually rather good. Alas, the third installment relies too much on its predecessors' originality... thus falling into one of the inevitable traps of the sequel. Like Grindhouse, I am diverting from my original point scale (combining and dividing some).

Technical Ventures (Direction, Production, Editing, Special Effects, etc.): The animation is of course, top notch. The seamless drawings and the flow of the film are in itself the overall drawing power of the film. Yet, is that saying something? I'm more than certain that the reader/viewer can name at least a dozen films which do the same. As such, no need to extrapolate. The editing is also good, which in turn, makes me happy. Very good, but not great. I found a cheap Joker reference which made me happy. Score: 43.

The Script/Story: Shrek the Third is a bad version of organized chaos. The story has an overall direction, yet it has no center... no compelling backbone to thread the story together. The new characters are fodder, and overall, utterly useless (save perhaps the inclusion of King Arthur). I highly respect the fact that more females were included. Yet, there is no real cause for them. Half of the characters with speaking lines could have been eliminated. The dialogue? If you can look past the many cliches, it's not that bad. There is also much of the beloved adult humor to keep the adults entertained. Now, if you're 12 years old or younger... this is an instant and unforgettable classic. Unfortunately, most of the readers won't be as such. Score: 10.

Music: Inappropriate and forced. Even the choices of music (which on the surface may seem tame and well-woven) are in reality, like the script, a bad version of organized chaos. In short, distracting. Score: 4.5.

Primary Cast: Myers, Diaz, Murphy, and Banderas again return to man the film and draw power. Unfortunately, Myers's character (Shrek) is getting old. The green ogre is no longer cute. Diaz (Fiona) seemed like something from before the age of feminism-- psychologically oppressed by stereotypes. Murphy (Donkey) is good. Banderas (Puss and Boots) was horribly underutilitzed. Score: 6.

Supporting Cast: John Cleese's (the King) role is short. Justin Timberlake (King Arthur) is somewhat of a surprise, but forged into a weakened story. Julie Andrews (the Queen) is Julie Andrews--classy and excellent. The rest of the cast, as stated before, are fodder. Score: 2.

Yet, this film is for kids. I laughed a bit, but not enough to get me past the story. Excellent visuals. I'm also taking into account the lack of originality of Hollywood in general. Thank God for Christopher Nolan. Rating: 7. Grade: C.