Shrek trzeci

An awful disappointment. Shrek the Third isn’t a downright bad movie, but it’s so awfully average that it is completely uninteresting. Andrew Anderson is sorely missing. The worst thing is that even this part had huge potential. The amount of jokes and humor that could be gleaned from the excellent idea of all of the baddies from fairytales ganging up on the goodies. The final idea with the theatre performance was just crying out for nods... But no. References here were scarce as hen’s teeth and the humor has totally disappeared. All we are left with is a couple of wannabe funny situation gags, but there is a bare minimum of these too. And it isn’t that the humor here didn’t work, but nobody even tries use any. The exception to this is the Gingerbread Man. He is responsible for the only two scenes that worked in the entire movie. They rely on the crowds being satisfied just with the good old characters we met before. So Shrek has sunk into the sea of average family animated movies that part one did so much to stand out from. Now it offers adults nothing better than the same old never-ending stream of colorful dross for the very youngest kids. (20.06.2007)

No fun. And if a family comedy isn’t fun, what’s it good for? The jokes are either lame or stolen from past episodes (kitty eyes). And what happened to the real Shrek? Just a poor caricature of past episodes is all that’s left. I’m all for character development, but not in the wrong direction. The only ones I was actually pleased with were the dronkeys. On the level, I don’t want a part 4. (14.10.2007)

So it's true... Things really started to go downhill with Shrek in the third film. And not only with Shrek, but with the whole of the fairy tale kingdom. I have to say that out of all the ideas the creators came up with this time, I really liked only two: the king's funeral and the cat's view of the donkey. Otherwise, all the humor disappeared, as did all the magical atmosphere, and I was disappointed by the stupid wizard Merlin, dubbed by Eric Idle, not to mention the kids and Arthur. That’s too bad. (18.09.2012)

You cannot enter the same river twice. But perhaps on the third attempt, you will successfully, albeit stumblingly, ford it. Andrew Adamson is gone, replaced by a team of screenwriters who believe in themselves to a noticeably lesser extent than their predecessors, but I consider both to be positives. Not that references to popular culture have completely disappeared, this flaw persists at the expense of storytelling, but the story, despite various clichés or variations of familiar plots, races forward at a surprisingly brisk pace. Donkey still teeters on the edge of humor and obnoxiousness, Puss in Boots is the ideal partner, Fiona a devoted wife, and Shrek somehow still comes along unwillingly. And to my surprise, I am entertained by all of it. 70% (31.01.2008)

A concentration of awkwardness and wretchedness meet in an intrusive farce that trumps, in its vileness, even Disney family shenanigans with children and animals. Children will probably laugh and clap at it, but the pop-culture-craving viewers will cry like never before. The beloved characters are the losers you pity for not having a script to read during the redaction process - they wouldn't do this again even for record financial offers. At the same time, I would like to know who embezzled the $160 million budget because it’s nowhere to be seen in the film. (11.10.2007)