Sunday, May 20, 2007

Review of SHREK THE THIRD

Shrek the Third made me so drowsy with boredom that I had to take a long nap when I got home. And it still dulls my mind to think about it.

This movie is so lousy that I'm not even going to waste the time to give it a full review, like I usually do whenever writing about a movie here. I don't want to spend another moment of my life meditating upon it. But, I feel like there's a moral obligation to warn you, Constant Reader, about it... so for sake of that alone I'm going to give you my bare minimum thoughts about it.

The first third of the movie isn't pretty bad. There were some rather funny bits to it, even. But it's not long into Shrek's search for Arthur that this movie becomes tedious and lame and completely inert of the wit that made Shrek and Shrek 2 so good. Whatever magic made the first two movies work, is not here.

Something that I couldn't help noticing: the theater was packed with young children. Shrek the Third was too boring for them too. Whereas the first two Shrek movies I saw kids glued to their seats, this time most of them were fidgeting and antsy and obviously not interested. Rarely did they laugh. The grown-ups certainly didn't laugh much.

I am discerning a pattern here: a movie becomes a huge blockbuster, which demands a sequel. And the producers of the original still have some creative juice to tap into. At that point the motive is all about building on what was established in the first. Then the sequel makes even more money. And then it's no longer about the spirit of the film. The producers make the transition from artists to artisans... and mass-media artisans at that. That's why with rare exception, the third movie in a film series usually sucks to no end: because there's no more interest in making it about the movie.

I remember about two years ago hearing that DreamWorks had plans to make a third and fourth installment to the Shrek series. They should stop now. I know that Shrek the Third will undoubtedly make at least $200 million at the box office, but even so: it should be unconscionable to press forward with another entry.

I really don't like having to say this about Shrek the Third. The first two movies were so wonderful, especially the first (there's a really funny story about when we saw that one in the theater that I might share here if anyone asks for it). I was hoping for so much more with this third movie. But I hate to say this: I was more disappointed with Shrek the Third than I was with X-Men: The Last Stand last year. And that's saying something.

That's all I'm going to say about Shrek the Third. I didn't like it one bit. It definitely won't get any space on my DVD shelf. I never want to see it again. At least not until we have children of our own and they beg to watch it and then I'll have to sit through it with them.

They'll probably hate it too.

2 comments:

qemuel said...

Worse than X3...wowzers. I had no intention of seeing this one, but if I had, you would have just kicked it out of me.

As for the Joker: Heath Ledger said in an interview that the only comic he has been allowed to read is THE KILLING JOKE. This pleases me, so I'm willing to give this one a chance.

Jenna St.Hilaire said...

I think that the only time a movie-with-a-sequel ought to be given a third is when the whole idea started out as a trilogy in the first place, although allowance can be made for the comic-book sagas, I suppose. It annoys me to no end that anything good gets milked bone-dry instead of being allowed to bow out, with dignity, after an honorable showing. It's why I don't plan on even trying to 'make it' in any normal way in the music industry.

Ah well. Sorry something that should have been enjoyable turned out so badly. Also sorry I haven't been around to comment for a couple of weeks. I've kept up reading, at least :-)