PDA

View Full Version : Shrek 3



JasonEvans
05-17-2007, 08:54 AM
Saw it last night.

I went in wondering how they would keep it fresh and original after the first two. The answerr is-- they couldn't.

This was a decent animated film with a few amusing moments, but it really pales in comparison to the first two. My sons (7 & 10) thought it was ok but did not leave it with much enthusiasm. I have not asked them but I doubt they would even consider watching it again and they generally want to see good kids movies twice.

The plot never takes off and has zero inventive turns. The bad guy is again Prince Charming, like in Shrek 2, and he's hardly imposing. His "plan" is confusing and never makes sense. The finale is just strange and I did not get the point of it. The resolution involves talking and coming to grips with what kind of person you want to be-- yawn. The sub-plot about Shrek and Fiona being pregnant is also handled poorly.

The weak story would be ok if the humor was a good as it has been in the other films, but the jokes are really few and far between here. The Shrek character has gotten waaaay too serious and is very rarely funny. Donkey and Puss in Boots do ok and provide the most comic relief, but many of the jokes about their characters have been played out over time. There are a couple new characters introduced, including some classic fairytale princesses and Artie (a young King Arthur) but none of them are all that interesting.

I expected the film to do something to tip a hat to Artie being voiced by Justin Timberlake, but Artie never dances or sings (many other characters sing-- usually very badly). In fact, the musical choices in the movie are just strange. Rather than re-voice and freshen up classic rock songs as they have done in the past (I'm a Believer by Smashmouth and Eddie Murphy for example), they just play the same versions we have been hearing for years. So, at one point, we actually get Paul McCartney singing Live and Let Die. It was out of place and awkward.

Make no mistake, the movie will make money -- I still expect it to earn more than $200 million -- but I cannot see it coming close to the $440 million that Shrek 2 made and I think it will struggle to get to the $260+ that the first Shrek earned (in 2001, which would be more than $300 million when adjusted for ticket inflation).

--Jason "I'm probably being too hard on it-- but I found it to be very mediocre" Evans

JasonEvans
05-17-2007, 12:06 PM
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/shrek_the_third/

Rotten Tomatoes on it so far-- 55% favorable, which surprised me a bit. But, then I read some of the positive reviews and they are pretty lackluster in their support.

For example, this review from Todd McCarthy of Variety is considered a "positive" review: While still mirthful and eccentric enough to amuse his hordes of admirers, the irascible green ogre begins to show signs of encroaching middle age in "Shrek the Third."

-Jason "I really need to revise my summer boxoffice predictions-- I am thinking Shrek will be #5 if it even reaches the top 5" Evans

tecumseh
05-17-2007, 12:52 PM
Third time is usually not a charm with movies, Godfather III, Return of the Jedi, but I did like LOTR all three. For movie fans here is inane review of the first LOTR. http://tvplex.go.com/buenavista/ebertandroeper/011224.html

How did Roeper ever get to sit in Gene Siskels chair!!!!!!!!!

JasonEvans
05-18-2007, 04:39 PM
Bump-- want to see what others thought about this movie. I figure a fair number of you will see it tonight.

-Jason "more I think about it, more I dislike it-- but I think it'll do $100million+ this opening weekend" Evans

camion
05-19-2007, 06:57 AM
I saw the Third last night and agree with most of what was posted earlier. I found it to be a pleasant diversion, but not up to the standards set in the first two. In Shrek we discovered the whole fairy tale world slightly bent. In II we discover Far Far Away and particularly Puss in Boots. III was just more of the same with nothing new that really grabbed my interest.

Udaman
05-20-2007, 01:19 PM
So I saw it yesterday...

On the one hand, I'm glad there were negative reviews, because they lowered my expectations to the point that I actually enjoyed it more than I think I would have otherwise.

On the other hand - it's a shame that I would need lower expectations to not think it was bad.

Overall, it was...OK. Kind of like Jason said - brief moments of funny things, but mainly just kind of "there." Overall I would give it a "Matinee" rating. (My personal scale is "Full Price", "Matinee", "Wait for DVD" and "See in on Network TV"). This one was boderline Matinee and Wait for DVD. Spidey would be the same (only because the special effects are worth seeing on the big screen).

Will Pirates finally be the first "great" movie of the summer?

feldspar
05-21-2007, 08:57 AM
Ditto on the matinee rating. It was okay. Still better than most animated movies nowadays, though.

Dukerati
05-21-2007, 10:01 AM
Bump-- want to see what others thought about this movie. I figure a fair number of you will see it tonight.

-Jason "more I think about it, more I dislike it-- but I think it'll do $100million+ this opening weekend" Evans

I read an article a couple days ago that asserted that although Shrek isn't as good as its previous installments, it's still expecting to go very big and possibly challenge Spidey because it runs for only 92 minutes which is more palpable to the viewing public and can be shown more frequently. Any thoughts on that Jason?

JasonEvans
05-21-2007, 10:39 AM
I read an article a couple days ago that asserted that although Shrek isn't as good as its previous installments, it's still expecting to go very big and possibly challenge Spidey because it runs for only 92 minutes which is more palpable to the viewing public and can be shown more frequently. Any thoughts on that Jason?

That is a huge factor. Basically, theaters can get an showing or maybe even 2 extras of Shrek each day as compared to Spidey (:45 minutes longer) and Pirates (1 hour longer than Shrek). It is a major factor. One reason Holylwood was so stunned at the boxoffice of the LOTR films was that they were very long (3 hours plus) so they had to play to packed houses all the time to make the kind of huge boxoffice they made. Shorter movies have an advantage-- no question about it.

I will admit that the $120 million figure surprised me. I expected a bit less. It may hold up ok, better than Spidey, the first week. I still think it is a mediocre movie with a lousy story and that it will not have the legs to get past $300 million.

I'll let you all know what I thought on Pirates after I see it Wednesday night. I am hearing pretty good buzz right now.

-Jason "Its been a lousy year for movies so far" Evans

Reisen
06-03-2007, 06:56 PM
Saw it today, and liked it. Not a masterpiece, by any means, but better than 99% of what's out there. I would put it pretty much on par with the rest of the series, which I find better than pretty much everything not put out by Pixar, which is hard to beat.

johnb
06-04-2007, 11:18 AM
Saw Shrek 1 a few years ago with my nieces. Very funny. They had already seen it and wanted to watch it daily during my visit. I missed Shrek 2, but they loved it. We saw Shrek 3 last week, and it was reasonably entertaining, but my nieces felt bored and don't want to watch it a 2nd time.

Clipsfan
06-04-2007, 07:35 PM
I don't know what this says about the American public, but Shrek 3 looks like it will probably break $300 million. It's still got strong legs ($28 mil this past weekend, a rather typical 47% drop off) and has already brought in $256 million. I haven't seen it yet, and probably won't anytime soon, though.