Shrek The Third

Of all the cheap movie ploys, and there are many, one of the ones I hate the most is a redeemable villain. Call me old fashioned, or just plain hateful, but if someone is going to cause so much crap that a movie has to be made about setting it straight, that person can’t just turn over a new leaf in the end and all of the sudden be a good guy. They don’t call it the classic struggle between good and confused good that does wrong but eventually comes around.
“Shrek the Third” doesn’t just have one redeemable villain, it has dozens; imagine my intense displeasure during the final fifteen minutes. I will make an exception to my rule, and that is that a redeemable villain is acceptable as long as they die.
Can you imagine Darth Vader renouncing the dark side and then joining up with Luke, Leia for years of fun family times? No, it just doesn’t work that way. Unfortunately Shrek hasn’t even got the spine to kill the main villain.
It wasn’t such an issue in the first Shrek, which remains to be the best of the three. As I recall Lord Farquaad was eaten by the dragon in the end. Nowadays the studio execs are too afraid to let their movie have a bite. That’s the root of the problem with this latest “Shrek” installment; it’s been castrated.
Gone are the barbed jokes at Disney’s expense, and gone are the innuendos that floated so innocently over kids’ heads but kept the adults entertained. The soundtracks for the first two movies were awesome, this one is barely memorable. The whole affair is sappy, working way too hard for a worn out message that it doesn’t even deliver all that convincingly.
The first “Shrek” was a rather simple story. He was an ogre whose swamp was infested, so he went to the king and in order to get what he wanted he had to go rescue a girl. He and the girl fell in love and they got to live happily ever after, or anyway for the next three years until the sequel was out.
“Shrek 2” surprised most people because it didn’t have to bank on the success of its predecessor. It had a plot, this time about the family related repercussions of the first film’s events, clever scripting, and extensive pop culture references. It wound up becoming the highest grossing comedy and animated feature domestically and worldwide, and DreamWorks was quick to announce plans for a third and fourth installment.
I, for one, was glad to hear of “Shreks” 3 and 4 because I figured if they could do it right the second time, they could probably pull it off again. I was wrong, well sort of anyway. It’s not that they couldn’t have made number three good; it’s just that they didn’t. They got lazy, and decided that the same old shtick would suffice.
The story is all about Shrek’s midlife crisis. Fiona’s pregnant and the king is dead so Shrek might have to take the throne unless he can bring back the only other heir, Arthur Pendragon. Arthur doesn’t want to be king, an attitude they try to explain with some conversation about an absent father. I thought Disney had the monopoly on that family situation, but apparently even if Shrek’s not going to mock the house of mouse they have no qualms about copying its most used story element.
While Shrek’s off bringing back the boy king, Prince Charming decides that he will take the kingdom by force with the help of every fairy tale villain who was denied a happy ending. Witches, and monsters, and captain hook all join his cause and lead an attack on Far Far Away which results in Fiona and all the fairy tale princesses being locked away until they decide that they want to break out. Why they wait so long is a mystery to me, I’m thinking it was supposed to be funny when the Queen head butts her way through a stone wall, it’s just that no one was laughing.
There is, of course, a showdown once Shrek finally returns and just as all hope is almost lost, in comes teen Arthur with a message about being who you want to be, and all of the sudden the villains are all content to be good.
That’s it, that’s the whole movie, and I wish I could say that the shallow plot was livened up by lots of hilarious little jokes, but really there are only a few laughs to be had and they’re nothing compared to the first two movies. The first and second “Shrek” were the kinds of movies you could watch over and over again, in the same day if you had nothing better to do, and they kept on entertaining. “Shrek the Third” was barely passable entertainment the first time around. As for repeated viewings, don’t make me laugh.

C