Shrek the Third
Watching the third film in the wildly popular “Shrek” series, it occured to me that the animation wasn’t in the business of blowing me away; Heck, in most animated films nowadays the animation is almost an afterthought. That is to say that it’s so good, and it knows it, that it doesn’t feel the need to dazzle, just be good. Not that there’s anything wrong with that; my main concern is for the story anyway, and whether the animation helps in telling the story or whether it distracts from it. In the case of this film, it doesn’t really do either; other than no doubt costing a fortune, you could do this story in live-action and not be out anything artistically. Have we been so unindated with CG-animation that, like hand-drawn in the late ’90s, it’s hit a point of complacency, where animators have come so far with their techniques that there’s no need in many of them to push the art further? I’ve noticed it in many animated films of late- I think it’s part of the reason I’ve missed films like “Open Season” and “Meet the Robinsons”; the other reason is because they just don’t interest me on a basic story level- and “Shrek the Third” fits the mold- quite a fall from the 2001 Oscar-winning classic that started the franchise and made Dreamworks Animation a studio to rival Pixar.
To be fair, from a story standpoint, this third film doesn’t drop the ball quite like 2004’s “Shrek 2” did (which just rehashed the original’s themes in a standard “Meet the Parents” setting), as Shrek (the oafishly lovable green ogre voiced with a Scottish burr by Mike Myers) and Fiona (Cameron Diaz, still enjoying the role, but taken out of the spotlight this time around) are the temporary king and queen while Fiona’s frog father (John Cleese) lies dying. It’s rough work, though the antics of Donkey (the irreplacable Eddie Murphy, now an iconic role for him) and frisky feline Puss in Boots (Antonio Banderas, still a master of comic timing and comic suave as the best thing about the second film) keep them sane. Well, saner, at least. It doesn’t last, and gets trickier when the king dies, but not before telling of another hier apparent to the throne- Arthur, whom he sent to a high school far, far away and is voiced with valley-boy blandness by ex-Diaz flame Justin Timberlake. And so Shrek (who’s told by Fiona as they’re leaving that she’s pregnant, furthering his anxiety and resulting in one of the film’s biggest- and most genuine- laughs), Donkey, and Puss take to the high seas in search of Arthur. For the women left behind (including Donkey’s wife Dragon and their broad; apparently some donkey-dragon crossbreading is going on that I just don’t want to think about), it couldn’t have come at a worse time, as a disgraced Prince Charming (Rupert Everett, whose vein performance is- as in the second film- a highlight) mounts an attack on the land of Far, Far Away with all of the fairy tale villains he can find, including Captain Hook and many others.
Like I said, the story’s a step up from the second film, which was just a rehash of the first film’s themes, whereas “Shrek the Third” found some room for a story about personal responsibility and impending fatherhood, themes that are new to the series. That’s not to say it’s a story well-told; too often does the movie seem to try and manipulate an emotional response from us in tried and true ways (a melancholy song or quick change of mood) that is counteractive from the original’s genuine charm and feeling. Gone is director Andrew Adamson- off making the second “Chronicles of Narnia” film, and his intelligent feel for the material is missed as co-directors Chris Miller and Raman Hui- working with an army of four screenwriters- go through the motions of telling the story, with predictable plot devices and easy jokes (some of which are very, very funny, but not enough are) while introducing new characters (like Eric Idle’s inspired Merlin) and finding room for old favorites (yup, Pinocchio and Gingerbread Man are back, and get some laughs) at the service of a story that’s just good enough to keep people in their seats. I suppose the curse of the third-film letdown could strike “Shrek” as it has so many- artistically, it already has- but come on, this is summer, this is a “Shrek” movie, and it’s got just enough of what its’ target audience wants to keep them coming back for more come, what, 2010? I’d be enjoying the franchise a lot more if it were offering anything new artistically (not complaining about the animation here; it’s spectacular without calling attention to itself **Coughs “Happy Feet”**- call it a quiet confidence); but at least their rivals at Pixar do sequels for the right reasons- they have a darn good story to tell (anyone else excited about “Toy Story 3” being written by “Little Miss Sunshine” Oscar winner Michael Arndt?). Dreamworks is just padding the bottom line on a blockbuster franchise. Personally, I miss the days when “Shrek”- both the character and the movie- was a buck to the art form that made it possible in the first place.
Disagree with my opinion? Fair enough. If you still would like to support the film, feel free to clink on the links below if you are interested in either the commercial music soundtrack or Harry Gregson-William’s score album.
