It's no 'Shrek' and cannot measure up to 'Shrek 2', and is obviously just Dreamworks' attempt to cash in on the franchise and make more millions

Rating: 5/10 (19 July 2007)

That was the real reason why I felt that "Shrek the Third" turned out to be one of the biggest disappointments in my time. The only reason why it was made was because Dreamworks studio had already made a fortune on the first and second Shrek movies, which were, and still are, very effective comedy movies that suit everybody in the entire family, which they were made to be. "Shrek the Third" was a rushed production and apparently no effort was put behind the screenplay to develop the new story, new characters, and I'm very sorry and regretful to say, the old characters that we had fallen in love with. The only real effort in the film that I myself could pick out was in the animation. The visuals are just as colorful and spectacular as the animation done in the first two films of the franchise. But as I've always said, you cannot judge a movie because it looks real or if it looks fake. Visual effects are only part of what can make an animated film work out. Especially when you work with films as complex and wonderful as the first two Shreks.
"Shrek the Third" has a major flaw in its structure that really makes it suitable only to very few audience members. That reason is that is a film that is not sure exactly what it wants to be and who it wants to satisfy. I'm sure the producers wanted it to be just like the first two Shrek films: a movie that will make all audience members of all ages proud. They want this film that the whole family can laugh at and have just the little kiddies being accompanied for its crude sense of humor. Unfortunately, this is what happens with "Shrek the Third". It becomes a film that will only suit the young kids, VERY young kids. It tries to be funny and humorous like the first two films, but the only jokes that come out are simple little ones that might make you grin once or twice, but only the kiddies will laugh. I only picked out one part of the film that made me laugh as I had with the first two Shrek films. A very brief part involving the character of Pinocchio.
As I stated before, the screenplay does not develop the characters that we have come to know and love from "Shrek" and "Shrek 2". This being Shrek, Donkey, Puss in Boots, Fiona, etc. Shrek is perhaps the only of the characters who is brought before us in the film as he should be. I'm not saying his humor is as effective, but just his attitude. He is still rude, angry, lazy, and an ogre. But the others don't really step forward to become effective and lovable. They are just there in the background trying to catch the audience's attention. Really, they become unnecessary to the plot. They were only needed to attract people to the theater. But both Donkey and Puss-in-Boots have lost their fantastic, almost humanlike traits that made us such incredible fans of them in the past. Donkey is no longer full of mindless and frantic antics, Puss-in-Boots is no longer wild and full of his old tricks, and so on and so forth. And to be frank, Prince Charming is not an effective villain in this movie. In the second film, he was this very sleazy supporting bad guy and now he tries to be the main baddie. But he lost his sleaze and tries to be too serious. It's like Lord Farquaad's personality combined with the Fairy Godmother's. Results: doesn't work. The dragon from the first movie is brought back from the original film, as are the half-breed children from the second, but what point are they to the film: just background again.
And our course, as with most sequels, we get new supporting characters. How do they work out? Not at all. The character of Artie, I really say no point into being written into the storyline. What I was really expecting to see was that Artie was just some imaginary person to make Shrek go out and see his true responsibility for the kingdom. I was actually kind of hoping that was the case, for I was afraid that this Artie was going to turn out exactly as he did: pointless, harebrained (not funny), and just an in-the-background thing that could have been excised from the plot. Same thing goes with Merlin, who I was certain was going to turn up in the Shrek series at some point, being about the only magical being from fairy tales not into the franchise yet.
Once you watch "Shrek the Third" and get it all down in your head, you realize that the only reason why it's not a complete disaster is because of the voice acting talents of Mike Myers, Eddie Murphy, Antonio Banderas, and so on and so forth. I'm not saying their lines were funny, but they just kid of helped to boost the film up to being watchable. This film is mixed, confused about itself, and not what the studio really wanted the audience to take it as. They made it just to cash in on the franchise even more, but I'm sure they wanted the audiences to love it. This member of the audience didn't.