The entry takes a lot of gloss off the series as a whole; a turgid and rather uninspired entry frittering away most of what made the franchise what it was.

Rating: 5/10 (25 September 2011)

Directorial duo Chris Miller and Raman Hui are here essentially responsible for going some way in killing the Shrek franchise; their presence, away from the duo of Andrew Adamson and Vicky Jenson plus Ted Elliot in a screen writing capacity, is an ill-fated changing of the guard very much like the one threatening to unfold within the piece itself. Where 2001's Shrek and its 2004 sequel had a watchable charm, and were pleasant explorations of politics more broadly linked to what is defined as 'attractive' in the guise of the opposite gender, Shrek the Third is a loud; messy; unnecessary and really rather unpleasant edition. Where there was originality, there is now commodity; where there was a real sense of the first two being independent and nobody's fool, there is a depressing sense of conformity; where there was a subversive aspect about proceedings, there is a gnawing feel of pandering of an audience. Shrek and Shrek 2 felt at once grown up but with the ability to encompass childish things; "The Third" has this sense of just being annoyingly childish about grown up things.
Following the lengthy adventures of the titular ogre, he of the Scottish accented Michael Myers voiced green beast, things have reached the here and now; Shrek living with his wife Fiona (Diaz) in the kingdom of Far-Far Away after thwarting evil kings governing huge castles and extravagant kingdoms as well as that of grotesque incarnations of fairy tail materialism in the form of a kindly elderly lady selling everyone things they seemingly need to feel happy. In the third outing, many, no doubt the makers of the film as well, would like you to think that the lead is on the brink of facing his biggest challenge yet: the threat of living as a ruling king twinned with that of operating as a father.
The reality of such an 'honor' being bestowed upon Shrek begins to hit home when he takes on certain kingly duties when the existing ruler, John Cleese's King Harold and still in the capacity of an amphibian, is taken seriously ill - this leads to Shrek and Fiona falling afoul of the numerous tasks required in order to be the ruling bodies. Shrek, with things mounting up, begins to feel the heat and wants back to his swamp again. Respite arrives when he is summoned by the dying Harold who outlines that there is an opportunity for Shrek to pass on the mantle to another heir: that of a young nephew named Arthur located a fair while away.
Mission in mind, Shrek sets off with his faithful accomplice Donkey (Murphy) and Zorro-pastiche Puss in Boots (Banderas) to find him. Singer Justin Timberlake voices Arthur, a wimpy student at a place hybridising Middle-Ages England with that of 21st Century American high-school. Timberlake's casting, and general use of the school locale as a place rich in the sort of dialogue; caricatures and persona's in embodies, is a sad instance of the film preening to a specific demographic whom need something familiar in their lives to latch onto when they watch something – a far cry from the other Shrek films trying to push boundaries and not bothered if its content felt alienated or off-kilter. It's here the film begins to feed off a buddy-pic combination between that of Shrek and Arthur as they trek back to the kingdom so that Arthur may rule and Shrek can have done with it all; the character a fresh supporting act nudging the previously taut and often amusing presence of Puss and Donkey to the sidelines to wise-crack at each other and offer the audience slight, disappointing asides.
Shrek and Arthur are stark binary opposites to one another; they are, like any buddy combination, one another's foils and entrust one another to be each other's enemies for an extended period of time until a reality settles in. Little do either of them know at this point that they're far from it, but the pair of them do have a brooding responsibility of rather large proportions looming on the horizon, in terms of one having to rule as a king and the other to respectively deal with parenthood. There is a sub-plot involving the son of the villain from the last film, in that of Prince Charming (Everett), who's plotting revenge and rounding up all the nasties of Far-Far Away's kingdom to stage an overthrow of the monarchy so as to rule themselves, but it is largely uninteresting. Principally, its errors lies with how it utilises those supporting acts, such as Captain Hook and Snow White, from earlier in the franchise. Their charm always lay in the fact they were often off-screen or often remained in the background filling in for a visual gag or brief one-liner – here, they are brought to the forefront and are lent so much screen time that the appeal of their presence dissipates.
There are morsels of a character study with Arthur; his clear elation at the prospect of ruling a kingdom seeing him promise himself "princesses" and "castles" which are sure to await him in plentiful amounts when he gets there - his seeing the light of responsibility through what he experiences on the trek home, and then later when he sees the would-be power he's due to inherit being mal-used by that of Charming, is slight and uninvolved substance. The Shrek franchise used to be a satirical, original idea which sent up Disney stories and fairy tales; it was a 21st Century incarnation of Vladimir Propp's folk story jabbing, a subverting of what it was that often passed for high-end Fable-esque drama – the whole thing has mutated into that of a soap opera, a soap opera involving unexpected pregnancies and meek character arcs involving people realising what their 'duty' is. Frankly, we find it all rather dull, chaotic and uninteresting.