Just because it's not as good as the first two movies, doesn't mean it's bad.

Rating: 9/10 (27 May 2007)

This is the first review I write for IMDb, and the only reason I'm writing it, is to do justice to an excellent film, that has been severely underrated. Over the internet there are many negative reviews, and only a few positive ones.
Yes, Shrek the Third features multiple story lines, none of which are developed well. However, Shrek the Third, more than makes up for lack of development with humor.
Unlike the first two Shreks that had audiences laughing so hard they cried in certain places, this Shrek leaves the audience smiling from ear to ear. This, doesn't mean that the new Shrek doesn't have its funny moments, and it's "if the joke doesn't stop soon, I will die laughing" moments, because it does.
On the other hand, some of the humor feels oddly out of place. For some reason, the jokes just aren't as funny as they were in the first two movies. Also, like I mentioned earlier, the film features multiple story lines that a ninety-two minute film simply doesn't have time to develop. The first two films (which were also around ninety minutes long), stuck to one or two main story lines, whereas Shrek the Third attempts to introduce at least three major story lines that are clearly defined.
This is the first Shrek of the three that will leave a small feeling of dissatisfaction and shortness. All three films leave the viewer wanting more, but if the first two left this feeling out of pure quality, the third one leaves this feeling out of shortness and incompletion.
But don't get me wrong -- it's still a great movie. Yes, it's not as good as the first two, but as long as you're watching the movie with a lower expectation than the first two, you will more than get your money's worth from the movie. It's a worthy sequel. Go see for yourself.