A funny movie that is lacking something monstrously important to be a true "Shrek" film

Rating: 3/10 (18 May 2007)

I got out of classes this fine Friday for some special school occasion, so the entire middle school went over to the movie theater to see Shrek The Third at a discovered matinée showtime at the local theater. A week ago, when the faculty first announced we'd be seeing this instead of Spider-Man 3, I was pretty excited. I mean, come on, it's Shrek--you really can't go wrong with the charming, funny, brainy-as-hell movies coming out of Dreamworks, with voice talent by Eddie Murphey, Mike Myers, and Cameron Diaz...right? Wrong. Let's start by examining what Shrek The Third DIDN'T have. The first "Shrek" was loved by me--and pretty much every other Shrek fan who is mature enough to understand its witty humour, special heartwarming touch, and its meant-for-adults-that-goes-way-over-little-kids'-heads type content. The filmmakers of the first Shrek really had some awesome material up their sleeves--stuff that truly made a fantastic movie, and if I do say so myself, one of the best animated films ever to be pumped out of LA.
The second Shrek, "Shrek 2," was a slight decline in entertainment. It was still funny, and still had half a tank of movie magic gasoline--not a full tank like the first Shrek possessed, but half--good enough to make a decent and enjoyable film, but not nearly enough to quite match up to the original.
And now, sure enough, as every successful movie must have, a second sequel. "Shrek The Third" is a complete and utter mess. Remember those special little tricks the filmmakers had up their sleeves for the first Shrek, and even some for the second Shrek? Well, they're all GONE--not missing, no, they're completely GONE. What made the first two movies enjoyable for me had completely been used up, proving to us moviegoers and critics that sequels to big blockbusters are gigantic wastes of money.
Sure, it was FUNNY. It was really funny, I laughed a lot. But where was the brain behind the comedy? Where was the backbone, the spine, the rock where instead of St. Peter builds the Church, where the filmmaker is supposed to base the movie on, where was that? It wasn't there--it was like the filmmakers pretended it was there, when it really wasn't, and just ignored that fact and continued to make the movie with no worries. A "ghost comedy" I like to call it. Now I know what you're asking yourself--how could I enjoy a "ghost comedy" like "Anchorman," but not this? Well, this leaves me into my next point.
The direction of the movie was an embarrassingly bad joke. It was like the director was sitting back smoking bongs and drinking Guinness while the sound editors filled in for him. The story didn't flow like the first two, it wasn't interesting, and after a while, I just got bored with the whole thing and started thinking about other, more important aspects of my life. The storyline felt like the film caterer used a knife to chop up it into little bits of segments and then mixed them around, making the movie almost as pointless as "Larry The Cable Guy: Health Inspector." A stupid comedy that is directed well can be a VERY FUNNY AND ENJOYABLE FILM. But when it's not? The essence of the film drains away to leave just empty-hearted and hollow laughs that don't mean anything.
AND THE ENDING! OH GOD, THE ENDING! What were they thinking?! I was pretty much asleep! They tried to make it funny and give the audience the warm fuzzy feeling they felt in the first two movies, and they failed miserably! It was almost like they tried to justify the crappiness of the rest of the movie with a satisfying finale, and ended up doing the opposite and making the rest of the movie even crappier than it was. Which is truly saying something.
Overall, "Shrek The Third" got me out of class, and that really was the only good part about seeing it. A huge, and unfortunate, disappointment. Save your money and rent the first two. I hope there's no "Shrek The Fourth."