Shrek der Dritte

A concentration of awkwardness and wretchedness meet in an intrusive farce that trumps, in its vileness, even Disney family shenanigans with children and animals. Children will probably laugh and clap at it, but the pop-culture-craving viewers will cry like never before. The beloved characters are the losers you pity for not having a script to read during the redaction process - they wouldn't do this again even for record financial offers. At the same time, I would like to know who embezzled the $160 million budget because it’s nowhere to be seen in the film. (11.10.2007)

An awful disappointment. Shrek the Third isn’t a downright bad movie, but it’s so awfully average that it is completely uninteresting. Andrew Anderson is sorely missing. The worst thing is that even this part had huge potential. The amount of jokes and humor that could be gleaned from the excellent idea of all of the baddies from fairytales ganging up on the goodies. The final idea with the theatre performance was just crying out for nods... But no. References here were scarce as hen’s teeth and the humor has totally disappeared. All we are left with is a couple of wannabe funny situation gags, but there is a bare minimum of these too. And it isn’t that the humor here didn’t work, but nobody even tries use any. The exception to this is the Gingerbread Man. He is responsible for the only two scenes that worked in the entire movie. They rely on the crowds being satisfied just with the good old characters we met before. So Shrek has sunk into the sea of average family animated movies that part one did so much to stand out from. Now it offers adults nothing better than the same old never-ending stream of colorful dross for the very youngest kids. (20.06.2007)

You cannot enter the same river twice. But perhaps on the third attempt, you will successfully, albeit stumblingly, ford it. Andrew Adamson is gone, replaced by a team of screenwriters who believe in themselves to a noticeably lesser extent than their predecessors, but I consider both to be positives. Not that references to popular culture have completely disappeared, this flaw persists at the expense of storytelling, but the story, despite various clichés or variations of familiar plots, races forward at a surprisingly brisk pace. Donkey still teeters on the edge of humor and obnoxiousness, Puss in Boots is the ideal partner, Fiona a devoted wife, and Shrek somehow still comes along unwillingly. And to my surprise, I am entertained by all of it. 70% (31.01.2008)

No fun. And if a family comedy isn’t fun, what’s it good for? The jokes are either lame or stolen from past episodes (kitty eyes). And what happened to the real Shrek? Just a poor caricature of past episodes is all that’s left. I’m all for character development, but not in the wrong direction. The only ones I was actually pleased with were the dronkeys. On the level, I don’t want a part 4. (14.10.2007)

Es stimmt also… In dem dritten Teil geht es mit Shrek wirklich bergab. Und nicht nur mit ihm, sondern mit dem ganzen Märchenreich. Ich muss sagen, dass mir von all den Ideen, welche die Autoren diesmal präsentieren, nur zwei gefallen haben: das Begräbnis des Königs und der Katerblick vom Esel. Der Humor ist völlig verschwunden, genauso wie die ganze magische Stimmung. Selbst der dumme Zauberer Merlin mit der Stimme von Eric Idle hat mich enttäuscht, ganz zu schweigen von den Kindern und Artus. Ach ja. (18.09.2012)

Shrek didn't deserve such a brutal tarnishing of his reputation. Everything that was so brilliant the first two episodes is here unbelievably mechanical, stilted and unfunny, the story is silly and unexpectedly boring, and Prince Charming is one of the least likeable characters ever to appear in an animated film. The old friends may have stayed on and tried hard to keep the story afloat, but not even a real first-class actor can resurrect a bad film, let alone computer-generated, albeit extremely likeable, characters. I suffered through it once, I never want to see it again. 40% (27.02.2013)

Shrek 3 ist ein anschauliches (und ein wenig trauriges) Beispiel dafür, wie auf zwei großartige Filme eine äußerst mittelmäßige Fortsetzung folgen kann, der es an der coolen Atmosphäre fehlt, an die das Publikum im ersten und zweiten Film gewöhnt war. Ich will damit nicht sagen, dass ich keinen Spaß hatte, aber mich störten einfach einige Dingen (oder Charaktere) in diesem Teil - wir reden hier von den Neulingen und uninteressanten Charakteren von Arthur und Merlin und dem nervigen Prinz Charming. Selbst Shreks Auseinandersetzung mit seiner neuen Rolle im (Familien-)Leben hat mich nicht so sehr amüsiert, wie es (wahrscheinlich) hätte sein sollen. Doch die Prinzessinnen-Clique a la Drei Engel für Charlie hatte ihren Reiz. Dreieinviertel Sterne! (23.09.2022)

Ein großer Durchfaller nach unten. In der zweiten Staffel habe ich parodiehafte Elemente noch toleriert, doch in diesem Fall haben mich die Witze zu Lasten der Artus-Legende Artus, Camelot und Merlin wirklich geärgert, dass ist für mich eine Herzensangelegenheit, die ich mir nicht madig machen lassen, und ich lehne es ab, einen senilen Merlot oder einen peinlichen Lancelot anzuschauen. Man sollte immer wissen, wann man aufhören sollte, und die Macher haben es diesmal nicht gewusst. Den vierten Teil sehe ich mir wahrscheinlich irgendwann später einmal an. (30.04.2020)

This is definitely the least successful part of the whole series, which unnecessarily focuses too much on how Shrek is supposed to become a father, that it's only talked about, but the real finale is missing and it's overall resolved too simply. Too simply for it to actually be a key theme. The jokes are weak, there is a minimum of references to other movies, and it doesn't play well with the fairy tale realm either. It's simply just a need to squeeze the wallets of the viewers. (24.06.2015)