MoviePro.net

We have taken some photos of "Shrek the Third". They represent actual movie quality.

• A very good sequel posted on 20 August 2009

  As far as sequels go, this is very good. As far as Shrek films go, this is also very good. Like all the others, this one is entertaining, funny and exciting. Despite the plot being slightly unoriginal, this film's plot is very well-planned and fast-paced.Compared to the second one, the old characters in this "Shrek" film are exceedingly good. Shrek is often a lovely happy old ogre and a lot nicer and more gentle than in any of the other films. Donkey is still an amusing donkey - luckily not too annoying! Princess Fiona (always an ogre) in this film has a strong, quite eager and often relaxed personality, which very much suits her. Unfortunately, Puss in Boots doesn't have the chance to do nearly as well as he did the second film, but still has the same good personality (possibly a little more Spanish!).The new characters are very well done. The wizard (voiced by Eric Idle) is an incredibly amusing character with a funnily worried personality. Artie is a nice guy, although when provoked can produce quite a temper. Overall he is a good character.While King Harold (now a frog) is ill, Shrek is taking responsiblities of running the kingdom and feels he is DEFINITELY not cut out to be a king. Just before the poor frog comes to his place in heaven, he tells Shrek that besides him, the only heir is a wee boy called Arthur. Is he cut out to be king..?Enjoy "Shrek the Third"! :-)7 and a half out of ten.

• slightly disappointing posted on 14 August 2009

  i was a huge fan of shrek 1 & 2, for they were both funny, heartwarming and visually stunning 3D animation masterpieces. Compared to the prior two, however, Shrek the third turned out slightly disappointing, and in every possible aspect. The story overall was not as intriguing or as funny as the previous two. It's not a bad story, but it fell flat comparing to the first two. And although it doesn't hurt the movie itself, the storyline is very predictable. There's not many surprises or even twists here. And the jokes seemed rather forced and clichéd and therefore not as funny as they intended to be. It seems that the people who made Shrek had finally run out of jokes and was trying too hard being funny. The visuals and the details are as stunning as usual, but you won't see much new technical enhancement or special effects that would make you go wow, which i believe is probably due to the fact that they have already achieved near perfection in the 3D animation of Shrek 2, so it's hard to make any technical breakthrough in this one. Almost all of the stunning effects you see in this movie has been used in the previous two, so not much to expect of the visual effects here. In general, as much as it may have tried, Shrek the third failed to live up to shrek 1 & 2. And it seems that there's something missing here but i can't quite put my finger on it. Shrek the third may not be as successful and enjoyable as Shrek 1 or 2, it's still a feel-good movie for everyone.

• "Whose ready for thirds?"-after viewing, not me. posted on 31 July 2009

  Shrek was great. Shreak 2 was very, very good. Shrek 3 was poor, at best.I mean, is comedy that hard to write? Shrek is supposed to be, you know, funny. Merlin (Eric Idle) was great, and Pinochio has (near the end) a great bit, but the rest is lacking in humor.The plot was clear, and drawings/renderings superb (the best yet, IMO), and each individual character was played well. But the script was lacking in humor. It did have it's moments, but overall, it was dry. Blame the writers, not the actors, for this one.I gave it a 4 because it was better than Pirates 3, but that is not saying much.

• Still worth seeing, but disappointing after the first 2 posted on 31 July 2009

  I had high expectations for this movie. When I saw Shrek 2, I was pleasantly surprised. Few sequels are as good as the original, but Shrek 2 was.Shrek the third did not continue this trend. While there were sill plenty of funny moments, it was nowhere near as amusing or original as the first two. They could have done so much more with this movie if they had tried. At the end, I felt sort of cheated.However, Shek the third isn't a bad movie in itself, only when compared to the others. I would still recommend going to see it. Unlike most, I liked Artie's character, even if he did talk too much (I'm not even a Justin Timberlake fan).

• Shrek the King posted on 31 July 2009

  Some of the critics were less appreciative of 'Shrek the Third' than it's two predecessors, but there's still plenty to enjoy, notably the rich sequence of jokes bound together by a reasonably coherent plot (based, as before, on the world of fairy-tales). And while the Shrek movies are not the most mordant of modern animated cartoons, the film explores, albeit in comic vein, the question of what makes us act the way we do and does not divide its characters into absolute categories of black-and-white (with the exception of the only true villain, who, entertainingly, is Prince Charming!). It should also be noted quite how high the standard of computer animation is, which allows mood and humour to be conveyed through the use of relatively subtle body language; most remarkable is the character of Puss-in-Boots, whose moves are a perfect combination of feline and human. It's not (for an adult, at least), a life-changing movie; but it is great fun.

• SHREK THE THIRD (Chris Miller and Raman Hui, 2007) **1/2 posted on 25 July 2009

  I had enjoyed the first Shrek film due to its novelty but was somewhat lukewarm towards the second; I'm even more so, then, with respect to this new entry. It's still eminently watchable for the gags, the in-jokes and the apparently unlimited possibilities of the CGI technique. The best new character is surely Eric Idle's accident-prone Merlin, while the most amusing sequences are those involving the Frog King's death and Shrek's nightmare about his upcoming parenthood. However, its gang of gung-ho fairy-tale heroines and the generally modern attitudes on display – to say nothing of the typically refurbished pop/rock songs on the soundtrack (including, of all things, Led Zeppelin's "Immigrant Song"!) – seem less intent on fulfilling the necessities of the plot than catering to potential box-office receipts!

• The third time is not a charm, This was not funny at all. posted on 25 July 2009

  Shrek 1 & Shrek 2 were both thoroughly enjoyable.I had expected this one to be enjoyable as well.I WAS VASTLY DISAPPOINTED..In fact I did not even laugh or feel any enjoyment watching this movie. It was not funny at all.There were too many fairy tale characters here, many of whom I vastly enjoyed years ago, They did nothing here but waste my time.The song score was pitiful, as you only heard next to no lyrics.. Many talented actors lent there voices for the various characters,BUT I did not know who was doing who until the credits at the end of film..The so-called script made insulting fun of beloved fairy tale characters. We have Snow White WITHOUT THE DRWARFS, for example.The legend of King Arthur was unfairly spoofed, especially since Julie Andrews (CAMELOT) was one of the voices..Technically the animation was great,If they make part I do hope it is better than this .RATINGS ** (out of 4) 55 points (out of 60) IMDb 5 (out of 10)

• A funny movie that is lacking something monstrously important to be a true "Shrek" film posted on 17 July 2009

  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."

• The Shrek Trilogy posted on 17 July 2009

  Shrek:Okay,the first Shrek movie was by far the funniest!It was also the best one of the trilogy.I think up against the other 2 there's no competition,because the jokes were a lot funnier,and the story line was a lot more entertaining.9 out of 10 stars Shrek 2:This one being my least favorite,I just didn't see that much that was funny about it.I have to admit it was my favorite story line of the trilogy's and this is the one where Puss In Boots came in(one of my favorite characters),but it did not really give more of an impact than the other two.6 1/2 out of 10 stars Shrek The Third:Shrek The Third was actually almost as funny as the first one.It brought in a bunch of new characters and I like how each one of them was somewhat hilarious.It wasn't my favorite story line,and it was almost funnier than the first one but not quite.8 out of 10 stars The Whole Trilogy:8 1/2 out of 10 stars.

• doesn't cover much new ground but you at least want to like it posted on 07 November 2009

  When the beloved King Harold falls gravely ill, lovable ogre and son-in-law Shrek is chosen as rightful heir to the throne. Not wanting to accept the responsibility of royalty and overseeing all of the kingdom inhabitants, Shrek sets sail on a journey to find Arthur, a hapless young knight who happens to be the only suitable candidate to take on the role. Meanwhile, the pompous Prince Charming rallies a group of vindictive outcasts to try and conquer Far Away Land and get what he views as his fitfully "happy ending." The third entry in the witty animated series is likable and pleasant but never transcends its seen it all before aura; there are some laughs here and there and plenty of zany, iconic characters but not enough fresh ideas, innovative gags, or new plot twists. Sidekick Donkey's banter is forced and only mildly funny, and companion Puss-in-Boots is sorely underused. The film is redeemed to a surprising avail by the appeal of Shrek, but he can only carry this protracted premise so far. Engaging enough for kids, strained and predictable for adults. **

• Tries to cram a 2 hour movie into 90 minutes posted on 07 September 2009

  I love Shrek. My daughter and I saw the first one in the theater 5 times. And it took me a while to come around, but I really like the second one. This installment had so much potential, but its biggest failure is the attempt to do way too much in too little time.Is it funny? Mostly. Are there lovable characters, old and new? Yes. But the writers decided to split up Fiona and Shrek, devoting about 45 minutes to Shrek, 35 to Fiona, and 10 to the bad guys. The plot felt very rushed. I know kids have a short attention span and it's time consuming to animate a CGI movie, but the movie would have certainly benefited from more time - about 30 minutes more. And they could have cut the entire high school scene. It was stupid and pointless.That being said, the babies - ogre and dragon/donkey - were adorable. Snow White - brilliant. The disclosure of where Fiona got her fighting skills was hilarious. Eric Idle and John Cleese were terrific, as were Antonio Banderas and Eddie Murphy. The movie is worth seeing, just not 5 times.

• Not Enough to be at level of first 2! posted on 07 July 2009

  The movie did not really hold the attention of my two younger kids. Even for me, the funny experience of watching both Shrek 1 and 2 was not really very evident with this installment. I remember in Shrek 2, I was laughing out loud with each passing pop culture reference and innuendo being bantered around. However, that was not so here.I was not too amused with the Disney princesses characters. Shrek's "baby nightmare scene" was well-executed. Justin Timberlake did well in voicing his "grovelling at Merlin's feet" scene. Overall, this movie was not that bad, but it needed to be much better to be worthy to stand on the same level as the first two Shrek films.

• It's not easy being green ... posted on 07 May 2009

  The first movie ever produced by Dreamworks, was the great action movie "The peacemaker" with George Clooney and Nicole Kidman. The first animation pictures by Dreamworks were "The prince of Egypt" and "The road to El Dorado". The truth however is that it was the 2001-blockbuster "Shrek" that put Dreamworks on the map. It was a fabulous animation picture and one of the funniest ever made. The sequel had less jokes than the first one, but it turned out to be the ultimate feel-good movie and thus it was a fantastic movie altogether. Many wondered how far they could go with this franchise. As it turned out, there will be a fourth Shrek-movie in the near future and there's even a spin-off planned for one of its characters namely the Spanish Zorro-cat Puss in Boots. Needless to say: this franchise is doing extremely well. Even so: the third Shrek-film is by far the weakest one yet and this let-down is a bit unexpected."Shrek the Third" is by no means a bad movie. It's in fact the opposite. It's a good movie. The special effects of this film are absolutely stunning! They are better than those of the previous Shrek-movies. Now each and every character has its own unique clothing and they all have a very different kind of haircut too. There's more use of color and a much wider variety of facial expressions of each character. The amount of people in a single frame has also increased exponentially. The frequent use of daylight (or any other kind of light such as torches) and darkness are far more impressive and they also open up a whole new world for creating realistic shadows. New world are introduced as well and they all appear vastly superior. And we even get to see real magic by Merlin; the greatest wizard of all who can shoot light beams from his hands.So visually, the Shrek-movies have only improved. Then what's with that slight feel of disappointment if everything seems so beautiful? Well, the problem is that they obviously were more focused on the looks than on the contents of this animation film. "Shrek the Third" is always quite amusing to watch and never any boring, but there simply aren't too many funny jokes to be had. Whilst the first film was literally crammed with hilarious moments, the third one will probably produce a few smiles on your face and an occasional laugh ... but that's about it! The overuse of long-winded monologues and conversations are the main reason as to why the third Shrek-film is no match for its previous installments. Then again: the newborn triplets of Shrek are without a doubt the cutest thing ever created in the history of animation. They look like real babies and all three of them are exceptionally adorable. Pity that we only saw so little of them in this movie. But I have a strong feeling that they will play an important part in the next one for sure.The cast of "Shrek the Third" is only growing with each new chapter. By now: Mike Myers is playing on automatic pilot and the same could be said for Cameron Diaz and Eddy Murphy. They are all still quite funny but they add nothing new really. Antonio Banderas should also be categorized as such, but somehow I found his character a lot more amusing than the ones above. The same goes for Rupert Everett who stars again as Prince Charming. This character is also a joy to watch. A lot less funny but still okay are two new characters. The wizard Merlin makes a short yet rather comical appearance and is wonderfully voiced by British actor Eric Idle who's probably best known as a member of Monty Python. American singer/songwriter Justin Timberlake does the voice of Artie - the soon-to-be king of Far far away. This character is neither interesting nor funny, and that's a real pity.Many fairy tale creatures return such as Pinocchio, the three pigs and of course the Gingerbread man. New ones are added such as Cinderella, Snow White and Sleeping beauty. The constant quarrel between the ladies does provide a couple of good jokes. But unfortunately: not all jokes work out well. And this is not how things used to be in the world of Shrek. Perhaps the fourth movie will find a perfect balance again between awesome computer graphics and an endless diversity of funny jokes.In short: "Shrek the Third" is not only the third in number, but also in quality. It's a good animation movie but the cracks are clearly beginning to show. If the next movie isn't hilarious like Shrek 1 or refreshing like Shrek 2, they ought to pull the plug.

• Definitely not as good as the first two posted on 07 March 2009

  As other users have commented, the story has a weak plot and is just not funny. I actually didn't understand some parts of the plot such as why Arthur was angry with Shrek for lying to him that he was meant to be heir - not Arthur. Another bit i didn't understand was why Wostershire was a school. Surely its a county and therefore not small enough to be a school - I was wondering if there is some inter textual reference which i hadn't spotted but I'm not so sure. It could just be a random name picked for a school.Obviously there were some funny bits - but the directors didn't build on a lot of them. for example the queen smashing her head through a wall. that could have been so much more funny if more had been made of it.Overall i wouldn't recommend this film to those who enjoyed the first 2. i hope there isn't a fourth.

• looks stunning but falls well short of the first two films posted on 07 March 2009

  Shrek the Third is simply not as good as the first two Shrek films. Clearly, a lot of care was taken on the technical side as the CGI looks gorgeous, but the script leaves a lot to be desired. Some scenes work and some don't. The ratio of hits to misses falls well short of Shrek and Shrek2. The entire Artie storyline is middling at best and drags the film down. Also, Donkey and Puss have precious little to do. Plenty of jokes are recycled from the previous films. While kids will probably enjoy it, adults should skip the theatrical version and wait for DVD or the Television premiere.Overall 6/10

• Well I had fun posted on 27 June 2009

  If you judge "Shrek 3" on its own, it isn't as terrible as some seem to think it. Sure, the film is pointless and mediocre, dismembers some of the qualities that made use fall in love with the characters in the first place, uses babies as an excuse for another film and merchandising...yikes that doesn't sound so good. But the truth is, I was entertained by this film that seemed like a really good straight to video sequel. It's humor sure was clever enough to exceed "Shark Tale". Perhaps that isn't a huge compliment, but the animation is up to its usual quality and, to my delightful surprise, the new additions to the Shrek cast didn't overtake the story of have any moments of grating 'cuteness'. The film still has those laugh out loud moments.But still, this film doesn't touch "Shrek" and even dwells in the shadow of the less stunning "Shrek 2".I think this film is a clear sign that the series should come to an end. The writers have run out of ideas, and another attempt would surly be another weak attempt that would have to be condemned. The whole film is treated as seriously as Fiona's amphibious dad's death. When I left the theater, I didn't come out thinking I'd just seen one of the most anticipated films of the year, and if it wasn't for the hordes of children around me, I surely wouldn't have given it a second thought. Still, the film is worth seeing...once.

• Hope springs eternal; but unfulfilled in Shrek 3 posted on 23 June 2009

  If we can count on Hollywood studios for one thing it is their unfailing ability to deliver mediocrity when they think they have found the formula for a successful franchise. Formulaic is what they delivered in Shrek 3.The first two Shreks were irreverent and original. Almost uniquely in Hollywood they managed to entertain both adults and children without neither patronizing the former nor confusing the latter. In Shrek 3, except for a couple of scenes, there was barely a snigger from the audience of any age throughout the movie. With this one don't waste your money at the box office nor the movie rental store.Is it just me or has anyone else noticed the increasingly unwatchable number of movies Hollywood has been foisting on the public with their high-dollar marketing campaigns these past four years? I have walked out of three movies within the last three weeks; Spiderman III (twice - don't ask me to explain) and Pirates of the Caribbean; At World's End. They're boring. It is as though someone spoon-fed me a soporific at the beginning of the show; all I do is yawn until I get up and leave.Where is the hunger?

• Third time's definitely a charm! posted on 23 June 2009

  For me, the first 'Shrek' stands as one of the best animated films ever made. Yeah it was satirical but you connected with the characters. The disappointing 'Shrek 2', on the other hand, felt emotionally detached albeit kinda funny. But I honestly think that Dreamworks is back on the ball with 'Shrek the Third'.Saw it today first showing at the local multiplex (I live in PR, and films debut a day before US, yey!) and I was pleasantly surprised. My expectations were a little low because of S2 but I have to say I laughed...a lot! Eddie Murphy kinda got annoying after a while but Banderas' still got it as Puss-in-Boots.Mike Myers did okay, nothing amazing. So did Justin TImberlake as King Arthur (aka Artie). Personally it was Eric Idle who stole the show as the mentally imbalanced Merlin. Also John Cleese has a sidesplitting cameo as the Frog Prince.I smiled through the entire movie (the Disney parodies) as I did through the other two, but this one had some laugh-out-loud moments the second lacked. And the personal dilemmas of Shrek and Artie were well done.All in all, I was pleasantly surprised with 'Shrek the 3rd'. I say it's a couple notches below the original but a lot better than the second one.8/10

• Shrek 3 posted on 21 June 2009

  Before I comment on it, to say the truth, I don't like watching Shrek movies. They are boring and not funny enough. I am not sure why I am watching this movie, is it because I heard it was good? I am not sure what came to my mind watching this. I thought of an excuse, a one good excuse is I love seeing the cute Puss in the boots. He is a character that makes the movie likable, in my reasons. I am not sure about that. All right, I have to admit that some jokes got me but the problem is that since this is made for kids, you can't expect big action or much potty humour, oh well, maybe I like watching big action. It is pretty like the previous Shrek movies, with more characters. The point...why can't the director make it exciting so that we don't have to say "Oh my! It's another Shrek movie, and why do I feel like I have watch this before." But, I have to say this one is better than the previous Shrek movies. In my choice, often the third part is better than the second and the first movies.If you have nothing better to do, like me, you might want to catch this or if you are a fan of Shrek, this suits you.

• Third Time's the Charming posted on 21 June 2009

  Shrek (Mike Myers) and Fiona (Cameron Diaz) have truly settled into married life, although for Shrek, the solitude of wedded bliss is somewhat hampered by the duties of a royal, having Donkey (Eddie Murphy) and Puss (Antonio Banderas) as captains, and worst of all, the truly scary prospect of being trapped in all of the above by the passing of King Harold (John Cleese). The ailing royal frog does leave his son-in-law with a timely loophole--the existence of a truly distant relative. While Fiona, Queen Mom Lillian (Julie Andrews), and the rest of the female court attempt to ward off the ambitious yet juvenile Prince Charming (Rupert Everett), who has recruited the greatest fairy-tale villainy to his cause, the guys' latest "whirlwind adventure" brings them into contact with the proposed heir apparent-- classic high school loser Artie (Justin Timberlake).If you fell in love with the mock product-placement rampant in the second film, or suffer from a short attention span, it's probably best you wait on this one. The essence of the Shrek universe is there for the fans to enjoy, however, with the true star of the film being how the characters have advanced--both technically and dramatically. A higher level of detail is noticeable, from the fluctuating real estate of Far Far Away to the hair of the chinny-chin-chins on the Three Pigs (look well, it's actually there!). The in-jokes are rather clever, but the filmmakers have taken a bold step by showing enough faith in the characters to actually explore them, as they did in the first movie. Although this is technically the longest of the three films, it seems somewhat short--since everyone has to travel a long way in a short time, and admittedly, the subplot of Charming devising a takeover by an alliance of fairy-tale villains harks back to earlier Shrek wannabe "Happily N'ever After"--if something appears in your film that reminds us of another film, that other film should at least be...well, good. However, there are more good points: Timberlake doesn't ruin things--the character actually suits him, and rejoice concerned fans: he doesn't sing! Eric Idle provides his typical offbeat diversion as a Merlin whose robe is embarrassingly too short. All in all, things are kept enticingly light, eschewing wild stunts and nutty gags for the sake of a story. A move that deserves kudos on it's own. Bottom line, Shrek's about comedy more than anything else. Did I laugh? Yup, and quite a bit, so that made it worthwhile. If there's a single audience for the film, it's probably new parents--if you love these characters, check out their kids!!