| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 15:51:30
Shrek The Third
The question throughout the third of the Shrek franchise is whether Dreamworks has convinced us there's still life in this big green thing. Sadly, despite some delightful cgi animation, the answer is no.
The entire sorry plot revolves around an employment issue not open to many of us: namely for a job such as King, dependent upon heirship and succession, what are the benefits and drawbacks that would tempt someone to fill the post. Leaving aside the small matter that institutions such as monarchies tend not to leave such decisions until the imminent death of the incumbent, let's deconstruct the story premise.
We've got a dying King [John Cleese] - okay he's a frog for reasons explained in the previous films, but a King nevertheless. He reigns over Far Far Away, modelled so closely on Los Angeles that the main drag of the kingdom looks like Rodeo Drive, complete with a shop called Versachery. These are the kinds of �comic� choices made when Hollywood tries to expose the quintessence of royalty for American audiences and reduces it to a big bank balance. So the ruler of this high-tone shoppers paradise, Queen Julie Andrews at his side, is dying.
During his illness, filling in for the royal couple in the performance of their normal busy schedule of knighting people, launching ships, and ... uhm, well, that's all they seem to do ... are their loving daughter Fiona [Cameron Diaz], currently an ogress for reasons explained in the previous films, and her big green ogre hubby, Shrek [Mike Myers]. The vital question is whether Mr and Mrs Shrek will become official top royals once the frog hops it.
Kingship has always provoked ambivalence in the American ethos, and script writers more clever than these might have spun such a premise into a comedic exploration of inherited power versus other models of governance. But even so � assuming we accept the fairy-tale convention, a couple of questions raise themselves at this point:
1. Why does such a strong, capable Queen need anyone to 'fill in'?
2. Why does everyone from the King to the moat-guard assume male primogeniture? Why hasn't anyone asked Fiona, the actual child of the monarch to take over?
Perhaps such questions are inappropriate for a family film, but the first Shrek managed to entertain with equally complex moral issues including the acceptance of people for themselves rather than surface appearance. One of the elements that engaged us was the very concept of an ogre, and because the character retained the possibility of danger, a tension threaded throughout the film, allowing us a satisfying resolution, helped along, of course, by the humour.
In his third incarnation, Shrek the commoner son-in-law is so far removed from even the hint of potential threat to the public, he�s given the option of trading in forever his vermin-filled shack pursuing his favourite past-time of sleeping to become supreme ruler of a kingdom. It�s not a prospect which fills him with glee. And, more�s the pity, we don�t get a lot of laughs from it either.
But, wait, there�s a handy out � seems there�s one other potential heir to the throne, and it�s not that unctious wannabe royal Prince Charming [Rupert Everett]; it�s the weedy, Arthur [Justin Timberlake], a bullied student of Worcestershire. The latter is not, as you�d expect, an entire county, but a timber-clad high-school, complete with spoiled-brat cheerleaders whose concession to living in a kingdom is inappropriatley to add �eth� to words. Confronted by the sight of Shrek, one maiden declares �Totally ooo-eth.�
For, yes, rather than take on the trappings of state, the ogre and his trusty companions Donkey [Eddie Murphy] and Cat [Antonio Banderas], have set forth to offer the gig to young Arthur. Donkey is sad to leave his brood of hybrid donkey-dragons [for reasons explained in the preceding films], and Fiona�s farewell to a stunned Shrek is the news she�s pregnant. But onward they sail to complete their mission.
They have, however, failed to account for Charming�s cunning determination to usurp the throne, backed by a coalition of all the villains cast aside in children�s stories. It�s the final confrontation between the two factions which energizes the only section of a film otherwise lacking in engagement and with hardly a trace of the wit that distinguished the first Shrek film.
Shrek The Fourth of this franchise has already been announced, which prospect frankly carries more scary anticipation than a huge green ogre ever could.
|
| 3 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| redPen |
Posted - 06/23/2007 : 06:57:17
I was vastly disappointed by this one! Not only was Shrek 2 gonna be hard to top (which added to my curiosity), but the whole King Arthur slant got my interest. I took my 7-year-old and I honest-to-God laughed only 3 times!
Huge waste. Wait to rent it . . . cheap!
(P.S., I shudder to think, but yes, Shrek 4 is already rolling . . .) |
| Sean |
Posted - 06/23/2007 : 00:24:52
http://www.fwfr.com/fourum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=4950 |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 16:42:37
In a summer of giant, super-hyped, bloated, over-bloated, over-over-bloated sequels, Shrek the Third stands out by being really, really puny. This should have gone straight to DVD. |
|
|
