Customer Reviews
Shrek The Turd - By: D. M. Francis, 08 Jan 2009 
What a disappointment! I'm a 62 year old kid who loves a laugh, & was hoping to get one here. Shrek was wonderful, Shrek 2 was enjoyable but this? Save your money.
Its not as bad as first thought - By: CarlaJMS, 21 Nov 2008 
I personally love the shrek films & was excited to hear there was a third one coming out. Although when i first watched it i got bored quickly & lost interest but after watching it again i seem to like it more & more. It has plenty of humour & you may not like a character but sometimes you have to look past that. For those who are dragging it through the mud...give it a second chance
gets better with each viewing, - By: C. Hayward, 16 Sep 2008 
When you compare this film to shrek 1 & 2 it doesen't stand up as well, i did a bit of research & found out the director was a first timer, which is a classic Hollywood mistake, that i personaly find insulting. Why give a huge summer movie like shrek to a first time director? Clearly the first timer shows that he's not really up to the job, it is as if he missed the point of shrek completely. Where the first two shreks were kids films that parents could enjoy & laugh along with as well, its as if this is neither for kids or parents & misses the markin several places. It is clear they have overfocused on glossy CGI production,(which is really beautiful) & not thought through the core of the story & jokes etc. Where as shrek 1+2 were built around moral tales, it seems as if the moral angle has been thrownin as an afterthought here & yet attempts to be the core of the story, but it is as if the person directing the movie just doesn't understand what the essence of telling stories is all about. Whereas shrek 1+2 acomplish this directly,this one doesn't. Things i liked from the first two have been left out, like the fairy tale opening & the song at the end, & some of the jokes a child just wouldn't get. Clearly having a first time director for a big movie like this is not a wise choice. Get serious Hollywood, i have no experience directing movies & i wouldn't expect my first effort to be my best, so why does Hollywood hand these projects over to novices? Answer: because they knew shrek 3 would make tons of money so they didn't care who directed it, & like the disasterous spiderman 3 ( did you know the director of spidey 3( sam rami) & his brother wrote spiderman 3, both with no experience writing movies/scripts or books, & boy it shows!) Shrek 3 failsin the same way, wrong decisions made by the movie corporations put both those projectsin the wrong hands. You would think they would have learned the old adage by now, "If its not broke don't try to fix it!"
I understand people move on & do different things ( Andrew Adamson, the man behind the first two shrek films is doing the Narnia films now, ) but even with people moving on, you don't go & hand the movie to a novice, even if they are surrounded by a studio of expert filmmakers , this poor choice, ruins this movie.
In the right hands, ( the people who did the first two shreks, ) i think this would have been as great if not better than the other two.
However, with these points understood, i re-watched shrek 3 , deciding not to compare it with the other two, to view it as a stand alone moviein its own right, & i actually thought it was pretty good, if you takein to consideration that it is a first time director, & that most of the original shrek creators have moved on to different things, then as a first served basis its actually enjoyable. I would say this movie fallsin to the catagory of being one where if you want to find fault with it you can & you will , but if you want ot enjoy it for what it is, you can & you will, & since kids tend to be much less judgmental than adults i think kids will enjoy it fine, i have given four stars because on its own its a fun enjoyable well produced movie that misses the markin a few places, it only becomes less than that when compared to other shrek movies.
STOP NOW NO MORE PLEASE - By: Mike Hunt, 03 Sep 2008 As Usual Hollywood hits on a formula then milks it dry. The original shrek remains funny whenever I watch it now, it was fresh & original & utilised Murphys & Myers skills well.
The sequel was ok, & had its moments. But it lacked the heart of the original. The thirdin this frachise is suprisingly unfunny & Murphys donkey is criminally underplayed. There are just too many 'stars' involved now, & as a result dilutes what made the original work so well.
Stop now, no more please
Just about watchable but those gags sure are wearing thin - By: Cartimand, 01 Sep 2008 OK so Puss does his sad face, the blind mice fall over, the frog king takes a long time to 'croak' & Shrek is the focus for gags about ear wax, barfing, burping & pooping. But is that enough? I really don't think so. The original movie was hugely entertaining & the sequel just about pulled it off, with some splendid new characters & enough humour to keep youngsters & their parents entertained most of the time. To be fair, Shrek the Third does have a couple of laugh out loud moments (hence it is just saved from being a lone-star movie), but much of the remaining 89 or so minutes is weak & often downright tedious. I actually found Eric Idle's Merlin reasonably funny, but the lengthy high school scenario fell very flat. The bitchy heroines had plenty of potential (the narcoleptic Sleeping Beauty being the pick of the bunch), but suffered from an uninspired script. Even the choice of music this time around was dull dull DULL!
Please don't make a 4th Shrek movie!
