Click to watch

Trailer for "Shrek the Third"

Here’s what I wrote about the first Shrek film, way back in 2001 : “…it features a lot of highly marketable characters that I’m sure presently have their own aisle at every national toy chain. But despite its carefully calculated appeal, it’s not that strong of a film: sure, kids will be dragging their parents off to see it opening weekend, but it’s hardly the kind of thing anyone will want to see over and over again. It’s nothing in the class of Toy Story or Chicken Run.”

Well, what do I know? Six years later Hollywood executives are choosing carpeting for their new yachts and upgrading to a higher class of hooker on the basis of the expected profits from Shrek the Third, which they assume will be as reliable a generator of hard cash as anything west of the United States Mint.

They can bank on it because it really doesn’t matter whether or not the movie is any good. I suppose if it were really horrible, if reviewers reported that it contained a scene of Shrek contracting rabies and ripping out Donkey’s throat with his foaming teeth, that opening weekend attendance might dip a bit. But you and I know that any family with young children and the disposable income to have family nights at the movies will be in line at the nearest multiplex sometime this weekend.

People in my business often complain that people these days seem more interested in talking about box office grosses than the actual content of movies. But sometimes that’s simply a lot more interesting, and this is one of those times. Shrek the Third is an aggravated case of more of the same, only less.

Unlike the generally imaginative and pleasant Shrek 2, this sequel offers no particularly engaging new characters (a New Age-y Merlin, voiced by Eric Idle, is about the best), and little in the way of a story to showcase the old ones. The plot kicks in with the death of ogre Shrek’s father-in-law, the King of Far-Far-Away. Unwilling to be in charge of the kingdom himself, Shrek sets off to find the next heir, a lad named Arthur (Justin Timberlake).

Any film with characters named “Merlin” and “Arthur” is clearly referencing the legends of King Arthur and the Round Table, but don’t get your hopes up. The previous Shreks referenced fairy tales by the fistful, and it was fun seeing what sort of spin the writers could put on them. Here those references have become an end in themselves, along with the musical jokes (as when Shrek’s mother-in-law the Queen bumps herself on the head and starts absently humming songs from The Sound of Music and Mary Poppins, which is funny if you recall who voices the character). For the most part there’s nothing especially witty about all of this: it’s a 90 minute game of Trivial Pursuit for those to whom “getting” it is sufficient.

That Arthur is a hapless loser offers yet another chance to spout the series’ persistent motto, here phrased as “Just because people treat you like a loser, or a villain, or an ogre, it doesn’t mean you are one.” Which is well and a good thing for children to hear, though if they didn’t get the point from the previous films their self-esteem may be in need of some stronger stimulus. That aside, the movie, like its predecessors continues to dance near the edge of what parents may consider appropriate for young kids, especially such a profusion of poop jokes that they may as well have called this Shrek the Turd. And whoever chose tunes by the likes of Tom Waits, John Cale, Nick Cave, the Eels, The Buzzcocks, Jim Steinman and David Bowie for the soundtracks of the previous Shreks has been replaced with someone who favors artists rather less worthy of the easy paycheck that having a song in a hit movie provides. More’s the pity.