When his new father-in-law, King Harold falls ill, Shrek is looked at as the heir to the land of Far, Far Away. Not one to give up his beloved swamp, Shrek recruits his friends Donkey and Puss in Boots to install the rebellious Artie as the new king. Princess Fiona, however, rallies a band of royal girlfriends to fend off a coup d'etat by the jilted Prince Charming.
The Madagascar animals fly back to New York City, but crash-land on an African nature reserve, where they meet others of their own kind, and Alex especially discovers his royal heritage as prince of a lion pride.
Manny, Sid, and Diego discover that the ice age is coming to an end, and join everybody for a journey to higher ground. On the trip, they discover that Manny, in fact, is not the last of the woolly mammoths.
The Dragon Warrior has to clash against the savage Tai Lung as China's fate hangs in the balance. However, the Dragon Warrior mantle is supposedly mistaken to be bestowed upon an obese panda who is a novice in martial arts.
When Fiona's father and King of Far Far Away passes away, the clumsy Shrek becomes the immediate successor of the throne. However, Shrek decides to find the legitimate heir Artie in a distant kingdom with his friends Donkey and Puss in Boots to be able return to his beloved house in the swamp with the pregnant Fiona. Meanwhile, the envious and ambitious Prince Charming joins the villains of the fairytales plotting a coup d'état to become the new king.Written by
Claudio Carvalho, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Paul McCartney is a great songwriter. Let me just get that out of the way. But he isn't perfect. Take for example the song, "Live and Let Die", a song he wrote in the '70s for a Bond movie of the same name. The song is used briefly in Dreamworks' latest outing for everyone's favorite Scots ogre. In the song he actually wrote this line: "But if in this ever changing world in which we live in". "In which we live in"? Was he kidding? A great talent, but that is some lazy songwriting. I figure he was either exhausted, or under contract, as opposed to being inspired.
And that's the problem with this entire movie. The writing is simply not up to par. The story is loaded down with so many different elements that it is impossible to develop any of them. You can almost see the writers thinking, "Okay, now we've got a bunch of stuff for Shrek, Donkey, and Puss to do. Let's put in some stuff for Fiona and Lillian here..." The result is that there's a script, but no real story. And the dialog with some exceptions, is full of the clichés they so happily lampooned in earlier Shreks. The result comes across as a 3rd or 4th draft.
Andrew Adamson directed the previous two Shreks and has one of the writing credits here, but he did not direct it. I guess the franchise is so important now that it must be handled by two directors, neither of whom has Adamson's knack for timing. At various points in the evening, the pace was surprisingly ponderous.
It's not unpleasant, as movies go. It's just disappointing when such an average film continues a series of such good ones.
128 of 220 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this