About "Shrek the Third"

    In the Far Far Away, this is not so. That is, not fabulous, but too vital. Through this, dramaturgy suffers, which makes watching “Shrek the Third” completely uninteresting. And now, perhaps, the details ...

    It sounds silly, but I watched "Shrek the Third" twice and both times I did not like it. The first impressions, the keenest, were heavily implicated in elementary disappointment - that is, in the sense of unjustified hopes. The second attempt brought details that were so lacking for analysis, and the words that I am trying to lay out now in the most convincing way.

    I hope that there is no need to explain the hopes for "Shrek the Third"? “Shrek” and “Shrek 2” were the best that happened in the mass full-length animation in recent years. Out of nowhere, the characters that have arisen are original, very solid, beautifully thought out and memorable. Wonderful drama is very different in the first two parts, but it is amazing. Multilayer that happy thoughtfulness, which allows you to create cult cartoons for the whole family. And, of course, the first “Shreks” are animation and music, which gave the films at least a third of their frenzied popularity.

    “Third Track” is, without exaggeration, Anti-Shrek. With few exceptions - graphics and animation. She is still good, if not to say, gorgeous. True, there is a small nuance: according to my purely personal feelings, the picture of “Shrek the Third” lost in brightness and became more “warm”. Because of this, the atmosphere of action is slightly annoying, unkindly tones, adding a subtle sense of anxiety to each scene.

    But back to the “Anti-Shrek” trend. I don’t know, but, perhaps, the creators of the new cartoon are even proud of it. Indeed, judging by impartiality, in the first two “Shreks” everything was turned upside down, all the canons were turned inside out - and in “Shrek the Third” an effort was made to finally make the series go according to classical patterns. The trouble is that it was done clumsily, in a hurry and somehow unprofessionally ...

    Shrek is not like himself - the main horror of the picture. We sincerely loved the green giant, the rude, but good-natured guy inside with powerful, but suppressed by strong-willed emotions. Shrek is courageous, decisive, laconic, fair, kind, smart, economic. The authors seemed to be able to carve a character of unprecedented inner strength with a pickax from a giant rock fragment.
    In "Shrek the Third" from that Shrek there was not even a memory left. The ogre became obsessive, verbose, hysterical, ostentatious, insecure. Now, he does not make fate, but fate makes him as he wants. And, yes, the spinelessness and conformism of the new Shrek, although rational and understandable, but - in the light of the first two parts - do not cause anything but disgust. Shrek is no longer a hero.

    Not the heroes and other heroes of Shrek the Third. Especially the Donkey, to which we are already accustomed as the main annoyingly attractive attraction of the cartoon, and the Cat, behaving simply inadequately. The shown scene of farewell to the Cat of a dozen cats does not logically link with the image of esthete and caballero, which the authors so stubbornly sculpt him throughout the film.
    The degeneration of "Shrek the Third" is best represented as the destruction of the pyramid. Previously, everything was fine and understandable: the summit is Shrek, then the Donkey and Fiona go, then the Cat, parents, the main villains ... Magic characters and other Pinocchio participate as a significant crowd ...
    It was the crowd in “Shrek the Third” that unexpectedly began to play a more significant role. One can easily recall a nice gag from the Gingerbread Man, Captain Hook, three Ask, Trees. The same Pinocchio, finally. At the same time, the main characters, from whom you just expect extravaganza, are silent. As a result, instead of a pyramid, we got its ruins, consisting of identical bricks piled in a mess. No, of course, you can’t say that the Gingerbread man caught up with Shrek in memorability, but the new cartoon does not have the gigantic distance that happens between prima and choir.

    Let's move on from the characters to the plot. With his criticism you need to be especially careful. Firstly, because there is, of course, something to criticize. And secondly, because a head-on comparison of the first two episodes and the third - from the point of view of the storyline - will do little.
    In fact, formally, the first two stories were by no means a model of drama. Well, yes, there was a kind, but gloomy ogre; on the orders of the king he went to rescue the princess so that the evil dwarf sovereign would marry her. Saved, led back, during the return of the ogre and the princess fell in love, so much that the magic curse played into their hands. Hooray is the end.
    The second part in such a schematic scenario looks even more anecdotal, which does not prevent her from being brilliant.
    The fact is that the storyline in the first "Shreks" is just a wrapper, inside of which was all the tastiest. Jokes, gags, sketches, skits, songs, dances, experiences, emotions, parodies, hints - and all this lay in a very clever sequence that allowed each person of any age and level of development to see his own.
    This universalism is no longer in Shrek the Third. The story frankly breaks up into independent pieces: this one is for an adult audience and children can yawn and drink “Sprite”, this one is for teenagers, the rest either clumsily clumsy eyelashes or wrinkle their nose with a slight disgust, for children ...
    With children at “Shrek the Third” generally difficult relationships. And I'm not just talking about the plot essence. If in the first part I easily pinned my nephew to the sofa for a long hour and a half, and this trick got away with me endlessly, then at the Shrek III session almost all the spectators who came with the children had to leave the cinema long before the end. Children are not interested. In principle, this is already enough for a final diagnosis.

    But we still continue. What else is the storyline of "Shrek the Third" bad? Details. There are a lot of them, and all of them are poorly designed. A kaleidoscope of events revolving around the heroes, in theory, was supposed to make the cartoon more saturated. But it turned out for some reason - quite the opposite. The fact is that the abundance of details and plot scenes is not supported in any way by their elaboration. All events fall out on the head of the viewer as if from a box of a bad magician. Bach - send the trees. Bach is crazy Merlin. Bach - the girls came to Fiona. Bach - mother breaks her head against the wall. There are a lot of spectacles, there is no connection and logic! As a result, the plot again looks like a patchwork, a sort of set of short stories, rather than a single piece. Something like this is filmed in Russia and Europe with their beggarly, compared with America, budgets.

    Uninteresting heroes, uninteresting events, lack of logic and an excess of false details. Story disunity: dramatic and age. And many, many pathos and moral campaigns about family values ​​and children, the colors of life. Despite the fact that the authors wanted to sneeze on children. Pretty bleak picture, don’t you? Unfortunately, this is “Shrek the Third” ...

    PS By the way, the community of pros from “Shrek the Third” is not thrilled: www.metacritic.com/film/titles/shrekthethird . 58 out of 100. (Added on 16:58 29/05/07.)

    Also popular now: