TOY STORY 3 (2010) - Lee Unkrich

It’s been a while. To be honest, the cinema has been vomiting up some pretty poor fare over the last few months. But over the last week, I saw what will probably be numbers one and two on the top 10 list of 2010, so I figured I should say something about them. The first film on the list is the latest from the greatest studio now in production. Toy Story 3.

It’s been fifteen years since Woody and Buzz first hit the big screen, kick-starting the Pixar revolution into gear. Since that time, Pixar have gone from strength to strength. And in one way, Toy Story 3 is a fitting bench-mark to see just how far the studio has come. Both in technical ability, and in terms of story-telling.



Andy, the human key to the Toy Story world has grown up. He’s finished school, and is about to leave home for college. And by doing this, he must leave his childhood toys behind. But what is to come of Woody, Buzz, Jessie, and all the rest of the toys? Woody, Andy’s most cherished toy, will accompany him to college. But the rest of the toys will go to the attic, a sort of rest-home for toys until they are rediscovered by Andy and given to his own children. But a mix-up in packaging results in the toys being sent to day-care, a seemingly heaven for toys. But all is not what it seems in day-care. And the toys must escape, while Woody struggles to reach his friends and help them escape.

Being the final part in the Toy Story trilogy, Toy Story 3 packs quite the emotional punch. Like Andy, we’re leaving the characters behind. They’ve given us some cherished memories, but like all good things, they must be fondly remembered, and passed on to the next generation. Toy Story 3, really does make you laugh, but it’s laughter tinged with sadness. As with all Pixar movies, the film’s strength lies in it’s story. There are many studios that produce technically brilliant animated films, but few reach the heights of Pixar’s films. It’s Pixar’s ability to pack an emotional punch that has made films such as Toy Story, Wall-E and Up such incredible films.



And yet, I find myself going against the general consensus. I don’t think it’s the best of the trilogy. Don’t get me wrong. Toy Story 3 is both technically astonishing and brilliantly written. But there were parts of the film when I though I’d seen it before. There are some recycled story elements. Sometimes these work as winks and nods to what came before. But it is nit-picking. Toy Story 3 is (Buzz) Light-years ahead of it’s competition. In fact, it’s light-years ahead of most films. The voice-work is as usual, brilliant. In particular, the addition of the Ken doll, voiced by Michael Keaton is hilarious in both vocal performance and animation.

Toy Story 3 is probably the best closing chapter of any trilogy. And the Toy Story trilogy itself is near-perfect. The Pixar team are just awe-inspiring in their ability to craft stories that assault your emotions as well as your eye-balls. And with Toy Story 3, they really have knocked it out of the park. Again.


9/10

THE FANTASTIC MR. FOX (2009) - Wes Anderson

If you grew up any time in the last 30 years, you should know the story of Roald Dahl’s The Fantastic Mr. Fox. But for those of you who spent your youth under a rock, three farmers, Boggis, Bunce and Bean want to evict (and kill) Mr. Fox for stealing chickens, geese and apple cider belonging to the three farmers. They try to dig Mr. Fox out of the home he has set up underneath a tree, and in the process also disturb the other animals living there. Mr. Fox, feeling responsible for the other animals’ lives, strives to set up new lives for himself, his family and his animal friends.



This film had a winning formula. A well-loved and widely known story. The idiosyncratic style of Wes Anderson applied to stop-motion animation. And yet somewhere, something didn’t connect. There are brilliant, and truly original aspects to the film. The animation is gorgeous. The story, while transported to the US from England is close-enough to the original story with a few tweaks that can be forgiven. The voice acting (Clooney again, Meryl Streep, Bill Murray, Jason Schwartzman) is lively when it needs to be but retains that droll nature we’ve come to expect from Anderson’s films. But something isn’t right with the film. It just didn’t do it for me for some reason. Maybe on another viewing, the film would click with me. But despite my love for Anderson’s films, I just think he missed the mark here. It’s good. It’s just not as great as it should have been.


7/10

UP (2009) - Pete Docter

It feels kinda redundant to review this film now. But I love it so much, I had to say something about it. It’s been out for a while, and if you haven’t seen it yet, well then, shame on you. When his wife dies, Carl Fredricksen seeks to fulfil his, and his wife’s life-long dream. To see Paradise Falls in South America. After being threatened with eviction from his house, Fredricksen comes up with a plan. He attaches thousands of helium-filled balloons to his house and floats south. Unbeknownst to him, a young and chipper wilderness explorer named Russell has stowed-away Carl’s flying house.

Pixar are known for the quality of their films. No matter the story, the quality of the images and execution are second to none. But with Up, writer-director Pete Docter has created Pixar’s fines film in terms of story. Up is the perfect storm for Pixar. It’s absolutely stunning to watch, and almost perfect in it’s writing. It’s not the most visually inventive of Pixar’s films. But what it does do is invoke a range of emotions that most live-action films could only hope to deliver. At times it’s absolutely hilarious and at others, it’s heart-breakingly sad. And if, after the first 10 minutes, you’re not blubbing like a baby, there’s something wrong with you.



Up is the finest film Pixar have released, and is the best film of 2009. If this isn’t the film that earns Pixar it’s Best Picture Oscar, then the whole Academy should be abolished. No film in 2009 is going to come close to it.

10/10

WALL-E (2008) - Andrew Stanton

Only two weeks ago, I saw Dreamworks’ big animated release for this year, Kung Fu Panda. And it was a damn entertaining watch. Funny, exciting, with gorgeous character designs, I thought it would be the best of the CGI films of this year. That was, until I witnessed the pure joy that is Pixar’s WALL-E.

Set in the distant future, Earth has been abandoned due to the planet becoming overrun with garbage produced by the corporation, Buy N Large. Every human has abandoned the planet to live on large interstellar luxury liners. Left on earth are robots, Waste Allocation Load Lifter Earth-Class or WALL-E. The last of these robots is our titular hero. He spends his days compacting rubbish. However, whenever he finds a trinket he is fascinated by, he keeps it. Years of isolation have led to this one robot to develop a personality. He loves musicals, is mesmerised by the simplest of trinkets and has a cockroach friend. One day, a ship lands on Earth and drops of EVE, a feminine robot tasked with doing reconnaissance on Earth. WALL-E is immediately infatuated with her and after a few aborted introductions, they become close. But EVE’s mission is a success and she is recovered by her mother ship. And WALL-E does everything he can to rescue his love.



There’s so much right with WALL-E, it’s hard to know where to start. Firstly, the film looks gorgeous. From the character designs to the production designs and cinematography, there’s not one frame of WALL-E that isn’t worthy of a poster by itself. WALL-E’s design is pretty basic, he’s a box with a head, arms and treads. But in the hands of the Pixar animators, he bursts with personality. The first thirty minutes of the film are dialogue free. This time is mainly spent with WALL-E exploring and discovering. And had the film continued this way, I’d have been perfectly happy! But then, this is a narrative film, so story had to take precedence. It’s a testament to the quality of animation that this simple act of exploration is so compelling. But maybe that’s just the animator in me wanting to see more!

It would have been very interesting if the team behind WALL-E had let the entire film go without a single human character or line of dialogue. Sure, WALL-E has little words to say now and again, but for the most part, everything is conveyed in gesture. And every emotion and thought is perfectly clear. When the humans do appear, the film takes a knock. While it’s an obvious route to have to go down, it’s just a shame that it needed to be done. I cant see any reason why anyone wouldn’t engage with the personality of WALL-E and his love story with EVE. We didn’t need the human characters in the film.



While it’s all well and good to gush endlessly about how impressive the technical aspects of the film are, it wouldn’t be a film without a story. After all, WALL-E is essentially a love story, and makes no apology for it. It’s a pretty heart-warming love story too. WALL-E is such a compassionate and dedicated character that it’s difficult not to be turned into a blubbering mess when watching him. In fact, it’s easy to say that if you aren’t won over by the character, it’s proof you were born without a soul.

There’s no real point in going on with this review. WALL-E’s a brilliant film, and while it doesn’t have the laugh ratio of Kung Fu Panda, it’s just a better movie. It’s one of Pixar’s best, and something all involved with should be very very proud of. As an animator, it’s a stunning piece of work and proves that you can put personality to anything, no matter how organic or inorganic it is. As a film fan, it’s a touching, warm, gorgeous film.


9/10

KUNG FU PANDA (2008) - Mark Osborne & John Stevenson

After the appalling Shrek The Third was released last year, it seemed that Dreamworks Animation were just gunning for cash, and not particularly interested in releasing animated films with any substance at all. CGI animation is no longer the jaw-dropping visual goldmine it once was, as audiences have become accustomed to high-quality 3D animation. So visuals alone no longer cut it. In order to get the audiences in the seats, the writers of these films strive to write more layered stories, with jokes not just for kids, but for adults too. To this end, sometimes plot can suffer in order to squeeze in one more joke. So it’s refreshing to see a film like Kung Fu Panda. It doesn’t take itself too seriously and still manages to be very entertaining.

Po is the laziest and clumsiest animal in the Valley of Peace. He works in his father’s noodle shop. But his real dream is to be a mighty Kung Fu warrior. When it is announced that Oogway, the master of the Kung Fu temple is to choose the Dragon Warrior, the prophesised warrior destined to bring peace to the valley, Po makes his way to the temple for the festivities. Much to everyone’s surprise (and none to that of the audience), Po is chosen. He gets to train under Master Shifu, alongside his heroes, the Furious Five- Monkey, Tigress, Mantis, Viper and Crane, all of whom resent this blow-in. And in a prison far away from the valley, shamed warrior Tai Lung escapes from his captors and makes his way back to the Valley of Peace to claim the title of Dragon Warrior for himself.



Okay, so Kung Fu Panda’s plot isn’t exactly Citizen Kane. It’s the typical story of a no-hoper who turns his luck around and becomes something nobody ever thought he could be. He faces challenges he shouldn’t overcome, but he finds a way. He rises to the challenge. It’s nothing we haven’t seen before. But in the hands of directors, Mark Osborne and John Stevenson, Kung Fu Panda proves to be a damn entertaining watch. The success of the film rests largely on the shoulders of Jack Black, who voices Po. He’s an actor who’s familiar to both older and younger audiences, and his vocal talents seem to embody Po perfectly. He’s the character who gets all the laughs, which mostly come from Po falling over in various different ways.

That’s not to say that Kung Fu Panda is a film that relies on one element. When the action scenes kick in, they’re very entertaining. And at 92 minutes, the film moves at a very fast pace. At times, character development suffers. And it seems that some of the voice talents are a bit wasted. The Furious Five, voiced by Angelina Jolie, Seth Rogen, Lucy Liu, David Cross and Jackie Chan, yes, Jackie Chan, are given little to do in the film. Their resentment towards Po isn’t really explored. This element is sacrificed in order to keep things moving along. But then, this is a kids’ film, and it makes no attempt to be anything else. And it’s because of that, and despite the minor flaws that the film works very well.



The animation, as expected, is gorgeous. Po’s design works very well for the physical comedy in the film. At times, there are slow motion close-ups of Po’s gurning face, and these moments are pretty funny in themselves. The animation team seem to be having a lot of fun acting with this character. The production design in particular is gorgeous. The film has a visual style of it’s own, blending natural elements such as falling cherry blossoms, with cold, almost industrial style of Tai Lung’s prison. The production team are on top form and have created in Kung Fu Panda the most visually impressive of all the Dreamworks productions to date.

Kung Fu Panda is a kids’ film. It doesn’t layer in adult jokes that other animated films are so fond of doing these days. It’s unashamedly for the kids and if you can accept the prat-falls and juvenile nature of the comedy, then it’s a very entertaining film. Making up a helluva lot for last year’s terrible Shrek debacle, Kung Fu Panda is a film the Dreamworks guys can be proud of. Whether or not it’ll be able to trump Pixar’s Wall-E is questionable at this stage. But it remains a very entertaining film none the less.


8/10

BEOWULF (2007) - Robert Zemeckis

Cinema certainly has come a long way since the Lumiere Brothers first terrified Victorian audiences with images of a train arriving at a station. But the evolution of the art form has sped up in the last three decades, due in part to the use of computers. Director Robert Zemeckis has done plenty to promote the use of special effects. And with Beowulf, Zemeckis pushes the boundaries once more, using motion capture to create a film entirely out of CGI. It’s not the first time this process has been used, but Zemeckis raises the bar with his reimagining of the Old English heroic poem.

Beowulf opens with a celebration of the opening of King Hrothgar’s new meade hall, Heorot. The noise from the celebrations attracts Grendel, a monster that is the son of a water demon. Grendel attacks the hall and kills many of Hrothgar’s men, then disappears into the night. Hrothgar is at his wit’s end and needs a hero. Arriving from the sea is a host of men led by Beowulf, a brash, arrogant warrior who claims he will destroy Hrothgar’s monster and return peace to the land. Grendel once again attacks the hall, but becomes unstuck when battling Beowulf. Grendel limps back to his cave and dies in the company of his mother. Beowulf and Hrothgar celebrate Grendel’s demise, but during the night, the halls are once again attacked and many die. Hrothgar tells Beowulf that the second attack was perpetrated by Grendel’s mother and that Beowulf must also destroy her. Beowulf sets out to once again battle monsters. But his arrogance and lust for power may be his own undoing.



Obviously the main attraction of Beowulf is going to be the spectacle of seeing the film created entirely of CGI. And it is quite impressive. The landscapes are almost photo-realistic. The special effects are amazing. The production design is fantastic. And the CGI is the best in the industry. But while all this is great, I found myself asking what the point of the film is. The part of it that has me vexed, is that all the actors are all motion captured and then the models are made to look exactly like their human counterparts.

It is a showy piece of cinema. A kind of ‘look what we can do!’ exclamation. But again, why? I don’t really get what the point in motion capturing an actor and making him or her look exactly like they do in real life is (with the exception of Ray Winstone, who’s made look a lot slimmer and younger in the film). Either you film the actors, or you animate in CGI. As an animator myself, I’ve never been too impressed with motion capture. While it’s almost true to life, there’s always something missing from the motion that makes it feel unreal. And that’s pretty much what I felt watching Beowulf. It’s impressive, but something ain’t right.



As for the direction, well it’s pretty good. Unfortunately there are some rather silly moments in the film that had me laughing when I shouldn’t. Beowulf battles Grendel naked. While this is a good idea in the context of the movie, Zemeckis takes some drastic steps to ensure we don’t see Beowulf’s ‘sword’ and by doing this, the scene becomes a bit laughable. The battle with Grendel himself is a bit of an anti-climax. I’d heard bits and pieces about this poem over the years and I expected something a little more... epic, I guess. In fact, Beowulf’s battle with a dragon, the climax of the film, is far more impressive.

The acting, if you can really call it that, isn’t too bad. But the characters look soulless, so this kind of kills any nuances the actors may have brought to their roles. And that’s a little disappointing considering the cast includes Anthony Hopkins, John Malkovich and Brendan Gleeson. The script by Neil Gaiman and Roger Avary translates pretty well into modern English, even if there are one or two silly moments that are a little too modern. The story itself is pretty basic. Monster kills man. Man kills monster. Other monster kills more men. Man must kill other monster. But there’s plenty of visual moments to keep you interested.

Beowulf is an interesting benchmark in terms of cinema. It’s a good place to look back at how far the art form has come. And a good place to glimpse into the future at where it’s going. And if you get to see the film in 3-D, as I did, it’s a fairly amusing film to fill two hours. But as a film, it’s nothing really spectacular. More of a portfolio piece for a special effects company than a brilliant cinematic film.


6/10

RATATOUILLE (2007) - Brad Bird

Ever since Jeffrey Katzenberg parted ways with Disney and set up Dreamworks with Spielberg and David Geffen, the two studios have fought an unofficial war over the art form they dominate, CGI animated movies. Earlier this year, Dreamworks released the truly appalling Shrek The Third, a bland, uninspired third part in the previously great Shrek saga. Disney, meanwhile, have had the services of Pixar studios as their super weapon in the war. Pixar are pretty much industry leaders at this stage, creating animated features (and shorts) that have blazed a trail for all other studios to follow. This year, they released their latest offering, Ratatouille, directed by animation god, Brad Bird.

Ratatouille follows the tried and tested Pixar formula of taking a protagonist, removing him or her from their comfortable, recognisable world, and plonking them right in the middle of somewhere they don’t belong. This time, if you haven’t guessed, the protagonist (or for the more pedantic of you, one half of the two protagonists) is a rat. A rat by the name of Remy, who dreams of becoming a chef. He’s gifted with a talent for flavours and smells, and after being evicted (rather violently) from his home, and separated from his ratty brethren, finds himself in Paris with nowhere to go, and no one to turn to. His imagination conjures an image of his hero, chef Auguste Gusteau, who leads him to Gusteau’s restaurant, which has declined in fortune since the death of it’s famous chef. Here, Remy finds himself in the company of Linguini, a garbage boy who dreams of being a chef, but is lacking the talent. The two form an alliance which will give Linguini the job he’s always wanted, but will allow Remy become the chef he could never dream of being otherwise.



Okay, there’s two ways I’m going to deal with this movie. Firstly, I’ll get the unpleasantness out of the way. There is one weakness to the film, and that’s the story. Now before some of you have aneurisms, let me say that there’s nothing particularly wrong with the story. It’s just that it’s not exactly new ground for Pixar movies. As mentioned before, it uses the formula that has proven to be successful for Pixar movies in the past. They take a character, take it out of his or her environment and place them somewhere unfamiliar. I guess this is the basis of all drama, a character’s world is disrupted and he or she must struggle to regain the equilibrium. But Pixar films do it so obviously that sometimes, SOMETIMES, it feels like the stories are just vehicles to show of technical skill. However, it’s a minor complaint. And while I’ve preferred some of Pixar’s other films story-wise, Ratatouille is perfectly fine and inoffensive.

So that’s the (very minor) badness out of the way. And now onto the part I’ve been looking forward to. Quite simply, Ratatouille looks astonishing. I must have spent the first twenty minutes of the film with my jaw on the floor. We all know Pixar are good. With each film, if nothing else, they prove that they are the industry leaders when it comes to CGI animation. The character designs, animation, cinematography, production design and texturing in this film are all stunning. It’s quite difficult to find a film that is so expertly and flawlessly made. Animation is incredibly overlooked as an art form. It’s seen as film’s little brother and as such suffers from being viewed as a medium for children. It’s something animation filmmakers have struggled to overcome. In most cases, far more work goes into animation than live action. I’m somewhat biased in this, as I’m an animator myself, but the point still stands.



Brad Bird’s direction is just about perfect. He’s one of those rare filmmakers who is somewhat unnoticed, but his contribution to the art form is immense. Taking a look at his CV, it’s clear to see that Bird has the Midas touch. He worked on the Simpson in it’s golden era (the series began a rapid decline after Bird finished up work on it in ’97). He directed the incredibly underrated Iron Giant, and at Pixar directed the wonderful Incredibles. He’s struck gold again with Ratatouille, not only directing a magnificent looking film, but also directing the brilliant cast of actors, delivering great voice performances. Patton Oswalt, Ian Holm, Janeane Garofalo and Will Arnett lead the cast. But special mention must be made of Peter O’Toole. The legendary actor provides the voice for ‘villain,’ food critic Anton Ego and his acting is perfect. It’s great to see (or hear) the actor still has it (haven’t seen Venus).

After the rubbish Shrek The Third, it’s great to see a brilliantly made animated film. I watched it with a certain amount of jealousy, seeing a piece of animation so perfectly put together, and working in the same industry. But at the same time, it’s a joy to see animation made so well. Films of this quality need to be made in an industry so obsessed with films that are made to make a quick buck. This is what film was created for. This is art.


9/10

THE SIMPSONS MOVIE (2007) - David Silverman

I find myself faced with quite the quandary. On one side, I have the young version of myself. A version who, at eight years of age, was exposed to the magnificent world of The Simpsons. A world which would encapsulate the next nine years of my life, helping in some way to shape the person I am now. And on the other side, I have the person who followed this idealistic young kid. A person who watched the show he loved so dearly break his heart as it declined in quality to a degree where it became a parody of itself. It's a dilemma faced by many fans. A dilemma that has divided the fans into two warring factions. A division that's almost as vicious as the division between Palestinians and Israelis. However, one thing united almost everyone in fevered anticipation. And that's The Simpsons Movie.

The Simpsons Movie faces the difficult task that has faced many television adaptations. And that's finding a story that brings a half-hour show to the big screen for ninety minutes or more. In the movie, we find the denizens of everyone's favorite town attending a Green Day concert. Pollution kills the punk rockers and legislation is quickly passed to ban the dumping of waste in Springfield. Homer rescues a pig from slaughter and pays it more attention than he does his own son Bart. Bart find solace in Homer's arch-enemy and god-loving neighbor, Ned Flanders. Homer, faced with the difficult task of disposing of his new pig's waste, dumps the poo into Lake Springfield causing environmental disaster. The Environmental Protection Agency quarantines Springfield under an enormous dome, and Homer becomes the target of everyone's frustrations. The Simpson family escape the town and set off to start a new life in Alaska.



And so, after eighteen years, countless rumors, and three years of production, it's all boiled down to this. We have our Simpsons movie. And it's an incredibly difficult thing to say, but I cant help feeling it's a bit of a let-down. As I've said before, I feel the show has suffered a decline since about season nine. Around that time, it seemed the writers had begun to run out of steam. And instead of doing the smart thing and leaving us wanting more, the creative team behind the Simpsons have continued to flog the horse despite it's quite apparent decline in health. But prospects for the Simpson Movie looked good as the trailer caused quite a few laughs. And here in lies one of the huge problems. All the major laughs were in the trailer. If you've seen the trailer (and it's been pretty hard to miss as it's been EVERYWHERE), you've seen pretty much all the best bits, bar one or two other laughs.

I really don't want to sound like a disgruntled fan-boy, but it just seemed there was way more life to the early Simpsons. There was brilliant slapstick (some of which is repeated here), savage satire (none of this, unfortunately) and layering that was so smart, that on subsequent viewings (and even to this day) you found something fresh and original. Now, don't get me wrong, the writers of The Simpsons Movie really do give it their best shot. And there are some great moments. It's just that these moments are spread very thin over the course of the movie. It starts off well, but runs out of steam as soon as the plot takes off. Because this movie is on the big screen, the writers have more scope to push the boundaries. But it just seems that they don't push them enough.



As expected, the animation is taken up a huge notch from the television series. And it shows. Everything has the familiar primary colour scheme, and the skin of the characters is it's rich, healthy yellow tone. But with a movie-size budget, there's more they can do. The special effects are great, and used with gusto. The cameos from the likes of Green Day, and Tom Hanks... actually, that's all the cameos, are used well. But again, I expected a little more.

It's been a long time coming. Calls for the Simpsons Movie have rung out since the early nineties. Some will love it. Some will not. What cant be denied is that it's really just three episodes tied together with a common story. There are some great bits. But there aren't many. Ultimately, I had hoped for more. That in itself was probably my fault. There's a great Simpsons movie out there somewhere. But unfortunately, this ain't it.


5/10

SHREK THE THIRD (2007) - Chris Miller & Raman Hui

When Shrek arrived on the screens in 2001, it was heralded as a major coup for Jeffrey Katzenberg. The producer, having resigned from Disney after helping rejuvenate the company's fortunes in the mid 1980's, Katzenberg was looking for a hit with the studio he founded with David Geffen and Steven Spielberg, Dreamworks SKG. Shrek was seen as the anti-Disney film, and made no bones of having a poke at the other studio. And it didn't hurt matters that Shrek was a funny, smart and subversive movie, appealing to adults while still entertaining the kids. The sequel, Shrek 2, released in 2004, was another hit and retained the anarchic sensibilities of the first film. And this year, yet another three-quel is released in Shrek The Third.

In this third film, we find Shrek and his ogre wife, Fiona shacked up in the castle in the land of Far Far Away. When Shrek's father in law, King Harold takes ill and shuffles loose this mortal coil, it is up to Shrek to fill his boots. But this is a role Shrek isn't up for. Harold tells Shrek of another heir to the throne, a young boy named Arthur. So Shrek, Donkey and Puss in Boots set sail to find the young boy. But as Shrek leaves his wife, she drops the bombshell that she is pregnant, something Shrek doesn't take kindly to. Meanwhile, Prince Charming, incensed at losing out to the throne, and persuing a disappointing acting career, formulates a plane to seize the throne, do away with Shrek, and achieve his own happily ever after.




Director Andrew Adamson, who helmed Shrek and Shrek 2, left the franchise to take on The Chronicles of Narnia, but stayed on as producer of the third film. And so Chris Miller and Raman Hui took over directing duties on this one. And they've taken the film in an interesting direction- they've removed every single iota of comedy from the film. Shrek was hilarious. Subversive, ballsey, and at moments, very poignant. But in Shrek the Third, we have a watered-down, dull and worst of all, safe movie. It seems that for Dreamworks, Shrek has become a bit of a cash cow, and with that, they've lost the balls they had with the first two movies.

First off, this is an animated movie. And when it comes to these types of films, story doesn't have to be intricate or complex. It just has to have enough of a platform to cater for the jokes. And Shrek The Third certainly fits that mould. Which is fine. The problem is, there are no jokes to keep the film interesting. I cant recall one moment that elicited more than a smirk from me, and that is a huge flaw with the film. Gone are the clever and witty pot-shots at Disney. Gone are the little jokes that would go over the heads of the kids. The writers just play it absolutely safe and formulaic.



Mike Myers, Eddie Murphy, Cameron Diaz and Antonio Banderas return once again as Shrek, Donkey, Fiona and Puss, respectively. And they all do their jobs perfectly fine. But, as with the rest of the film, they're just going through the motions. The addition of Justin Timberlake as Arthur is somewhat predictable, and where as there could be plenty of room for a great send up of Timberlake's fame, they've instead made Arthur just another nerdy kid with self-esteem problems. Sure, he doesn't want the crown, but you know full well what's going to happen in the end. The Arthurian legend is very lightly touched upon as Merlin (Eric Idle, the second Python in the franchise after John Cleese as King Harold) makes an appearance, and I kept expecting some reference to Excalibur and the lady in the lake, but to no avail. Disappointing. There must be a wealth of jokes in there.

The animation is top quality. But that's to be expected from Dreamworks. Nothing new to report there really. I guess it's up to Disney's Ratatouille to wow us in the next few weeks. Overall, Shrek the Third is a huge disappointment. There is literally nothing here for adults. I know, it's a kids movie. But after Shrek, which had something for everyone, this really is a let down. It seems the summer of the three-quel blunders on with disappointment after disappointment.

3/10