Ogre and out…
Shrek and a bad case of sequel syndrome
SHREK THE THIRD **
DIRECTED BY Chris Miller and Raman Hui
STARRING Antonio Banderas, Cameron Diaz, Eddie Murphy, Justin Timberlake, Mike Myers, Rupert Everett
US 2007 92mins.
WHAT’S GREEN, likes living in swamps and looks worryingly like Wayne Rooney? Yep, it’s Shrek, and he’s back, larger than life, as ever, our loveable anti-hero with all his bum and fart jokes and warm heart. But Shrek the Third is about responsibilities, inheriting a kingdom, becoming a father, being a ‘new man’. The original cast remain and do an excellent job: Mike Myers as Shrek; Cameron Diaz as his now pregnant wife, Princess Fiona; Eddie Murphy and Antonio Banderas as the troublesome double act of Donkey and Puss in Boots. The problem is in this once upon a time land far, far away of fairy tale hot-potch, where a petulant gingerbread man meets a politically astute Pinocchio, the original brilliance is starting to fade – Prince Charming’s interrogation of our wooden nosed friend is one of best skits in the film. Oh yes, it’s funny. Oh yes, it’s well executed. Computer animation is now as commonplace as the original Disney cartoons. But when you take away the technical sleight of hand, with its beautiful new backdrops, the magician’s hat is looking sadly empty. As is the addition to the team of Eric Idle as Merlin, whose wizardry wears very thin. The magic, it seems, has gone.
The plot is predictable and clich?d, a classic case of “must make a sequel syndrome” and cashing in on a certain bet. The Oscar-winning first Shrek felt groundbreaking in its production values and in its characterisation. This third instalment is simply spiralling down, running out of new ideas. Somehow one just knew that all those spoilt fairytale princesses, Cinderella, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, would one day wake up out of their “oh so feminine” slumbers and become the women they were meant to be, complete with tattoos and attitude, their job to fend off a coup d’etat by the wicked Prince Charming and his merry band of fairytale heavies. Meanwhile, the rightful heir, the wimpish Artie, played by Justin Timberlake, is being persuaded to take on his role as a reluctant hero. But it is the villainous Rupert Everett, as Prince Charming, that gets some of the best lines: well bad boys are always so seductive.
The driving force behind this seemingly unstoppable Shrekworld is commercialism. The Shrek theme park is already being built, Shrek 4 is planned to hit our screens in 2010 and merchandise from duvet covers to computer games have already flooded shops, while Shrek the musical will be on Broadway soon. It’s a brand, like Bond or Winnie the Pooh or, indeed, Pirates of the Carribbean. And that is the danger of the “neverending” stories, when each film should be better than the last. There are already bottoms on seats waiting breathlessly to see their hero back, its easy money, a sure-fire success, so why has Shrek failed to deliver? Well, basically because it’s played safe, I loved the first Shrek as much as the kids in the cinema. It appealed to both adults and their offspring. There were enough clever asides and references to make it appeal at all levels. The music was witty and well used, the jokes had an edge and the terms of reference from other movies woven into the plot were clever. This third instalment is not a disaster, you’ll still while away a pleasant afternoon with the kids if they are fans, but it won’t please its following among the older teenagers as much as the first two and, to be frank, it’s formulaic and a tad dull.
And that is, of course, why we will continue to have sequels. If a film makes a box office hit one year the temptation is to build on that customer loyalty for the next. But many are sadly disappointing those that see them. I know of no-one who thought the last Pirates of the Carribbean better than the first. Yet some sequels work and Harry Potter is one of those. Even though the latest film may not have pleased its fans as much as the others with its adolescent angst and psychological inwardness, there is at least a attempt to make each film unique by using different directors. They have got darker, they have got bleaker but they have grown along with the characters and many an argumentative hour can be spent debating which of the sequence is the best.
The same can be said of Bond, in this case the continual recasting has led to “eras”; no two pundits will have the same favourite. For many, the earthy realism of Daniel Craig’s Bond with his hands on fisticuffs and macho style makes him the best Bond yet, for others Connery remains King, while my Gran always loved the wisecracking, urbane Roger Moore.
It’s easier to get away with the same characters in the same place in half an hour TV series. Shows such as The Simpsons and Friends work well over half an hour on a running gag but have struggled to sustain that interest over two hours of film. That is why film sequels with finite endings adapted from books, such as The Lord of the Rings trilogy or Potter, are more successful. Audiences, even young audiences, are sophisticated consumers these days; they want to see development not just in visual effects but in the richness of the script and storyline.
Shrek the Third had the biggest box opening ever of an animated film, grossing $121 million. Given the quality of the actors and the technical team and the eagerness with which it was awaited, it is disappointing that the spark has gone from its originality, playfulness and the sharp observation of social snobbery around being big and green and different. The paying audience deserves better than this. It may well be time to send Shrek to that great swamp in the sky. Ogre and out. But I fancy while the cash registers still ring it’ll be a while before they are all allowed to live happily ever after…..
