Musique:
Harry Gregson-WilliamsActeurs·trices:
Mike Myers, Eddie Murphy, Cameron Diaz, Antonio Banderas, Julie Andrews, John Cleese, Rupert Everett, Eric Idle, Justin Timberlake, Larry King (plus)VOD (4)
Résumés(1)
L'ogre Shrek n'avait pas quitté son marécage pestilentiel et épousé sa chère Fiona pour devenir roi. C'est pourtant ce qui risque de lui arriver après que son beau-père Harold clabote soudain sans crier gare. S'il n'arrive pas à dénicher illico un roi avec l'aide de ses fidèles compagnons, l'Âne et le Chat Potté, Shrek deviendra le prochain souverain du Royaume Fort Fort Lointain. Bonjour les ennuis !
À moins qu'Artie, le cousin loser de Fiona, ne se laisse convaincre de monter sur le trône à sa place. Mais ce paumé a-t-il vraiment l'étoffe d'un roi ?
(texte officiel du distributeur)
Vidéo (3)
Critiques (9)
Une nette perte de qualité. Dans le numéro deux, je tolérais encore les éléments parodiques, mais ici, j'étais véritablement outré par les blagues qui déforment la légende arthurienne. Arthur, Camelot, Merlin, ça me tient à cœur et il est hors de question qu’on les dénature et qu’on m’impose un Merlin sénile ou un Lancelot pathétique. Il faut toujours pouvoir s’arrêter à temps, mais on dirait que les réalisateurs n’ont pas appliqué ce principe cette fois-ci. Je me passerai sans doute le numéro quatre plus tard.
()
You cannot set foot in the same river twice. But perhaps on the third attempt, you will successfully, albeit stumblingly, ford it. Andrew Adamson is gone, replaced by a team of screenwriters who believe in themselves to a noticeably lesser extent than their predecessors, but I consider both to be positives. Not that references to popular culture have completely disappeared; this flaw persists, to the detriment of the narrative. And yet the story, despite various clichés or variations of familiar plots, races forward at a surprisingly brisk pace. Donkey still teeters on the edge of humor and obnoxiousness, Puss in Boots is the ideal partner, Fiona a devoted wife, and Shrek somehow still comes along unwillingly. And to my surprise, I am entertained by all of it.
()
No fun. And if a family comedy isn’t fun, what’s it good for? The jokes are either lame or stolen from past episodes (kitty eyes). And what happened to the real Shrek? Just a poor caricature of past episodes is all that’s left. I’m all for character development, but not in the wrong direction. The only ones I was actually pleased with were the dronkeys. On the level, I don’t want a part 4.
()
An awful disappointment. Shrek the Third isn’t a downright bad movie, but it’s so awfully average that it is completely uninteresting. Andrew Anderson is sorely missing. The worst thing is that even this part had huge potential. The amount of jokes and humor that could be gleaned from the excellent idea of all of the baddies from fairytales ganging up on the goodies. The final idea with the theatre performance was just crying out for nods... But no. References here were scarce as hen’s teeth and the humor has totally disappeared. All we are left with is a couple of wannabe funny situation gags, but there is a bare minimum of these too. And it isn’t that the humor here didn’t work, but nobody even tries use any. The exception to this is the Gingerbread Man. He is responsible for the only two scenes that worked in the entire movie. They rely on the crowds being satisfied just with the good old characters we met before. So Shrek has sunk into the sea of average family animated movies that part one did so much to stand out from. Now it offers adults nothing better than the same old never-ending stream of colorful dross for the very youngest kids.
()
A concentration of awkwardness and wretchedness meet in an intrusive farce that trumps, in its vileness, even Disney family shenanigans with children and animals. Children will probably laugh and clap at it, but the pop-culture-craving viewers will cry like never before. The beloved characters are the losers you pity for not having a script to read during the redaction process - they wouldn't do this again even for record financial offers. At the same time, I would like to know who embezzled the $160 million budget because it’s nowhere to be seen in the film.
()
Photos (70)
Photo © DreamWorks
![Shrek le troisième - Film](http://image.pmgstatic.com/cache/resized/w663/files/images/film/photos/000/198/198986_3adf43.jpg)
Annonces