About "Shrek the Third"
Things are not so in the Far Far Around Kingdom. That is, not fabulous, but too vital. Through this, the dramaturgy suffers, which is why it is not at all interesting to watch “Shrek the Third”. And now, perhaps, the details ...
It sounds silly, but I looked at “Shrek the Third” twice and both times I didn’t like it. The first impressions, the sharpest, were heavily mixed up with elementary disappointment — that is, the sensation of unjustified hopes. The second attempt brought details that were so lacking for analysis, and the words that I try to lay out now in the most convincing way.
I hope, where did the hopes of Shrek the Third come from? "Shrek" and "Shrek 2" were the best that happened in the mass full-length animation in recent years. The characters that emerged from nowhere - original, very solid, well thought out and memorable. Wonderful drama - very different in the first two parts, but - amazing. Layered by the happy forethought, which allows you to create iconic cartoons for the whole family. And, of course, the first “Shreks” are animation and music, which gave films no less than a third of their wild popularity.
Track Three is, without exaggeration, Anti-Shrek. With a few exceptions - graphics and animation. She is still good, if not to say - great. Truth and 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 the action is slightly annoying, unkindly tones, adding a slightly perceptible feeling of anxiety to each scene.
')
But back to the trend of "Anti-Shrek." I do not know, but perhaps the creators of the new cartoon are even proud of it. After all, judging without prejudice, in the first two “Shreks” everything was turned upside down, all canons turned inside out - and in “Shrek the Third” an effort was simply made so that the series went, finally, according to classical schemes. The trouble is that it is clumsily performed, in a hurry and somehow unprofessional ...
Shrek is not like himself - the main horror of the picture. We sincerely loved the green giant, rude, but good-natured guy inside with powerful, but suppressed by willful emotions. Shrek is bold, decisive, laconic, fair, kind, intelligent, economic. The authors, as if with a pickaxe from a giant fragment of a rock, managed to carve out a character of unprecedented internal strength.
In “Shrek the Third”, even Shrek was not left with memories. Ogre became intrusive, verbose, hysterical, pokazushen, unsure of himself. Now it is not he who makes fate, but fate makes him what he wants. And, yes, the spineless and conformity 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 heroes and other heroes of “Shrek the Third”. Especially the Donkey, to which we have become accustomed to being the main annoyingly attractive attraction of the cartoon, and the Cat, which behaves simply inadequate. The shown scene of the farewell to the Cat of a dozen cats is in no way logically linked to the image of the esthete and caballero, which the authors so persistently mold him throughout the film.
The degeneracy of the “Shrek III” is best described as the destruction of the pyramid. Previously, everything was good and clear: the peak was Shrek, then the Donkey and Fiona followed, then the Cat, the parents, the main villains ... Magic characters and other Pinocchio participate in the meaningful extras ...
It was the crowd in “Shrek III” that suddenly began to play a more significant role. One can easily recall the pleasant gag from the Gingerbread Man, Captain Hook, Three Ask, Trees. The same Pinocchio, finally. At the same time, the main characters, from which you are just waiting for extravaganza, are silent. As a result, instead of the pyramid, we got its ruins consisting of identical bricks piled in disorder. No, of course, one cannot say that the Gingerbread Man caught up in memorability with Shrek, but there is no that gigantic distance that happens between the prima and the chorus in the new cartoon.
From the characters go to the plot. With his criticism you need to be especially careful. Firstly, because, of course, there is something to criticize. And secondly, because a frontal comparison of the first two series and the third - from the point of view of the plot canvas - will do little.
In fact, formally the first two stories were by no means a model of drama. Well, yes, he lived was a kind, but a gloomy ogre, on the orders of the king he went to rescue the princess so that the evil dwarf lord married her. Saved, led back, during the return of the ogre and the princess fell in love with each other, so much so that the magic curse played into their hands. Hooray - the end.
The second part with a similar schematic scenario looks even more anecdotal, which does not prevent it from being brilliant.
The fact is that the plot outline in the first “Shreks” is just a wrapper, inside which was all the most delicious. Jokes, gags, etudes, scenes, songs, dances, experiences, emotions, parodies, hints - and all this lay in a very clever sequence that allowed everyone, of any age and level of development, to see their 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 sleeplessly clap their eyelashes, or wrinkle their nose with a slight disgust, for children ...
“Shrek III” has a difficult relationship with children. And I'm not just talking about the essence of the plot. If the first part I easily nailed my nephew to the couch for a long hour and a half, and this trick got off my hands ad infinitum, 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 definitive diagnosis.
But we still continue. What else is wrong story "Shrek Third"? Details. They are unexpectedly many, and all of them are poorly worked out. The kaleidoscope of events spinning around the heroes, in theory, should have made the cartoon more saturated. But for some reason it happened - quite the opposite. The fact is that the abundance of details and plot scenes are not supported by their elaboration. All events fall out on the head of the viewer as from the box of a bad magician. Bach - send the trees. Bach is crazy Merlin. Bach - girls came to Fiona. Bach - mamma punches the head with the wall. A lot of spectacle, communication and logic - no! As a result, the plot again looks like a patchwork, sort of a set of short stories, and not a single piece. Approximately so removed in Russia and Europe with their beggarly, in comparison with America, budgets.
Uninteresting characters, uninteresting events, lack of logic and an excess of fake details. Subject disunity: dramatic and age. And many, many pathos and moral kamlaniy about family values ​​and children, the colors of life. Given that the authors wanted to sneeze children. Pretty bleak picture, is not it? Unfortunately, this is “Shrek the Third” ...
PS By the way, the community of pros from Shrek III is not thrilled: www.metacritic.com/film/titles/shrekthethird . 58 out of 100. (Added at 16:58 05/29/07.)
It sounds silly, but I looked at “Shrek the Third” twice and both times I didn’t like it. The first impressions, the sharpest, were heavily mixed up with elementary disappointment — that is, the sensation of unjustified hopes. The second attempt brought details that were so lacking for analysis, and the words that I try to lay out now in the most convincing way.
I hope, where did the hopes of Shrek the Third come from? "Shrek" and "Shrek 2" were the best that happened in the mass full-length animation in recent years. The characters that emerged from nowhere - original, very solid, well thought out and memorable. Wonderful drama - very different in the first two parts, but - amazing. Layered by the happy forethought, which allows you to create iconic cartoons for the whole family. And, of course, the first “Shreks” are animation and music, which gave films no less than a third of their wild popularity.
Track Three is, without exaggeration, Anti-Shrek. With a few exceptions - graphics and animation. She is still good, if not to say - great. Truth and 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 the action is slightly annoying, unkindly tones, adding a slightly perceptible feeling of anxiety to each scene.
')
But back to the trend of "Anti-Shrek." I do not know, but perhaps the creators of the new cartoon are even proud of it. After all, judging without prejudice, in the first two “Shreks” everything was turned upside down, all canons turned inside out - and in “Shrek the Third” an effort was simply made so that the series went, finally, according to classical schemes. The trouble is that it is clumsily performed, in a hurry and somehow unprofessional ...
Shrek is not like himself - the main horror of the picture. We sincerely loved the green giant, rude, but good-natured guy inside with powerful, but suppressed by willful emotions. Shrek is bold, decisive, laconic, fair, kind, intelligent, economic. The authors, as if with a pickaxe from a giant fragment of a rock, managed to carve out a character of unprecedented internal strength.
In “Shrek the Third”, even Shrek was not left with memories. Ogre became intrusive, verbose, hysterical, pokazushen, unsure of himself. Now it is not he who makes fate, but fate makes him what he wants. And, yes, the spineless and conformity 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 heroes and other heroes of “Shrek the Third”. Especially the Donkey, to which we have become accustomed to being the main annoyingly attractive attraction of the cartoon, and the Cat, which behaves simply inadequate. The shown scene of the farewell to the Cat of a dozen cats is in no way logically linked to the image of the esthete and caballero, which the authors so persistently mold him throughout the film.
The degeneracy of the “Shrek III” is best described as the destruction of the pyramid. Previously, everything was good and clear: the peak was Shrek, then the Donkey and Fiona followed, then the Cat, the parents, the main villains ... Magic characters and other Pinocchio participate in the meaningful extras ...
It was the crowd in “Shrek III” that suddenly began to play a more significant role. One can easily recall the pleasant gag from the Gingerbread Man, Captain Hook, Three Ask, Trees. The same Pinocchio, finally. At the same time, the main characters, from which you are just waiting for extravaganza, are silent. As a result, instead of the pyramid, we got its ruins consisting of identical bricks piled in disorder. No, of course, one cannot say that the Gingerbread Man caught up in memorability with Shrek, but there is no that gigantic distance that happens between the prima and the chorus in the new cartoon.
From the characters go to the plot. With his criticism you need to be especially careful. Firstly, because, of course, there is something to criticize. And secondly, because a frontal comparison of the first two series and the third - from the point of view of the plot canvas - will do little.
In fact, formally the first two stories were by no means a model of drama. Well, yes, he lived was a kind, but a gloomy ogre, on the orders of the king he went to rescue the princess so that the evil dwarf lord married her. Saved, led back, during the return of the ogre and the princess fell in love with each other, so much so that the magic curse played into their hands. Hooray - the end.
The second part with a similar schematic scenario looks even more anecdotal, which does not prevent it from being brilliant.
The fact is that the plot outline in the first “Shreks” is just a wrapper, inside which was all the most delicious. Jokes, gags, etudes, scenes, songs, dances, experiences, emotions, parodies, hints - and all this lay in a very clever sequence that allowed everyone, of any age and level of development, to see their 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 sleeplessly clap their eyelashes, or wrinkle their nose with a slight disgust, for children ...
“Shrek III” has a difficult relationship with children. And I'm not just talking about the essence of the plot. If the first part I easily nailed my nephew to the couch for a long hour and a half, and this trick got off my hands ad infinitum, 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 definitive diagnosis.
But we still continue. What else is wrong story "Shrek Third"? Details. They are unexpectedly many, and all of them are poorly worked out. The kaleidoscope of events spinning around the heroes, in theory, should have made the cartoon more saturated. But for some reason it happened - quite the opposite. The fact is that the abundance of details and plot scenes are not supported by their elaboration. All events fall out on the head of the viewer as from the box of a bad magician. Bach - send the trees. Bach is crazy Merlin. Bach - girls came to Fiona. Bach - mamma punches the head with the wall. A lot of spectacle, communication and logic - no! As a result, the plot again looks like a patchwork, sort of a set of short stories, and not a single piece. Approximately so removed in Russia and Europe with their beggarly, in comparison with America, budgets.
Uninteresting characters, uninteresting events, lack of logic and an excess of fake details. Subject disunity: dramatic and age. And many, many pathos and moral kamlaniy about family values ​​and children, the colors of life. Given that the authors wanted to sneeze children. Pretty bleak picture, is not it? Unfortunately, this is “Shrek the Third” ...
PS By the way, the community of pros from Shrek III is not thrilled: www.metacritic.com/film/titles/shrekthethird . 58 out of 100. (Added at 16:58 05/29/07.)
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/9068/
All Articles