Wow....Shrek 3 is getting some bad reviews

Hmm. The Detroit Free Press ran its review today, and they gave it three out of four stars. Usually, the reviewer there has good taste...

If nothing else, it can't be any worse than Shark Tale was.
 
[quote name='ananag112']Wow...

So first Spiderman 3 flops and then Shrek. If Pirates flops as well....[/QUOTE]

Interesting...
 
Pirates I hear actually does the series justice. And it's very dark as well, which is all the better.
 
Well..maybe people are starting to see Shrek for what it is..cheap degrading mindless computer graphics crap...

Perhaps..a HAND DRAWN RENISSANCE!!! Yes...after years of CG film after CG film..maybe it's finally the end..and we'll see dozens of INCREDIBLE hand-drawn animation films from Disney, FOX, Dreamworks, Ghibli, and more!!

I could only hope...
 
[quote name='ananag112']Wow...

So first Spiderman 3 flops and then Shrek. If Pirates flops as well....[/QUOTE]
Flops?

Sure, the reaction it's gotten has been mixed at best, but when a movie manages to break most of the preexisting box office records in one weekend, I don't think anyone's justified in calling it a flop.
 
im not surprised the films gettign shit reviews. its all about money and star whoring and this film is full of stars whoring themselves. they passed on the firts film and kicked themselves for it and then passed on the second thinking lightining wouldnt strike twice so now everyone and their mother wanted to be in the 3rd and surpise it sucks moldy turtle nuts.


there wasnt even a story to be made for it and how many times can you listen to mike meyers do the same damn jokes and impressions and use and abuse slang terms no longer fit for human use. these are the kinds of movies that try to be hip and with it and fail sooner or later because its just more been there done that and playing it safe. but kids will love it and they will get their parents to buy them the games too so in the end they win and we get to ignore the piece of shit.
 
Well IMO all three movies 3rd movies (spiderman, Sherk, Pirates) aren't going to be the best in the series. They're all made for the money. Yes the movies do advance the story somewhat. But at the end of the day they're going to be a lot of filler with some main story stuff. i.e Pirates 2.

I like the first two Shrek, and Pirates movies. If a movie company can put a movie out that'll grab 100 million+ dollars then they'll do it. Hence bad trilogies.
 
[quote name='sarausagi']Well..maybe people are starting to see Shrek for what it is..cheap degrading mindless computer graphics crap...

Perhaps..a HAND DRAWN RENISSANCE!!! Yes...after years of CG film after CG film..maybe it's finally the end..and we'll see dozens of INCREDIBLE hand-drawn animation films from Disney, FOX, Dreamworks, Ghibli, and more!!

I could only hope...[/QUOTE]
That would require Disney being able to make a movie without having a PR disaster and having to change major plot points in a film two and a half years before it's scheduled for release, as just happened with The Frog Princess.

CG's cheaper and faster, as a general rule, so I doubt that hand-drawn animation is ever going to come back full on. That said, I'm hoping that the new films and shorts Disney is prepping take off, because we've got far too much CG right now.
 
[quote name='sarausagi']Well..maybe people are starting to see Shrek for what it is..cheap degrading mindless computer graphics crap...

Perhaps..a HAND DRAWN RENISSANCE!!! Yes...after years of CG film after CG film..maybe it's finally the end..and we'll see dozens of INCREDIBLE hand-drawn animation films from Disney, FOX, Dreamworks, Ghibli, and more!!

I could only hope...[/quote]


its not the cgi that ruins these films its the stories. i like cgi cartoons no more or less then hand drawn but its really the story that makes the film. shrek 1 was a surprise hit many peopel thought was a shit movie and now yeah damn near every cartoon film that comes out is cgi but some films like the pixar filsm do cgi and great stories well. but hey thats why God invented anime if you want hand drawn stuff with a good story there you go. and its free for the most part.
 
Maybe it is just me but Shrek was never all that funny to me. I have seen both of them(My little bro is a token of how commerical ads work.) and they had the ocasional funny part but for the most part it was just stupid.

Ironicly enough I will probably end up seeing this saturday.
 
[quote name='lokizz']its not the cgi that ruins these films its the stories. i like cgi cartoons no more or less then hand drawn but its really the story that makes the film. shrek 1 was a surprise hit many peopel thought was a shit movie and now yeah damn near every cartoon film that comes out is cgi but some films like the pixar filsm do cgi and great stories well. but hey thats why God invented anime if you want hand drawn stuff with a good story there you go. and its free for the most part.[/QUOTE]

Anime ftw!
 
Well, remember everyone..

Shrek is NOT a trilogy..there are FIVE planned Shrek movies..2 in the next 6 years..

Personally, the character designs never appealed to me. I saw the Fiona = O..oh wait..

Fiona = Ogre

thing from a mile away before the first movie ever came out..just based on Fiona's model structure..Donkey..like every single Eddie Murphy role is blatantly annoying...have you ever seen Mulan in Mandarin? With Eddie Murphy out of the picture, Mulan is 10x better the film and quite honestly, Li Wen and Jackie Chan are MUCH better voice actors...I forget who Mushu was in the Mandarin, but it sounded MUCH better than Eddie..as for the newer characters..Puss in Boots..oh god...just more proof that CG usually needs to resort to toilet humor or stereotypes to be any sort of effective with main stream crowds...as for Shrek himself? Not funny..not appealing..at all

I dislike CG as a whole, but Finding Nemo is an excellent movie and I sincerely believe Pixar is the only studio that knows how to handle CG well..the original Toy Story and Finding Nemo are the two finest CG films ever..I will admit though..Madagascar and Happy Feet are very decent as far as CG movies go.
 
Wait a second... you srsly expected half-decent reviews for this film??? :|



Brian Taleraco's comment sums up what I expected:

"If you enjoyed the first two Shreks and don't mind paying again for something you've kind of seen before, you won't be disappointed."


A 50% tomato meter is actually more than I anticipated.




I don't even remember if I liked the second one. The first one was alright from what I remember.


[quote name='sarausagi']Personally, the character designs never appealed to me. I saw the Fiona = O..oh wait..

Fiona = Ogre

thing from a mile away
[/QUOTE]

Whoopedy doo. So did everyone else. Doesn't diminish where the movie stands quality wise at all. It was hardly a very suprising plot-twist, just a fairly clever one that was well-done.

The original was a fine film, the rest are just typical stupid franchise fare, enjoyable for those who really like the series, but hardly what I personally like to spend my money on.
 
[quote name='Dead of Knight']Yeah, this really grinds my gears[/QUOTE]


[MEDIA]http://youtube.com/watch?v=_zIzciYwGHM&mode=related&search=[/MEDIA]

Yes I had to post that.
 
[quote name='lokizz']

there wasnt even a story to be made for it and how many times can you listen to mike meyers do the same damn jokes and impressions [/QUOTE]

You, sir, have never seen So I Married an Axe Murderer.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']Mike Meyers sequels are notorious for getting worse in quality each additional movie[/QUOTE]

Good point, never considered that.
 
[quote name='ananag112']Wow...

So first Spiderman 3 flops and then Shrek. If Pirates flops as well....[/QUOTE]

Yeah, Spider-man 3 TOTALLY flopped. I mean, it only made more money in the first and second weeks of both its predecessors. I think Sony is going bankrupt because of it. :roll:


As for the CGI comment earlier, Disney is trying to bring back a new hand-drawn renaissance of films. The first film, "The Frog Princess," is going back to Disney roots but with a twist: It will have the first African-American Disney Princess ever. That should be interesting.
 
I was obviously not talking about box office sales when I said that Spider-Man 3 flopped. It has done very well world wide and has broken all sorts of records. This post brought up the Rotten Tomatoes rating and currently Spider-Man 3 has a 61% on that site. While that score isn't too bad, it is far worse then the other two Spider-Man movies (which got a 90% and 93%).
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']You, sir, have never seen So I Married an Axe Murderer.[/quote]


ive seen it and aside from the father bits and phil hartmans scene the movie is a piece of quvering shit. mike meyers, wil ferrel and a couple other comedy movie regulars really are one trick ponies. not to say i havent liked some of their films because in the beginning i have but after the 4th or 5th film they do theyre fucking dialing it in with no remorse or regard for the people who pay to see them. adam sandler yeah hes another one. they were funny as hell when they were kinda lesser known film stars and more known for itv but once they blow up and their salaries increase the quality of their films decreases too.


you want to see a truly funny movie watch the station agent or tiptoes( its kinda sad too that one) but skip the pop crap film shite. the best comedy films tend to be the ones that play in select theatres or dont get released on film at all. and the best actors and actresses never get seen in movies because hollywood loves to reecycle the same crap on us because thyeyre all "sure things". the quality of films out there is a direct sign of how stupid they think moviegoers are.
 
id be curious to know though if peopel think its better to plan out a trilogy ahead of time to get the best results or should a trilogy just kinda happen over time? most trilogies suck these days but alot of that is due to them trying to make more movies when there shouldnt have been any. look at those matrix films if you took roughly 45 minutes out of the 2nd and 3rd films and smash it together youd have an awesome movie( oh yeah and cut out alot of dialogue. or you get a series like blade that could have gone on for a while but got gutted on the 3rd film with shitty acting , lame plots and lame new characters who were as belivable and interesting as a televised presidential address. and i still hate that blatant ipod ad fuckin lame.


i knew shrek was going to be crap when i heard jt was in it as well as regis philbin. i like regis hes funny as hell but cartoon actor he aint. they were stretching to make this movie to appeal to as many diff kinds of people as possible and it will because its crammed full of stars from all over and we all know theres tons of people heree and out there who will see films because their fav star is in them or in the case of resident evil 2 you get to see boobies or some shit.

bet you metroid movie there will be a lesbian scene with samus and a space pirate chick or she will at least get naked out fo the shower once.
 
In the end, it really doesn't give a shit what these reviewers think, because this movie will pull huge money in.

Seriously, movie reviewers must be the most worthless, unappreciated, nobody cares job around, because they can all bash the movie as much as they want, but I guarantee Shrek 3 will still be #1 this weekend and will still make the movie studio money, same as Spider-Man 3.

It seems every "critic" hated Spider-Man 3, but the movie was a huge success.

Hell, my little rant even extends to video game reviewers as well, nobody gives a shit what they think or else Spider-Man 3 wouldn't have sold as well as it did.

The common man just doesn't care about people who review movies.

Who cares about the Rotten Tomatoes score? It obviously didn't stop people from watching the movie, and *newsflash*, it certaintly won't stop people from buying the DVD. It's like people say "OMG, critics hate Shrek 3? It will bomb!!!" but it seems the more critics hate the movie, the more people go to see it.
 
I don't know what's up with all the Shrek hate. I remember the first film being well-received by, literally, everybody, and the second movie wasn't bad at all. Sucks to hear part 3 is the latest victim of sequelitis.
 
Shrek is Pixar for Soccer Moms. Pop culture pandering at its finest/lowest. Needless to say, the bad or 'mixed' review consensus will only galvanize most of the series' core audience to defiantly see it that much sooner and pimp it in the 'Don't listen to those bespectacled snobs' sort of way that much harder.

If you go see a movie just to show the critics how they hold no sway over you, well, the joke's on you, jerky.

P.S. I'm surprised they didn't find a way to shoehorn in a wisecracking penguin with a 'Brooklyn cabbie' accent.

EDIT: I didn't read Roufuss' post, but I'm not entirely sure that he and I are completely on the same side of the critics/audience issue, even if we both arrive at the same net conclusion.
 
[quote name='Mr. Anderson']I don't know what's up with all the Shrek hate. I remember the first film being well-received by, literally, everybody, and the second movie wasn't bad at all. Sucks to hear part 3 is the latest victim of sequelitis.[/QUOTE]
Srsly. I think people are hating just for the sake of being trolls.
 
[quote name='jollydwarf']Shrek is Pixar for Soccer Moms. Pop culture pandering at its finest/lowest. Needless to say, the bad or 'mixed' review consensus will only galvanize most of the series' core audience to defiantly see it that much sooner and pimp it in the 'Don't listen to those bespectacled snobs' sort of way that much harder.

If you go see a movie just to show the critics how they hold no sway over you, well, the joke's on you, jerky.

P.S. I'm surprised they didn't find a way to shoehorn in a wisecracking penguin with a 'Brooklyn cabbie' accent.

EDIT: I didn't read Roufuss' post, but I'm not entirely sure that he and I are completely on the same side of the critics/audience issue, even if we both arrive at the same net conclusion.[/QUOTE]

Well, I'm not going to be seeing it regardless (maybe when it's $9.99 on DVD one of these days), but it seems that the core audience, the casual movie fan, the millions of people who makes movies like this and Spider-Man 3 become #1, even bother to ever read or hear a review.

Critics seem to put themselves on this high horse, and there is always a few people that listen to them and go "OMG, Spider-Man 3 / Shrek 3 / popular movie sequel is getting bad reviews, HAHA IT WILL SUCK" but really, nobody cares about Ebert or the New York Post or some douchebag on Rotten Tomatoes thinks of a movie.

I just think it's probably the most worthless "profession" of all, because the movies the critics do love usually bomb, while the ones they pan are the #1 movies every week.

I just think that the whole industry needs some kind of revamping, because it's sad that it's in such a state where everything is seemingly backwards - lots of bad reviews should dissaude people to go see it, but these days you can almost predict which movies will be #1 just based on how many critics hate the movie.

I almost want to predict the critics are going to hate Pirates 3, as well. It won't stop the movie from making record breaking sales, though.

I guess the point of my rant is who really cares about reviewers think, since they don't mean jack shit to 99% of the population.
 
You know, maybe if reviewers said that Shrek 3 was an artsy, independent movie that never would succeed because of its limited run and intelligence no one would see it.
 
I guess the point of my rant is who really cares about reviewers think, since they don't mean jack shit to 99% of the population.

Well, to me, that's more of an indictment of the general population than the critics. I know this is sort of an age-old schism, and I really didn't want to drag this quote out, but as David Cross said a couple years ago, "We're in a vague state of anti-intellectual pride." (Quoted from memory) What I'm saying is that I think people, by and large, have upped the ante with their disdain towards the critical consensus, moving from mostly indifference to outright disdain. Like I said, more of a "I'll show them" sort of attitude.

Sure, any given critic has his or her biases and flaws, but they see movies for a living. They have a much greater appreciation for the medium than Joe Cineplex. The good ones can adjust their criteria for the genre of film (or album, or game, or book) being presented, while the bad ones unconditionally want Harvey Keitel sitting alone in an unfurnished room with one window, staring at a black-and-white framed portrait of some presumably deceased or long-gone love. The latter type tend to end up writing for the free, 'underground' weekly papers, or are buried on some obscure blog.

And I do firmly believe that critics hold some weight with some people for certain movies. Drek and Spider-Pete Wentz and just about any other obvious summer 'tentpole' film are not good examples. But when a film is perceived as something more 'important' and people want to feel 'cultured' for a couple hours in October, they might be more prone to suddenly listening to what the same critics who were 'worthless' in May have to say. CHUD had an editorial about this very thing a few months ago, and it extends to how the studios treat them, too. That is to say, critics are an accessory to be used only when convenient.

P.S. Jedi > Empire.

I should add you to my "Ignore" list just for that. I'm only half-kidding. I can only 'respect opinions' up to a point. How old are you? Please say you're a minor. It's your only hope.
 
[quote name='Dead of Knight']Srsly. I think people are hating just for the sake of being trolls.[/QUOTE]

I haven't passed judgment on the flick. I like the first two, I would like this one to be good. But its going to be one of those you have to see type deals. I've seen a lot of movies in theaters I've like, and critics rip apart. Its okay to have a dumb funny family movie in the theater. But Critics are always wanting movies to be art.
 
But Critics are always wanting movies to be art.


You forgot the "sm" in front of "art". That's really all most of 'em are asking. No, seriously.
 
[quote name='jollydwarf']But Critics are always wanting movies to be art.


You forgot the "sm" in front of "art". That's really all most of 'em are asking. No, seriously.[/QUOTE]
Well, the critics seemed to hate "Lady In The Water", but I and many of my friends thought it was a brilliantly crafted film... This is coming from a film production major who knows A LOT about substinance and suckiness of the film industry.
 
Now wait a minute - some of you can't understand the Shrek hate?

Can I ask why not?

Because seems to me that it's completely reasonable if you want it to be. For me that tends to fall along the "well the first one was original, the second one wasn't and felt like a cheap cash grab." Seems logical to me. And I'll tell ya - that's what happens when you Family Guy it up for most of the film (as far as I'm concerned).

Am I still going to see this? Yeah. But I have such abysmally low hope that it'll make me laugh more than half a dozen times as I listen to it reference Spider Man again (which is just a prediction on my part).
 
[quote name='SneakyPenguin']It looks way worse than the other two, so I'm not totally suprised. I'll still see it, but it just didn't seem as funny at all.[/QUOTE]

Wow . . . you're still alive. Shocking.
 
Actually not to surprised. They added a baby to the group. It can only go downhill from here. This is a perfect example of Hollywood milking a franchise until it's completely worthless.

It's horrifying to think about the 4th and 5th movies. Ugh.
 
There's no way Pirates 3 can be any shittier than Pirates 2.

They should have titled Pirates of the Caribbean differently... Something like:

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Segway to the Third Installment
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top