May 18, 2004

The first true pleasure of Summer 2004 arrives tomorrow as Shrek 2 hits theaters. But the excitement will have to be slightly restrained.

The more surprising a movie, the tougher it is to generate a similar energy from the sequel. The advantage of a Godfather or a Harry Potter or The Lord of the Rings is that the roadmap existed before the success of the original film. George Lucas and Steven Spielberg each figured out that a serial is better than a sequel as they made Star Wars and Indiana Jones work in film after film. Superman II is regarded by some to be the best of Superman trilogy in no small part, it seems to me, because the sequel was produced in tandem with the first film and because Richard Lester added some manic energy to the portions of the movie that Richard Donner had already shot before exiting the second film.

Shrek 2 instead takes the Lethal Weapon route. Advance the story, add new characters, discover similar central challenges, repeat the stuff people really loved. If the Lethal Weapon series had to end, part of the reason would be because they were running out of multiple-block-sized exploding teardowns to run out of before the opening credits.

Lethal Weapon gave Mel Gibson's previously suicidal character a family to lose and Danny Glover's previously retiring cop a revitalized interest in action. They never reversed roles - a familiar but progressive set of priorities got them through numbers 2 and 3.

The theme of Shrek, which was there the whole way through but played like a punchline at the end of the film, was about inner beauty over preconceived notions of beauty. The beautiful Fiona, free to find her outer beauty if she is willing to give up true love, chooses true love. Shrek, who has long given up on love, allows himself to love and be love. Happy ending all around.

It's almost impossible to explain what is wrong with Shrek 2 without giving up some major spoilers, because to understand what doesn't work in the structure requires understanding what happens in the second and third acts.

So, here are a few more insights before the Spoiler Section.

Antonio Banderas is perfection as Puss in Boots, yet the animators actually top anything he can do as a vocalist. My favorite character in the film is Jennifer Saunders' Fairy Godmother, the ultimate good girl gone crass, though the energy of the performance is hurt a bit by some great ideas that are not quite as well executed as conceived. The royal trio, played by Julie Andrews (Queen), John Cleese (King) and Rupert Everett (Prince Charming) all deliver nice performances, but really don't have much to play, their best moments created by the animators.

The Land of Far Far Away is clever… but not as clever or surprising as the Lord Farquad Land of the original. You will recall the information kiosk that was so reminiscent of the "It's A Small World" ride at Disneyland. That was sublime. It wasn't on the nose, but it was recognizable. Same with the giant headed mascots, who were not really like the cartoon characters roaming around Disneyworld, but were completely familiar. Shrek 2 offers up instead Joan Rivers as Joan Rivers on ME!, the Medieval Entertainment Television network. Modern and funny, but not iconic.

But don't get me wrong. Shrek 2 is a great deal of fun and is going to be a hit. No one is going to walk out of the theater saying, "That sucked!" or "What a disappointment!" But they have not found the amazingly illusive trick that can make a sequel as compelling as the original or better. What you will find in Shrek 2, no matter your age, a really enjoyable time at the movies.

And now…

THE SPOILER SECTION

Okay… here's the big problem. The genius idea in Shrek 2 is Shrek turning into a handsome hero. It is the great idea that allows the ideals of the first movie to be challenged in a truly different way. But unfortunately, the event that should dominate a significant portion of the film doesn't happen until sometime in the third act and doesn't really have space to breathe.

What the filmmakers never choose to explore is whether an ogre, given a chance to be naturally beloved by becoming a vision of male beauty, will have his head turned. It's almost as though the filmmakers felt that the answer was so obvious that they couldn't even ask the question. But that was a serious mistake.

The twisted fairy tale universe that both films take place in is a wonderful given. But when you think about it, the first film was about the joy of being free to do as you wished, whether that meant farting, living in a swamp or falling in love.

But as much as a reverse fairy tale as Shrek is - a great one - there is a reason why the regular fairy tales have lasted so long. The idea of the regular person (which is what the ogres really represent, in extremis) becoming society's ideal is very, very powerful. In the first film, Fiona had the choice and made it, paying a price. So what if Shrek were faced with the same choice?

In terms of storytelling, there is all this rushing around, trying to push the story along to its end. Virtually every character has to make at least one decision that can be explained only by a shrug of the shoulders. Fiona has to buy into Prince Charming as Shrek, even though she clearly knows better. The King has to flip flop like a fish on a dock. Shrek never wants to be good looking, so he doesn't give anything up. Donkey doesn't really have a choice in his fate. Fairy Godmother's obsession with getting Charming married to Fiona isn't clearly motivated. Etc, etc.

But in the Shrek As Charming Prince scenario, all of that tap dancing is eliminated. The first act remains the same, essentially, but by the second act in Far Far Away, Shrek makes the change. And all the rejection turns to acceptance. What does anyone do under that circumstance? The deadly sins start to take over… pride, lust, greed, envy, gluttony, sloth, and wrath… all the things that you might expect from an ogre but were never true of Shrek. And thus, a whole new vein of humor.

Possibilities like Shrek being beloved by Fiona's parents while she chafes, Shrek identifying with Prince Charming, Shrek being embarrassed by Donkey to the point of actively rejecting him for the first time, perhaps even wanting to be all the things that Farquad was.

Of course, in the third act, Fiona and Donkey and maybe even Puss in Boots manage to bring Shrek back down to earth and ultimately to giving up his newfound beauty for a life of true love back in the swamp. Or perhaps, as in the end of Arthur, one of the greatest fish-out-of-water comedies ever, Shrek could get the girl, his honor, his donkey and the benefit of being royalty… having it all.

Mind you, this is not my brilliant idea. This is the idea of the makers of Shrek 2… they just didn't take the best idea they had all the way to fruition.

What we get instead, which is still great fun, is a continuation of the story with a whole new character arc that really isn't about anything except for the telling of story. Everyone involved is far too talented for this to be a real disappointment. But it's a solid double and if grading on a Summer 2004 curve, maybe it is a triple and if things don't pick up, it could steal home. But it could have been a three run home run following up the original's grand slam. That's all I'm sayin'.

READER OF THE DAY: THE ASTORIAN writes: "I don't know if it's mythology, but what pisses me off is the weight given to raw dollar amounts as opposed to tickets sold. Are the Hollywood players afraid to release those numbers? Despite Paul Dergarabedian's weekly over-analysis, "Biggest (enter month here) Opening Ever!" really doesn't mean much when ticket prices rise every year or so."

DAVID RESPONDS: I agree that those stats often mean nothing. But I am not a big believer in staring at the numbers and comparing them to the past. The delivery systems are completely different. I believe strongly that the difference between a May opening and a June opening can be very significant, so the difference between 2004 and 1968 is not a viable one to analyze on a weekly basis.

The real spin in box office reporting is the per-screen. It means nothing anymore because it is a non-stat. A multiplex playing a film on four screens is one screen in the per-screen count. But then again, studios would probably be happy right now to release only the grosses and lose all other criteria. Except for limited release movies, screen count has little promotional benefit and lots of downside. An honest accounting would be "Seats Available" and say, "Gross Per Thousand Available Seats." The problem, besides being way too close to home for studios, is that it would expose the truth, which is that most screenings play to half empty houses (or a lot worse) even for the smash hits, at least when it's not prime time.

For instance, Troy has a $13,739 per screen for the weekend. At $6 a ticket (which is low for an opening weekend avg.) that's 2290 seats sold per screen over three days. At a generous four shows per day, that's 191 seats per show. The average house for the film was probably 300 seats or more, so that's an average of 1/3 empty. Now, figure that most multis being reported as one screen have at least two screens showing the big new movie of last weekend. That's 191 seats sold out of 600 seats on average, or less than 33% of seats sold. And that is a big weekend and a generous accounting.

This is not about burying Troy. Not at all. Spider-Man will announce 3500 screens or so and show on no less than 7000. And no one has a real accounting of that count. And no one will break it down when they announce a $23,000 per-screen average… which remarkably would be less than 150 seats sold per show.

It is still a remarkable piece of business and deserves praise. God bless the inefficiency. You don't want multi-national corporations thinking too hard about how much inventory goes unused on a weekend at the multiplex.

HEAVY BREATHING ELVIS writes: "Just saw on MCN about Disney's announcement to make a "JUNGLE CRUISE" movie based on their theme park attraction. I have a few thoughts on this, but that's not what's prompting this email. The prompt is the mention of the other movies made that were based on attractions. Now this may seem like a small thing, and a pet peeve, but can we please get it out to the entertainment journalists that...it didn't start with "THE COUNTRY BEARS"! Have we forgotten the great Tommorrowland attraction from the 60s and 70s - "MISSION TO MARS" - in the biz news, this should be another demerit when discussing the DePalma film. And I believe this mini-genre may have started with the ABC World of Disney film "TOWER OF TERROR" starring pre-Spidey Kirsten Dunst and Steve Guttenberg. This movie actually used the WDW attraction itself as a set! Anyway, here's hoping the snake doesn't eat itself and that the attractions aren't changed to synch up with the quickly forgotten movies. Can you imagine Jennifer Tilley in the "real" Haunted Mansion? *whimper*

Thanks for reading and understanding - you do understand don't you?"

E ME: Well… do you?