Holy Shrek Turds, Batman!

Well, the weekend numbers are in. Shrek 2 just had the second-biggest 3-day weekend ever, at $108 million. But, that is actually the BIGGEST 3-day weekend ever following a 2-day preview. Also, it had the #1 biggest single day ever (Saturday: $44.8 million) and the widest release ever, by a whopping 400 theaters! This is even sillier when you consider that Shrek 2 grossed more on Saturday than the original Shrek grossed in its entire first weekend, and Shrek was no slouch, either. And what's more, Shrek 2 only cost $70 million to make. Compare that with the recent Van Helsing and Troy, both of which much more than twice what Shrek 2 did, but each opened to a fraction of Shrek 2's first-weekend gross.

Everyone knew Shrek 2 was going to open big, but nobody expected this. Dreamworks execs themselves said they were only hoping to beat Finding Nemo's $70 million opening. Most opening weekend forecasts called for a $70-$90 million opening. Shrek 2 beat most predictions by an easy $20 million!

I'm torn about how to feel about these results. I'm very happy to hear that Shrek 2 has single-handedly revived a sedated summer box office (and uber-blockbusters like Harry Potter 3 and Spider-Man 2 will likely continue this trend). But, if there was a movie this summer to have a unexpectedly gigantic opening gross, I wish it hadn't been Shrek 2. In my mind, Shrek 2 simply doesn't DESERVE this kind of gross. This weekend reminds me of when Scary Movie 3 opened to an equally surprising $48 million last year. Both movies blew past opening weekend predictions, and neither deserved to open as big as they did.

Shrek 2 has been critically praised, and is in a virtual tie with the original at Rottentomatoes.com - but that doesn't mean anything to me because I didn't care for the first Shrek, either. As the CGI feature box office oneupmanship continues between Pixar and Dreamworks, I'll always be routing for Pixar, and here's why:

- Pixar flicks are original. The Shrek films, while well done (and indeed, two of my favorite screenwriters, Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio, worked on both of them), are essentially parody films. Going back to my earlier comparison, Shrek is the Scary Movie of CGI flicks. The plot often seems to serve the opportunities for satire. The jokes are often funny, but parody is easier and lazier than something original like Toy Story or Monsters Inc.

- Pixar's technology is better. For the most obvious example, compare Antz to A Bug's Life, and the original Shrek to Monster's Inc. There's simply no contest: Pixar films look better. Now, Shrek 2 looks really great, but it doesn't look like an improvement over Pixar's Finding Nemo, which was released a full year ago. For a better comparison, we'll have to wait for this year's Pixar flick: The Incredibles, which opens in November.

- Mike Meyers irks me. He should have quit after Wayne's World 2. I don't like the Austin Powers films, and Cat in the Hall is a disaster. His accent for Shrek is distracting instead of endearing.

- Pixar's comedy is better. Like I said before, most of Shrek's comedy relies on taking cheap shots at recent popular films. Pixar instead derives comedy from subtle references to mature jokes (though, there were some of these in Shrek as well, and those are my favorite moments in the movie) or really great comedy about a fish without short-term memory.

- Pixar's film have heart. Shrek makes a pretense of heart, but any opportunities it had were sacrified to make room for another parody or flatulence joke. I don't cry much, but I recall tearing up several times during each of Pixar's movies.

So, thank you, Shrek 2, for breathing some life into this summer's dissapointing box office, but you don't deserve to have succeeded.