Shrek Forever After wins Memorial Day box office derby, while Sex and the City 2 and Prince of Persia crash. Weekend box office review (05/31/10).

Usually the above picture would make me sad, but Allison is actually napping again! As expected, Shrek: The Final Chapter was able to easily surpass Sex and the City 2 to take the three-day weekend crown and the four-day weekend crown over Memorial Day weekend. The contest on Friday was close enough that Shrek: Forever After was able to capitalize on strong family matinee business as well as the HBO sequel's downward plunge. In the end, the three day total is $43.3 million and the five-day total is $55.7 million. That's a drop of 38% from last weekend's disappointing three-day $70 million opening sprint. Since every single Shrek picture opened on the same weekend, the comparisons are easy to make. For reference, the first Shrek actually increased 0.4% over its second weekend, grossing $42.4 million in its second, holiday-inflated frame. The second picture set a record for the largest non-opening weekend of all-time, grossing $72.1 million and dropping just 33% (it's still the third-biggest second weekend, behind The Dark Knight's $75 million and Avatar's $77 million second-weekends). The third picture was beset by poor word of mouth and the monstrous opening weekend of Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End ($114 million over Fri-Sun), plunging 56% from $121 million to $53 million in its second frame.

But the fourth Shrek picture was able to soften the drop, aided both by the much-smaller opening weekend (IE - more people to sample the film this weekend), as well as the relative audience disinterest in the opening pictures. The combined opening weekends of Prince of Persia and Sex and the City 2 was around $62 million, or just over half what Pirates of the Caribbean 3 made by itself over its first three days. Where the fourth Shrek picture ends up at this point is an open question, but the impressive second-weekend means that the franchise has saved a token amount of face after the comparatively disappointing opening weekend. It has now grossed $145.5 million by Monday, but it is badly trailing the prior sequels in total amount grossed by the tenth day ($133 million vs. $236 million for Shrek 2 and $203 million for Shrek the Third), and it in fact grossed less on its second Sunday ($14.9 million) than the first Shrek grossed on its tenth day ($18.1 million) nine years ago. Whether or not it can get to the $220 million plateau (so that all four of the highest-grossing Dreamworks cartoons would be Shrek pictures) will largely depend on how well it weathers the direct demo-competition of Marmaduke next weekend.

The expected weekend winner was Sex and the City 2, which stumbled badly as the weekend wore on. Despite being number one going into Saturday, it ended up in third place for the four-day holiday, just behind Prince of Perisa: The Sands of Time. It did not defeat the infamous TV-adaptation sequel curse after all. Warner basically opened this sequel on the same weekend as two summers ago, it's just that Memorial Day fell a week later this time around. Alas, it's a lot harder to plan a womens' night out over a weekend where the whole family is in town, or you're out of town visiting said family (the film played 90% female, compared to the 83% female audience of the original's opening weekend). After (stupidly) opening on a Thursday and sucking away most of the hardcore fans on the pre-weekend day, the film had to settle for second place, with $32 million over the Fri-Sun portion. The film grossed $27 million over its first two days, so compressing those numbers into an opening Friday would have easily allowed the film to top the box office and earn bragging rights. Same thing with Terminator: Salvation last year: $60 million over four days is more impressive than $65 million over five days (hopefully Warner will learn next time). Said Thursday opening caused that film to lose the box office crown to Night at the Museum: Battle for the Smithsonian.

Sex and the City 2 has pulled in $46 million in four days, and it's expected to gross $51.4 million by the end of the holiday. So the second film took five days to pull in a token amount less than what the first picture grossed in three days. Not good, especially as the sequel cost $30 million more than the original ($95 million this time around). Five-day multipliers are difficult to compare, since only two other films opened on the Thursday of Memorial Day weekend. But Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull pulled a tidy 6x multiplier, posting a $25 million opening day and a $152 million five-day haul. Terminator: Salvation posted a 4.8x multiplier over its five days. Sex and the City 2 managed just a 3.61x multiplier. It wouldn't be a ghastly figure, but the relatively low daily numbers and the apparently poisonous word of mouth meant that the franchise may just be playing to the absolute hard-cores from here on out. Expect a massive drop next weekend as well as an obscenely-low opening weekend-to-final gross multiplier. Unless the budgets can be kept under $60 million from here-on-out, this franchise is toast.

Third place for the three-day weekend, but second place for the four-day weekend, went to Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time. Costing $200 million, the relatively mediocre Iraq-war parable (the bad guys coerce the good guys to invade and occupy a sovereign land in search of non-existent weapons, and then use private mercenaries to kill their way to the desired treasure) grossed just $30.1 million in its opening three days and $37.8 million in its opening four (which makes the puts the picture in second place, ahead of Sex and the City 2's $37.1 million Fri-Mon holiday weekend gross). The trailers and TV spots highlighted a lack of swashbuckling and adventure, while the print campaign seemed entirely based around Jake Gyllenhaal's six-pack and Gemma Arterton's breasts (the ads seemed to be a cynical attempt to snag female audiences by touting: "sure this movie looks boring, but look how ripped that dude from Brokeback Mountain is!'). In truth, much of the action was too bloody to use in a general-audiences trailer (it's PG-13, but more graphic than The Mummy or Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl). And the obnoxiously forced character interaction between the would-be romantic leads (Arterton's every line screams "FEISTY" in the most condescending manner) only made audiences take back the mean things that said about Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley.

The movie looked terrible, the reviews were lousy, and the film had no real 'wow' moments, let alone any Jack Sparrow-ish wit or Brendan Fraser-ish bemusement, to put in a trailer. And, on a final note, the relatively small opening of Shrek IV was probably the final nail in the coffin. Had more people sampled the fourth Shrek last weekend, Prince of Persia: the Sands of Time would have been the likely choice of families going to the movies over the holiday weekend. But with so many passing on Shrek last weekend, it became the de facto safe choice for general moviegoing families, leaving the way-too-expensive video game adaptation in the not-so-magic dust. As I said yesterday, Disney spent Dead Man's Chest money on a proverbial Curse of the Black Pearl, and they will pay dearly for it. I'm not the first to say this (Dave Poland of Movie City News called this back in February), but I'd imagine that Disney knew it had a turkey on its hands, which is what perhaps caused it to rush the $1 billion-grossing Alice in Wonderland onto DVD/Blu Ray in a relatively short 88 days.

In holdover news, MacGruber tragically plunged 63% for a second weekend gross of $1.5 million over three days and $1.9 million over the holiday. The film now has a current total of $7.6 million. The relatively-amusing film deserved better, but RL Shaffer is right: the first 'MacGruber' sketch of the new Saturday Night Live season, dealing with his discovery that the movie tanked, should be quite funny. Iron Man 2 grossed $16 million over three days and $20.6 million over four, with a new total of $279.1 million. Alas, the sequel has already trailing the original film in daily figures for about a week, so matching the original's $318 million is the best-case scenario at this point. Robin Hood has now grossed $86.3 million, although the 43% drop over its three-day weekend is not encouraging. Still, as expected, overseas numbers have carried the day, bringing the picture a current overseas total of $240 million and counting. Prince of Persia had best pray for the same kind of rescue (it could happen, the film's worldwide total is currently $133 million).

Letters to Juliet has crossed the $38 million mark, dropping just 34% in weekend three ($5.9 million over three days, $7.4 million over four). If not for the coming barrage of new releases (IE - loss of screens), the Amanda Seyfried vehicle would have a shot at $50 million. It still could get there, but in today's environment, it will have to struggle. Speaking of lethal screen loss, Date Night lost 743 screens, or about a third of its theaters, and it still only dropped 39%. At $93 million, the Tina Fey/Steve Carell hit will likely lose its chance at $100 million purely due to loss of theaters, especially as the Fox comedy will likely lose most of its screens in the two weeks to upcoming Fox pictures Marmaduke and The A-Team. Fox Searchlight's Just Wright ($18 million thus far) is suffering the same fate, losing hundreds of screens in just its third weekend. And one more tale of screen bleeding, How to Train Your Dragon lost 947 screens, many of them 3D and plunged 46% in weekend nine ($1 million in three days, $1.4 million in four). With $213 million, the film will likely surpass the $215.4 million scored by Kung Fu Panda by next weekend, but it then get wiped off the screen-count map by Toy Story 3 on June 18th.

That's all for this weekend. Join us next time when we have four new releases that absolutely no one cares about. We have - the critically-acclaimed horror picture Splice, Marmaduke, the Forgetting Sarah Marshall spin-off that no one wanted, Get Him to the Greek, and Killers, which Lionsgate has infamously declined to screened. Lionsgate often neglects to screen its new releases for critics (the Saw sequels, the Tyler Perry pictures, etc), but basically bragging about it and making light of piracy (star Ashton Kutcher will allegedly 'pirate' the first ten minutes online tomorrow) only serves to piss people off. For earlier posts regarding this Memorial Day weekend, go here and here. For a look at what happened last Memorial Day, click here, here, here, and here. For a look at Memorial Day 2008, go here, here, and here. Finally, for a look at the opening weekend of the original Sex and the City, go here and here.

Scott Mendelson

Sex and the City 2 drops from Thursday opening day, while Prince of Persia plummits into a bed of spikes. Friday box office (05/28/10).

Well, as expected, Sex and the City 2 has pulled in about the same amount of money in its first two days that the original film pulled in on its opening day. On its first Friday, the film actually dropped 8.5% from its Thursday take, meaning that the film may in fact be frighteningly front-loaded. Even Terminator: Salvation increased 10% on its first Friday and second respective day of release. And Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull increased 22% on its second day, and the Thursday opening day turned out to be the lowest-grossing day of its five-day weekend. While the 8.5% drop is smaller than the respective Thurs-to-Fri drops for Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith (-33%), Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones (-19%), and The Matrx Reloaded (-26%), those film has much larger opening-day tallies from which to plummet accordingly with upfront demand ($50 million, $30 million, and $42 million respectively). With a $13 million-grossing Friday, the critically-trashed sequel has now grossed $27.2 million in two days, or just a touch more than the $26.7 million earned by the original picture on its first day of release two years ago.

As was the case with Terminator: Salvation Memorial Day weekend, it was beyond stupid for Warner Bros. to open this one a day early. First of all, by splitting the opening day audience into two non-vacation days, you basically ended up with two middling box office days as opposed to one superior opening day. I'd imagine that Warner/New Line would be more impressed with a $25 million+ opening day that blew away Shrek: The Final Chapter and Prince of Persia, as opposed to a $27 million two-day total. Second of all, the film is allegedly quite bad, offending even the franchise's die-hard fans. The extra day has just given the general audiences one extra day to tell their friends as the weekend rolls on. I call this the 'Godzilla Rule': if your movie isn't all that good, do NOT open it early and allow bad word of mouth to spread prior to the Fri-Sun weekend (see also - The Matrix Revolutions and Superman Returns). Barring a miraculous Saturday night uptick and/or further collapse, the $95 million-budgeted sequel looks to score about $65 million for the five-day holiday. Not a tragedy, but certainly evidence that the franchise is basically playing exclusively to the hardcore fans (not a bad place to be, as Harry Potter or Edward Cullen will tell you).

Coming in second place was Shrek: Forever After, which dropped 45% on its second Friday for an $11.4 million gross. Shrek 2 dropped 29% on its second Friday ($20.1 million), but said opening Friday was slightly offset by a Wednesday opening. The original Shrek dropped 14% on its second Friday ($9.8 million), while Shrek the Third dropped 63% on its Memorial Day-weekend Friday ($14.2 million). Considering the expected uptick for the family-skewing Shrek sequel, there is a decent chance that the film could overtake Sex and the City over the next three days and win the holiday weekend (another reason not to have opened the R-rated comedy on a Thursday). Tomorrow will tell that tale. Coming in third was Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, which opened with a disappointing $10.2 million. Oddly enough, the showing I attended yesterday was absolutely packed, to the point where I had to sit at the very end of a very high row (I prefer center of center). The movie is pretty mediocre, with obnoxious heroes, bland villains, and action that is cut too tight and quick to really enjoy. It's noteworthy only for its sledgehammer-subtle political metaphor to the Iraq war (the bad guys coerce the good guys to invade a sovereign land in search of non-existent weapons, and then use private mercenaries to kill their way to the desired treasure). Had the terribly-advertised film not cost $200 million, said $40 million four-day take would not be a big deal. But since Disney decided to spend Dead Man's Chest-type money to attempt to make the next Curse of the Black Pearl, not even overseas grosses (which are tepid thus far) will save them. Finally, MacGruber followed up one of the worst 2500+ screen debuts in history with a 72% Friday-to-Friday plunge. Pity, it's really a perfectly okay B-comedy.

More tomorrow or Monday, depending on my daughter's nap schedule.

Scott Mendelson

Equal rights means equal responsibility. Why Glee's 'breakthrough gay scene' succeeds as drama but fails as a teachable moment.

It may be a doozy of a stand-alone dramatic scene, but last week's verbal tongue-lashing on Glee from Kurt's father to Finn was not the proud moment in gay/straight relations that it has been sold as. The scene in question has been heralded elsewhere as some kind of wonderful teaching moment about the hidden prejudice in all of us. Frankly, the scene is more about how a relatively reasonable person lashes out at the stunning manipulations of a sexually-aggressive asshole. Yes Finn (Cory Monteith) lost his temper and lashed out (he uses the term 'faggy' to describe the decorations purchased by Kurt for their new living quarters), but Kurt (Chris Colfer) bears responsibility as well. The clip below (after the jump... blame formatting issues) ironically removes much of the context that explains the outbursts in question.

Kurt's prior actions, arguably signifying that he views Finn's heterosexuality as a choice, were every bit as wrongheaded, if not more so. From Finn's point of view, he has been removed from his childhood home, forced to share a room with another person, a fellow student who has a crush on him no less, all while having to deal with the sudden fact that his mother has taken up with a new man. Kurt has been quite passive-aggressive, on one hand arranging to move in together with the jock who he has a crush on while lashing out at his father for bonding with said jock. Yes, Finn used a gay slur, but to be threatened with proverbial homelessness (IE - being thrown out of the house by Kurt's father) for losing your temper with your unwanted and sexually-obnoxious new roommate (be said roommate gay or straight) is a punishment that did not fit the crime, especially given that Finn had been forcibly removed from his own house and forced to live with Kurt and his father. Finn was intolerant not of Kurt's sexuality, but of Kurt's behavior as a classmate, teammate, and occasional friend.

Morever, it is obvious that the righteous-indignation thrown at Finn by Kurt's father, Burt (Mike O'Malley) comes not just from his offense at his son being scolded in a bigoted fashion, but rather overcompensation stemming from his own guilt, both over his failure to truly accept his son and his ease with which he bonded with the more 'traditional' step-son that is Finn. That's all well and good, as the scene up to that point was rooted in prior character development and worked as a powerful moment. But, from a purely storytelling and character perspective, the show faltered by not acknowledging that Kurt bore some responsibility for instigating the whole affair.

Kurt did not seem to realize how put-upon Finn had been feeling about the new living arrangements. Kurt (from the evidence thus far in the show) doesn't seem to realize that everyone of all sexual orientations should be able to reject potential suitors without fear of reprisal. He also didn't realize that in those moments and the moments involving his crazy scheme (which involved trying to snag Finn as an unwilling roommate in order to breed eventual romantic interest) that he was in fact personifying every negative stereotype regarding young gay men.

Which, again, would have been just fine on its own. The characters of Glee have never been portrayed as saintly and drama often comes when characters we like partake in behavior we disagree with and/or make decisions we abhor. But the show faltered by making the whole blow-out appear to be completely Finn's fault. Finn, who had been portrayed as empathetic, tolerant, and understanding of everyone around him, was presented as just another closeted bigot who needed to 'man up' and admit his own foibles. Finn was the one who had to 'reach out' in order to make proverbial amends. Finn was the one who basically had to round up the Glee squad in order to save Kurt from a bullying in the school hallways.

But, by apparently letting Kurt off the hook for his own behavior, and by allowing Kurt's father to tear his new step-son to shreds without bothering to inquire as to what had occurred, the show failed as anything resembling a 'teachable moment' for gay representations in mainstream entertainment. It was great acting and compelling drama, but the lack of appropriate follow-through inadvertently taught some genuinely awful lessons for viewers of all ages and sexual orientations.

Scott Mendelson

Sex and the City 2 pulls in $14.2 million on opening Thursday.

With $3 million in midnight screenings, the opening day tally for Sex and the City 2 is $14.2 million. At first glance, it would appear that Warner Bros has again hurt themselves by splitting their proverbial opening day over Thursday and Friday, as opposed to getting one massive opening day total on Friday that can be bragged about. There really isn't much to compare this to, as there have only been a handful of movies that have chosen the 'worldwide all-at-once' Thursday release date. Films generally open on Thursdays in other parts of the world, so studios have occasionally tried simultaneous worldwide releases to combat international piracy. Nine films have previously chosen to open on Thursday in the last eight years. Four of them were on Christmas Day, 2008. They were Marley and Me ($14.3 million on Christmas Day), The Curious Case of Benjamin Button ($11.8 million), Bedtime Stories ($10.7 million), and Valkyrie ($8.4 million). Taking into account this anomaly, let's simply concentrate on the other five pictures that used the Thursday jump over Memorial Day weekend or pre-Memorial Day weekend.

The gambit was first tried with Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones, which opened with $30 million on its opening Thursday on May 16th, 2002. The film eventually pulled in $110 million in its four-day weekend, which easily surpassed the Wed-Sun $106 million total for Star Wars Episode One: The Phantom Menace. Lightning struck twice over the same weekend in 2003, when The Matrix Reloaded opened with $42 million on its opening Thursday (aided by $5 million worth of Wednesday-night advance screenings). Said sci-fi sequel took in $134 million in its first four days. The final Star Wars chapter, Revenge of the Sith, broke the single day record on the same weekend in 2005, opening with $50 million on its initial Thursday (with the help of a then-record $16.5 million in midnight screenings). The four-day total for that one was a mammoth $158 million. Said opening holds the record for the biggest Thursday of all, and its first three days (Thurs-Sat) were actually the largest three-day take on record at the time $124 million, even if said gross didn't count as an actual three-day opening weekend record (which was still Spider-Man with $114 million at the time). The first film to use the Thursday tactic over Memorial Day weekend itself was Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. It pulled in $25 million on its opening Thursday and remained steady over the weekend, ending its five-day holiday frame (Thurs-Mon) with $152 million. Finally, and this is the closest likely comparison, Warner Bros. opened Terminator Salvation on a Thursday last Memorial Day weekend. Perhaps to get a jump on Night at the Museum 2, the film earned just $13.3 million in its first day. The film held steady over the long weekend and ended up with $65 million by the holiday's end.

So, instead of unleashing the anticipated sequel on Friday and attempting to challenge its predecessor's $26.7 million opening day from Summer 2008 as well as the original's $57 million opening weekend (still a record for a romantic-comedy), Sex and the City 2 instead opted for an opening Thursday and now has to settle with a middling Thursday debut. In the realm of purely opening-Thursday takes, the film falls between Marley and Me ($14.3 million) and Terminator: Salvation ($13.3 million) for sixth place on said list. Counting all Thursdays, it's the 20th-biggest Thursday take, just ahead of the $14.2 million second-day gross of Men in Black back in July 1997. And it just barely surpasses the $13.2 million earned by Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End just during advance-night Thursday screenings prior to its official Friday opening day over Memorial Day weekend 2007. Of course, Sex and the City 2 very well may be a beneficiary of the Shrek 2 variable. In that, I mean it may be the sort of film that is given a long-weekend release, yet the fans have absolutely no need to rush out and see it until the weekend proper (it's easier to plan a womens' night out on a Friday night than a Thursday night). If you recall (because I bring it up all the time), Shrek 2 opened with just $11.7 million on its opening Wednesday and $9.7 million on its first Thursday before exploding over the Fri-Sun weekend and earning $28 million on Friday, a then-record $44 million on Saturday, and a then-record $34 million on Sunday. The film earned $129 million in five days, and $108 million of that was from just the Fri-Sun weekend.

If Sex and the City 2 still pulls in $20-25 million today, then it will be a case of the fans just waiting until the weekend to catch the film. However, if the film only makes a token amount more today than it did yesterday, it will again be a case of Warner squandering a brag-worthy opening day tally for the sake of two middling initial days. That will be especially embarrassing if the three-day weekend is a close match between Sex and the City 2 and Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time. If TV-sequel follows the Terminator Salvation pattern, it ends up with $69 million by Monday. If it plays like Indiana Jones 4, the 'chick flick' ends up with a five-day take of $86 million. Just for fun, if the film follows the Shrek 2 pattern (a five-day weekend 11x its open-day tally), it ends up with $156 million by Monday or about what the original grossed total. As always with these somewhat-wacky Thursday openings, Friday totals will likely tell the tale.

Scott Mendelson

Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland crosses $1 billion worldwide.

As of yesterday, Disney's Alice in Wonderland is the 6th-biggest global grosser of all-time. At just over $1 billion in worldwide revenue, film is the third-biggest non-sequel grosser of all-time, behind only the James Cameron double-whammy (Titanic and Avatar). As is regularly the case these days, the film made around 67% of its cash ($667.7 million) from overseas dollars, with 'just' $332.4 million coming from domestic ticket sales. It is $1.8 million away from overtaking The Dark Knight on the all-time list, and $66 million away from Disney's biggest grosser, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest. It's a bit of a slog for a film that comes out on DVD/Blu Ray next week, but the film is a mere $119 million away from surpassing Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King as the third-biggest film of all time. Not bad for a film that many expected to crash after its (record-setting) opening weekend due to poor reviews and lousy pre-release buzz.

In an obvious sign that overseas numbers are growing exponentially more important than domestic dollars, the film's $332 million US take puts it just 19th on the all-time list in America (between Forest Gump and Spider-Man 3). This also makes Johnny Depp the first actor to headline two respective billion-dollar pictures. Unfortunately, it's astounding success means that studios will continue to convert tentpoles into 3D after production (never mind that a Tim Burton-directed and Johnny Depp-starring Alice in Wonderland would have made a bundle in 1D). It also insures that director Tim Burton is all-but destined to spend the next act of his career churning out big-budget adaptations of one candy-colored fantasy story after another. Coming soon - Tim Burton's Candy Land, with Johnny Depp as Lord Licorace and Helen Bonham Carter as Queen Frostine.

Scott Mendelson

Jonah Hex gets a second trailer.

Considering how long it took Warner Bros to put out an initial trailer, I'm a little shocked that we already have a second preview less than a month later. Still, they trailers are different enough to perhaps justify each other. The first trailer for the famously troubled production emphasized plot and the ensemble cast. This new trailer, which is forty-seconds shorter, has a lot less Megan Fox, almost no John Malkovich, and a whole lot of Josh Brolin. Point being, this one is about explaining who or what Jonah Hex actually is. Fair enough, but I still think the first trailer was a better marketing tool. In emphasizing action and random spectacle, the new trailer makes Jonah Hex look like a run-of-the-mill action picture. Yes, that probably sums it up the final film pretty well, but if you're going to get anyone outside of action nerds, comic geeks, and western-buffs to buy tickets, the film has to look like something better. The film opens on June 18th, and I don't expect to see many press screenings until two or three days prior to opening. As always, we'll see...

Scott Mendelson

Mendelson's Memos Flashback - As Sex and the City 2 opens, a look at female escapist fantasy and how it differs from male escapist fantasy.

I have a heck of a lot more readers now than I did in September 2008, when I first published this massive essay on gender and escapism. Since Sex and the City 2 is facing (fairly or not) the same kind of scrutiny that the first did, I thought it was worth a re-look. This is not about whether the films are good or not, but whether critics properly understand the genre that said franchise represents. If you've been reading me from the beginning, this is pretty much as it was with a few minor tweaks...

I would love to get on a high horse and proclaim that Sex and the City: The Movie is a terrific movie and that the critics who hated it were misogynist pigs. Some of them may be, but it's still a mediocre movie. Once the emotional plot comes fully center after the first hour, the film slightly improves. But the writing just isn't as sharp as the best episodes of the series (I've seen a few, my wife's seen a bunch) and the characters feel thinner. The film is 151 minutes long, but there is less plot than The X-Files: I Want To Believe. But, at its core, it suffers from the same problem as many romantic dramas and comedies. Without going into spoilers, the film's plot catalyst never would have occurred if the main characters just talked to each other like adults for three minutes. Furthermore, the conflict could have been resolved right on the spot with another thirty-seconds of straight communication, explaining how last minute jitters and a child's mistake led to disaster (sorry for the vagueness, no reason to spoil something that occurs an hour into the movie). So the film suffers due to the idiot plot, as do many other movies. And the romantic partners refuse to talk to each other like adults, but that seems to be the case for most romantic comedies (and most relationships in the entertainment world to boot). That doesn't explain the outcry of outrage that occurred following the opening day and opening weekend.

The resulting circus, personified by Jeff Wells' statements that the film represented 'an Al Qaeda recruitment film, or was the equivalent of the 'OJ Simpson verdict' in terms of showing women in a negative, superficial light, was sexist and confounding to boot. Mass audiences embrace all kinds of films that are stupid, superficial, or just plain terrible and they have for a century. Now that women are enjoying a film aimed at them that is just as sugary, fantastical, and (almost) fantastically terrible as Ghost Rider or Top Gun, the men in Hollywood are frothing at the mouth in amazement and condemnation.

If anything, this will be good for female entertainment. Hopefully, now women can be allowed to enjoy films targeted at them that are just as fluffy and superficial and wish-fulfillment-y as Transformers. And, eventually, they can enjoy such films without being criticized for it. Yes, there are those who wish that every black-themed film was Rosewood or Do The Right Thing, but progress comes when black people can enjoy Soul Plane without being criticized for it by blacks and whites alike.Sex and the City is just a major film aimed at women that is (apparently) just as superficial and goofy as fantastical as most of the wish-fulfillment aimed at young boys. The huge opening number merely points out how few of these are made for women.

Having seen the film, I think I understand a little about the pomp and circumstance. Escapism and wish-fulfillment is by nature the acting out of something you don't do or can't do. Films like Transformers and Iron Man basically show damaged men and boys who 'man up', take responsibility, do the right thing and use their new found masculinity to help other people and/or save lives and kill bad guys. They really don't sacrifice anything, and as a bonus they end up with a really hot girl who doesn't really expect anything from them in return.

As also noted in Michael Kimmel's book, Guyland, the lessening of the traditional roles for men as the financial provider and/or steady husband and father of the house (both by a cruel economy that all but demands duel incomes and by advances by women in the workplace and the world) has created a culture of boys who are reluctant to become men, who treat women like objects to be used then discarded, who surround themselves with other guys and basically spend much of their time one-upping each other in various behaviors to prove their 'manliness', or to prove that they're not 'gay'. At its worst, this behavior climaxes in bullying, gay-bashing, and sexual assault.

In the real world, they are irresponsible, selfish, and not really able or willing to carry out the roles that were expected of them. Furthermore, the economic advances by women, the advances of childbirth science, and irradiation of the industrial economy has rendered the stereotypical role of the adult male almost obsolete or at least not nearly as vital to the society. Why bother becoming men and growing up when the stereotypical adult male isn't nearly as valued as their fathers were just a generation ago?

This is not a brand new concept, although the book attempts to be the definitive look at the subject. Movies like Fight Club, The Matrix, American Beauty, and (shudder) Wanted deal with this in one form or another (while Wanted is the worst film of the four, it may be the most honest as wish-fulfillment as it defines the solution as ignoring women and committing wholesale mass murder to avenge a father you never knew). But even many films that aren't specifically about this represent an escape or an outlet from this issue. But if you'll note the stereotypical fantasy films directed at men (usually action/adventure or comic book sci-fi), you can see portraits of men who do stand up and take responsibility, who keep their manliness and help other people. It's not just a manly man rescuing a damsel in distress, although that's still a key element (which is why even allegedly modern, independent women usually end up being kidnapped or imperiled at the climax of said films). Tony Stark becomes a man when he stops being selfish and uses his toys to help others. Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) accepts his grandfather's 'no sacrifice, no victory' motto and plays a key role in saving the Earth from rampaging robots.

It may be dramatically unsatisfying, but this template mandates that Sam, not Optimus Prime, be the one to destroy Megatron and save the world. He has manned up, and as a reward he gets to have sex with Megan Fox. In male-escape movies, the girl is simply the bonus prize. The real goal is maturity and being a man in the way your father talked about being a man. With young protagonists, earning the respect of their parents is usually a goal for these boy who would be men (see Shia LaBeouf's Eagle Eye and Disturbia for a perfect examples of this). In the male escapism, the fantasy is proving your worth, being the responsible man, and stepping up to help people who need you without expecting anything in return. In the real world, a great number of men find themselves unwilling or unable to fulfill the time-tested role of men, and they are often miserable because of it. In the stereotypical male fantasy (Iron Man, Transformers, Die Hard, Spider-Man 2), the fantasy is being able to be a man without actually having to grow up or change all that much.

If the male fantasy is about selflessness, sacrifice, and responsibility, the female fantasy is about just the opposite. Fair or not, the expectations of society dictate that women sacrifice on a daily basis, for their kids, for their (allegedly unappreciative) husbands, even for their aging parents. They are the caregivers and selflessness is both their calling and their burden. For many women, life is like The Prize Winner Of Defiance Ohio (terrific movie by the way). Thus, for the female fantasy film, the escape is one of escaping responsibility, of being selfish, of having unlimited funds and unlimited time to make yourself look better and feel better. If Carrie, Samantha, and the gang are a little shallow (as are some of the romantic heroines played by Reese Witherspoon and Jenifer Aniston), then that is only because that is the fantasy of many women: to throw caution to the wind, to be selfish and wealthy, to use your wealth only to better yourself and not worry about others.

Women (stereotypically) spend their lives doing for others, neglecting themselves often at the cost of their own mental and physical health. Thus their fantasy films will often revolve around either someone taking care of them (hence the peril sub-genre that appeals to both sexes equally and occasionally leaches into pornography), them taking care of themselves when no one else can (woman in danger movies like When A Stranger Calls or Red Eye), or being so wealthy or set that the world just takes of you by happenstance (this is where Sex and the City comes in). The other thing to note is that many female-centric movies have 'the guy' as the grand prize, the main object of desire and pursuance. Whether it's just finding love (who just happens to be in the guise of that platonic friend that you always flirt with), or whether it's chasing down a specific guy for the duration of the picture (before the end arrives and he realizes just how awesome you are), finding 'the one' is the paramount concern. Whether that is a more noble thing than the 'man's movie' which treats the girl as the desert after a full meal is open to debate.

A slight digression, but it is worth noting that I have always found Mean Girls to be the very best female-centric high school movie that I have ever seen (of course, writer Tina Fey casting herself as the hot math teacher is worth two-stars right there). While it is certainly well-acted and sharply written, I wonder if the reason I responded to it as much is because it is the rare female-driven movie that operates under the rules of male fantasy. The goal for Lindsey Lohan in this film is about taking responsibility, growing up, not being afraid to do what you're good at (math, in this case), and using your skills to help others (using her math skills to help her classmates win a math competition, giving her ill-gotten homecoming crown to other kids to boost their self-esteems). Like most male-centric films, the love interest is merely the prize, and her winning him over (he likes her because she as smart as she is cute) is simply a climactic grace note, rather than the whole climax. Of course, that would disqualify Mean Girls as a female-fantasy, but possibly render it a serious statement (according to Fey, author Rosalind Wiseman, and maybe myself as a father of a very young daughter) of how young girls should lead their lives. Or maybe it's just a damn good movie.

It is worth noting that even in the female fantasy sub-genre, cold reality usually sets in towards the end. And, sure enough, the ladies of Sex and the City eventually acknowledge their consumerist ways and they eventually have to step up and take responsibility for their life mistakes. Of course, there wouldn't be much of a character arc if they didn't, but it's a little disheartening to see these women forced back into the roles of 'fixers' by the end of the picture. I do like that both the men and the women admit their flaws and their mistakes and accept shared responsibility (the film certainly never demonizes men, nor did the show). But still, if this is supposed to be the 'ultimate chick flick', I wonder if they could have found a way to end the movie without forcing the women to 'man up'.

To (finally) wrap this up, the critics who complained that the characters of Sex and the City were vapid, shallow, and selfish were not off the mark, they were just missing the broader context. They missed that the female fantasy is a whole different breed of film then the male fantasy. You could argue that the male fantasy is more noble because it involves selflessness and potential sacrifice, because it involves helping others and doing good for society as a whole. And you would be correct, but that's only a fantasy because it usually doesn't happen that way. Instead of belittling women for enjoying their own version of escapism, why not critique the film on its own merits as an example of a specific genre. It won't make you 'gay'. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen and Iron Man 2 are terrible movies, but I see its appeal. I will give Sex and the City and Sex and the City 2 the same courtesy.

Scott Mendelson

The Bechdel Test - a test most films do not pass.

I've brought up 'the Bedchdel Rule' several times in the past, but this is an amusing look at just how many mainstream films fail what should be a pretty basic standard.

Scott Mendelson

A few minor loose ends left over from the Lost finale...

See more funny videos and funny pictures at CollegeHumor.

Post-Lost fun, all more fun than the Lost finale.

Much of this comes from last night's Jimmy Kimmel show, which I did not stay up to watch. The first alternate ending is pretty funny (Naveen Andrews is hysterical), the other two slightly less so. The Q&A is better than the norm for these kind of things (the audience members actually ask amusing questions). And the two 'homemade' clips are pretty terrific. Anyway, enjoy these several goodies after the jump.

What they died for? Not much. How the Lost finale negates the series.

Well, that was a fantastic two-hour epic, completely redeeming the first act of weak, claustrophobic entries that started the season. It was an intelligent, soaring adventure story, rich with excitement, character-development, crowd-pleasing pay-offs, heartbreaking sacrifices, and a final twist that cast the series in a whole new wonderful light. That's what I would be saying if this were a review of "Through the Looking Glass", the season three finale which aired three years ago. Alas, this is not a review of the series-high midpoint, although after last night, I'm of the opinion that Lost only ran for three glorious seasons. Last night's finale was a tragedy, a genuinely uninvolving and downright dull botch that not only fails as a stand-alone episode and fails as a finale, but it lessens the profound dramatic impact of what came before over the last six years. It was the worst major series finale since Ally McBeal, but at least the 'Ally leaves Boston because the daughter that showed up on her doorstep just months prior is fainting' wrap-up didn't wreck the storytelling of the previous five seasons.

What did these people die for, in the broad scheme of things? They died because, on the surface, Desmond forgot to push a button, which caused a surge of electromagnetic energy which in turn resulted in a plane crashing on the island in question. Fair enough. Cruel and random, desperately unfair, but appropriately tragic. But when you start telling viewers that there is a larger destiny at work, that those on the island were there for 'a reason', you'd better make sure that said reason justifies the loss of so many lives, as well as the investment of our time. When you have the main characters willingly return to the island after escaping to civilization, you'd best make their reason for returning a pretty compelling one. But why did the passengers and crew of Oceanic 815 perish? Why are Sun, Jin, Sayid, Libby, Michael, Shannon, Boone, and the rest currently buried on the island or on the ocean floor? Well, apparently they all died because Jack had to put a single rock back in its place after Desmond removed it, so that the island, an island which had two inhabitants at the time (Bernard and Rose, I will miss them most of all), would not sink into the sea. That's it, folks. Six years of hell for our heroes, just so one guy could move a rock, making a smoke monster into a man, so that another guy could toss said smoke-monster-man off a cliff and then put the rock back. All of this so the island which was nearly deserted would not crumble into the sea.

But here are the two problems. Even if you believe that said events were worth the fictional sacrifices of so many fictional characters, does anyone really trust Jacob? Because we never really got the idea that hell would rain from the sky if the Man in Black was able to escape from the island (to say nothing of the urine-river 'source', which was introduced just three weeks ago). Jacob kept telling us that Smokey was bad news, and that the world would crumble if Not-Locke was able to board a plane or boat and get off the island, but we really only have his word on that. Apparently he was wrong. Dead wrong. Once Desmond removed the penis from the vagina (which caused mystical climaxing), the inhabitants of the island, even the magical ones like Smokey and Richard, were rendered mortal. So, theoretically, had everyone just left well enough alone, Desmond would have unplugged the metaphorical hole of importance, which then would have destroyed the empty island, but would have rendered Man in Black every bit as human as you or I. Great, so Not-Locke is able to get off the island, but he can only do as much damage as any other common criminal who is smart enough to slip a bomb into a guy's backpack (sorry folks, even Allison could pull that one off). So, all things considered, there was absolutely no reason for Jack to have to put the condom back on or really anyone to have to return to the island once they were rescued the first time around. That in turn negates pretty much all of the storytelling that took place after season four.

OK, fine, you don't care that the world was never in any peril, it still works for you right? OK, but as written, the first five seasons of Lost are basically just a prologue for season six. As I feared, the giant detours that the show took at the climax of season five, both in the overly-metaphysical 'it's all about destiny/supernatural forces of good and evil' mumbo-jumbo as well as the sideways universe, basically gave the writers an excuse to ignore every mystery and/or question that had been brought up prior to the end of season five. Everything that the show told you mattered, the Dharma initiative, the Others, the character arcs of our main characters, all of that was more or less forgotten for the sake of a hastily-told generic 'good vs. evil' struggle. With the final season, the writers basically told you that none of what happened in the first five years really matters, we want you to concentrate on the epic struggle of Jacob vs. his brother. Charles Widmore, hyped as a major antagonist for the entire run, basically existed to give Not-Locke a small piece of exposition before being shot dead by Ben. And how about that compelling end-game for Johnathan Locke? Oh wait... he really has been dead all this time, and in the end he really was a pathetic, delusional vessel who was fated to be arbitrarily murdered in order to scare the other survivors to return to the island for reasons that were left unexplained for nearly two whole seasons. I'm sure glad we invested our time with that major character. In the end, our favorite believer was a glorified red shirt.

As for the sideways universe, I didn't figure it out until right at the end, but that was only because I didn't realize I had been lied to. From the beginning, the first theories of Lost involved the island and/or the stories being told existing as some kind of purgatory. And from the beginning, we were assured that it was not the case. So yes, the creators invented an entire parallel time-line which consumed much of the final season purely so they could actually deliver on the promise of 'yeah, they are all dead after all'. Except unless you figured it out early on in the episode, the emotional moments of the flash-sideways scenes had no impact. After all, if we believed that both universes were true and equally valid, why would we care when certain characters discovered what their lives were like in a parallel universe? If you believed that both worlds were real, why were Sun and Jin so overjoyed to realize that in a different time-lime, they ended up on a deserted island, got separated, had a child, and then drowned together in a submarine? And if you believed that both worlds were true, why was Ben apologizing to John Locke for actions he committed in a different time-line? "I know in this world I protected you and befriended you," says Ben to Locke, "but I'm sorry I strangled you to death in a parallel universe." Considering how crappy most of the 'real' lives of our island friends had been, why were they so happy to be ripped from their comparatively idealistic afterlife to be reminded of the hell that they had went through? "Gee," thought Mr. Echo had he been around, "I'm loving my life right now as a peace-loving priest, but thanks for reminding me of my horrible, forgotten childhood as a brainwashed child soldier."

And all of this just comes if we take what we saw at face value, which if course may not be the case. But what we are otherwise left with are simplistic notions of sacrifice and redemption, complete with the idea that the ditzy-blond you boned for two weeks can be your soul mate as opposed to the actual love of your life, and how quickly you can accept your tragic fate and move forward is directly proportional to how big a star you were in your island adventures. The finale didn't matter because the story it told was seemingly invented from whole cloth at just the start of this season. By creating a whole new mythology in its final season, in a failed attempt to give the show 'deeper meanings', the series chose to ignore everything that viewers had become invested in. It takes a certain chutzpah to craft a finale to a long-running series that purely centers around incidents revealed in the last four episodes and the revelations behind a narrative-strand that was unveiled at the start of the final sixth of the story. Hell, even the X-Files did a better job of tying up nine years of mythology by the time it ended, and Chris Carter was even smart enough to slowly close the book on various story threads during the last four seasons (destroying the conspiracy in season six, resolving the mystery of Mulder's sister in season seven, etc). By leaving everything unanswered right up to the end, and then pulling a narrative switcheroo instead of finishing the story that was being unveiled, Lost basically mocked those who bothered to watch from the very beginning, as such rabid viewership proved entirely unnecessary. Thus, the finale of Lost rendered the entire series run relatively pointless and effectively killed any and all rewatchability of the prior episodes.

So, in the end, Lost ended for me with season three. The three later, abbreviated seasons no longer count. The show didn't need an endless parade of island invaders that arbitrarily tried to kill our heroes. The show certainly didn't need a return trip to the island, which left the cast randomly wandering around the island with no direction or motive for nearly an entire season. The show didn't need the confusing time-traveling, which rendered the actions of the island inhabitants pointless since they could jump through time at any moment of peril or triumph. And the show certainly didn't need a last-minute infusion of old-school religious parables, with newly introduced characters as angel/devil stand-ins in order to give our islanders some manufactured higher purpose which in turn robbed the show of its quasi-plausibility. The show as I know it ends at the end of season three. It ends with Charlie sacrificing himself so that everyone else could get rescued. It ends with Ben defeated and alone. It ends with Locke choosing to stay on the island in search of a purpose that would never be revealed. It ends with everyone who choose to leave apparently off the island, but still just as miserable as when they got there in the first place. Thump... Oh well, hopefully 24 will end on a superior note.

Scott Mendelson

Can Sex & the City 2 overcome the TV-sequels curse? Is it Star Trek: the Wrath of Khan or X-Files: I Want to Believe?

As most of you know, Sex & the City 2 opens worldwide on Thursday, May 27th. Expectations are running high, with the general consensus that it will perform in a similar fashion to the first picture ($57 million opening weekend, $152 million domestic total). But the odds are indeed stacked against it. There are two major issues at play. First, and more obviously, the $95 million picture (costing $30 million more than the first film) will have to overcome the infamous Tomb Raider trap. For those new to this site, the Tomb Raider trap (named for the enjoyable adventure yarn that is Tomb Raider: Cradle of Life) is the phenomenon in which a generally-disliked film becomes a smash hit based purely on marketing and hype. But the arguably superior sequel flops or under-performs because even though it is a better movie, audiences aren't willing to take the chance again (other instances of this phenomenon include Addams Family Values and The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian). Unless you were a die-hard fan of the original show, you probably didn't care much for the original Sex and the City movie. So theoretically only the hardcore fans will check this one out this time, right? But the real danger is the fact that it is a sequel to a film that was itself based on a television series. It's a tiny genre, one that is made up of either out-of-the-park smash hits or out and out flops. If it ends up as an example of the latter, the Carrie Bradshaw sequel should be thrilled to gross 1/2 of what the original made.

Obviously there aren't a lot of TV adaptations that were successful enough to spawn a sequel. But few that did were not what anyone would call box office smashes. There are three obvious exceptions to the rule, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen ($409 million to the original's $319 million), Alvin and the Chipmunks 2 ($219 million to the first film's $217 million take), and Mission: Impossible 2 (the John Woo sequel grossed $215 million while the Brian DePalma original amassed $181 million). The six entries in the respective franchises also make up six of the top eight highest-grossing TV-to-film properties of all time (2009's Star Trek and The Fugitive are mixed in there as well). And no, I don't count the Naked Gun series (the sequel made $86 million while the original made $79 million), as absolutely no one watched Police Squad when it aired for six episodes back in 1982. So, if we take away the mega-blockbuster films above (of which I'd argue only Alvin and the Chipmunks mostly capitalized on the nostalgia of its source material), what's the next highest-grossing entry in this small genre? What's the fourth-highest-grossing film that was a sequel to a TV adaptation? The answer, shockingly enough, is Scooby Doo: Monsters Unleashed.

The 2004 sequel to the blockbuster 2002 adaptation grossed $84 million in domestic dollars. A nice haul, but just 54% of the $153 million grossed by the original Scooby Doo movie. It gets worse from there. We have such winners as Addams Family Values (a masterpiece, but it grossed $48 million while the inferior first film took in $113 million), Wayne's World 2 (a rock-solid sequel that grossed just 39% of the original film's $121 million gross), Garfield: A Tale of Two Kitties (the first film grossed $75 million, the sequel grossed $28 million), US Marshals (The Fugitive amassed $183 million while the spin-off took in just $57 million). Further examples of lightning only striking once are A Very Brady Sequel (part 1 - $47 million part 2 - $21 million), Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle ($100 million vs. $125 million for the original picture), and The Flinstones: Viva Rock Vegas (the terrible first film made $130 million, while the $83 million-costing sequel grossed just $35 million).

But the one example that's most worrisome, the mother of all one-and-done TV-to-film transitions and the closest precedent to Sex & the City 2 is the brutal box office demise of X-Files: I Want to Believe. Released at the height of the television show's popularity, X-Files: Fight the Future opened with $30 million and grossed $84 million in summer 1998. Alas, litigation kept the sequel in development hell until two summers ago. Ten years after the first film and six years after the show went off the air, I Want to Believe cost just $25 million, but it would only open to $10 million and end its theatrical run with a shockingly-poor $21 million. Adjusted for inflation, the numbers posted by X-Files: Fight the Future (adjusted opening - $51 million/adjusted total - $142 million) are frighteningly similar to the respective numbers for the first Sex & the City movie. Yes, two years between films is a lot less time than ten years, but the similarities are otherwise striking. These two franchises are the only modern TV-adaptations, along with Star Trek, to actually star the original cast and continue the stories set forth in the television shows themselves. Heck, even the beloved Star Trek: the Wrath of Khan grossed $79 million compared to the $82 million gross of the somewhat disliked Star Trek: The Motion Picture.

Obviously this is all speculation, and one poorly-marketed sequel long past its freshness date does not automatically mean doom for a somewhat similar franchise. But the performance of the Sex and the City sequel will be fascinating to watch. All things considered, it's not nearly as much of a sure thing as we might have guessed. Fans may 'want to believe', but come Monday night, 'the truth will be out there' (sorry... couldn't resist). When it comes to box office punditry for this particular summer sequel, trust no one (so easy...). As always, we'll see...

Scott Mendelson

Shrek: The Final Chapter opens with $71 million, while MacGruber crawls to $4.1 million. Weekend box office review (05/23/10).

By any normal standards, a movie opening with $70.8 million in three days would be a pretty big success. So, before we get into what this means for the Shrek franchise, let's talk that number in cold detail for a minute. First of all, it gives the fourth Shrek picture a pretty solid 3.4x weekend multiplier, which was superior to the 3.1x scored by Shrek the Third over its opening weekend. Second of all, in the grand scheme of animated films, it is still the fourth-biggest opening weekend for a cartoon, behind only Shrek 3 ($121 million), Shrek 2 ($108 million), and The Simpsons ($74 million). Also, for what it's worth, it's the fifth-biggest opening weekend for a 'fourth chapter' in box office history, behind Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire ($102 million), Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull ($101 million), X-Men Origins: Wolverine ($85 million), and Fast and Furious ($71 million). Of course, if you glance at the numbers posted by the previous two Shrek sequels, you start to see the reason for concern. Come what may, anytime a sequel opens with $50 million less than the prior installment, that's generally a bad thing. Shrek Forever After just made less on its opening weekend than Shrek 2 made on its second weekend ($72.1 million).

Despite bad press going into the weekend about the growing cost of 3D and IMAX 3D ticket prices in the midst of a recession (in New York City, IMAX 3D tickets ran $20 a pop), the majority of audience members still felt the need to splurge, with 61% of all tickets being sold in a 'premium' format. Demographically, the film played 59% female and 56% under 25 years old. For what it's worth, the film earned an 'A' from Cinema Score. This was obviously a franchise that had been burned by the prior mediocre entry. Of course, the confused marketing (which basically switched the title a month before release) didn't help either. The main tagline, 'What the Shrek just happened?' meant nothing to those who didn't already know the It's A Wonderful Life storyline of said sequel. Plus, the pun in said tagline probably wasn't a favorite for parents to explain (nice job advertising your PG-rated family-film with a pun-variation on the R-rated phrase 'what the f-ck just happened?'). While the previous Shrek films had long-legged runs ($42m opening weekend-to-$267m total and $108m opening weekend-to-$441m total respectively), the third picture made just 2.6x its opening weekend, ending up with $322 million. As I mentioned yesterday, the comparative franchise collapse on display is almost identical to Batman & Robin in June 1997. Adjusted for inflation, the Batman & Robin figures (original numbers - $42m opening, $107m domestic finish) would be scarily reminiscent of where Shrek Forever After could be headed (adjusted for inflation - $74m opening, $185m domestic finish).

Yes, it benefits from 3D and IMAX 3D ticket prices and the relative consistency of those screens (which Dreamworks will keep until June 18th), so a better multiplier than Shrek the Third is not out of the question. Still, all three prior Shrek pictures opened on the same weekend (which is in itself impressive), so they all had the holiday advantage. Shrek grossed more on its second weekend than its first, and Shrek 2 set a record for biggest non-opening weekend at the time. But there is no reason to presume that Shrek: The Final Chapter will perform significantly better than the prior sequels. The third picture had a 2.66x weekend-to-total multiplier, which would give the fourth Shrek picture just $189 million in domestic totals. That's no flop, but it would put the Dreamworks cartoon short of Monsters Vs. Aliens ($198 million), Madagascar ($193 million), How to Train Your Dragon ($210 million and counting), and Kung Fu Panda ($215 million). Obviously, the film could earn better word of mouth than the not-that-bad third film, and Marmaduke (June 4th) can only do so much damage before Toy Story 3 opens on the 18th of June. Still, in this day and age, even a $60 million+ opening will struggle to make it to $200 million, as Quantum of Solace, Madagascar 2, Twilight, and Fast and Furious demonstrate. Point being, unless overseas numbers explode, Shrek: The Final Chapter will live up to its name as a series finale.

The other major opening was a complete and utter loss. Even at a cost of just $10 million, the Saturday Night Live comedy MacGruber is a box office flop with just $4 million over opening weekend. The marketing was all over the map with this one. Universal marketing once again dropped the ball. Despite debuting at the SXSW Film Festival to rave reviews, Universal and Rogue hid this picture till the night before opening day, and then kicked themselves when the finished product did in fact garner satisfactory notices. As I wrote yesterday, why the hell did they hide this from critics? Once again, if your movie is good (or at least gets the job done), why not let those who read reviews know that? MacGruber isn't great , but it has solid laughs and doesn't overstay its welcome. It's not nearly as ambitious or disciplined as Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery, can't decide whether its lead character is a master spy or a bumbling idiot, and it doesn't use Val Kilmer nearly enough. But I digress, I guess the big mystery, why did Universal, Rogue, and Relativity move this one into the heart of summer (which implied that it was good) and then more or less hide the movie (which implied that it was bad)? With an R-rating, the marketing team pretty much had to hide most of the punchlines, but the material that was released to non-online sources made the film feel like something aimed at twelve-year old boys, whom of course could not technically buy tickets to said comedy. Regardless, the film was pretty cheap and I imagine it will find a cult audience on DVD.

In holdover news, Iron Man 2 fell 49% in weekend two, for a $26 million weekend and a $251 million total. As noted last weekend, the heavily-anticipated sequel will struggle to match the $317 million earned by the original. Overseas however, the second film has pretty much eclipsed the original's $266 million foreign grosses. It is not going to rule 2010 like many predicted, but Iron Man 2 will still likely top $700 million in worldwide grosses. Again, the question is whether that result is acceptable for a film like The Avengers, which will likely cost $300-400 million (even if director Joss Whedon is able to make that $300 million look like a billion bucks onscreen). Universal's Robin Hood held up well enough, dropping 48% in weekend two. With a current domestic take of $66.6 million after ten days, the film is actually Russell Crowe's fifth-biggest grosser, behind Master and Commander ($93 million), American Gangster ($130 million), A Beautiful Mind ($170 million), and Gladiator ($187 million). As expected, overseas currency is saving the day, and the $200 million+ picture has already amassed $192 million worldwide. It still cost way too much money, but Robin Hood has an outside shot of making a few bucks for the struggling Universal.

Summit Entertainment's Letters to Juliet dropped just 33% from last weekend, ending day ten with a respectable $27.3 million. As far as Summit Entertainment goes, the Amanda Seyfried vehicle is already their fifth-biggest grosser, behind Push ($31 million), Knowing ($79 million), and the two Twilight pictures ($192 million and $296 million respectively). Just Wright dropped a disconcerting (for a romantic comedy) 48%, in its second weekend with $14.6 million. It's not a good performance, but I have to presume that Fox Searchlight kept the budget low on this Queen Latifah vehicle. In other holdover news, Date Night crossed the $90 million mark, dropping just 23% in its seventh weekend. Assuming it can hold onto theaters over Memorial Day and the glut of B-level releases on June 4th (Splice, Get Him to the Greek, Marmaduke, and Killers), the Tina Fey/Steve Carell vehicle will certainly cross $100 million. A Nightmare On Elm Street has nearly crossed $60 million, meaning it could very well double its $32 million opening weekend. Nice work gang. Finally, some sad news: losing 869 of its 3D and IMAX screens to Shrek: The Final Chapter, How to Train Your Dragon plummeted 62% in its ninth weekend. While the film currently sits at $211 million, it will have to struggle to get that extra $4 million+ to surpass the $215 million gross of Kung Fu Panda. Of course, should Shrek IV collapse over Memorial Day weekend (not likely), the dragon epic may very well get some of its screens back, since both films are Dreamworks releases.

That's it for this weekend. Join us for Memorial Day weekend when Sex and the City 2 opens on Thursday and attempts to break the TV-sequels curse. Meanwhile, Friday brings the release of Disney's Prince of Persia: the Sands of Time, which attempts to break the video game-adaptation curse. Good luck to both.

Scott Mendelson