Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Shrek the Third....Blecch the Third.....

So I saw “Shrek the Third” last weekend. With the number of sequels in Hollywood rising beyond the scope of reason, I was not surprised that “Shrek the Third” (or STT as I will be referring to it in the rest of this entry) had fallen into that dreadful category of sequels that are victims of “sequelitis.” What is sequelitis? Well, there are several types of films. There are those that do not demand that any sequel be made, whether it is because of the story itself (imagine “Citizen Kane 2: Rosebud’s Revenge”), because the success of the first film was due solely to the talents of the star (*cough* “Son of the Mask”*cough*), or because the story was so bad in the first place that there is no way in heck that the audience should be exposed to further dreck for fear that they might all commit seppuku. There are also films that can be considered chapters in an overall story (including the Star Wars and Lord of the Rings films). The wonderful thing about these films is that the filmmaker can really explore different character nuances once the main characters have been introduced in the first film. There is no need to spend an inordinate amount of time on the character introduction for each of the returning characters, and the filmmaker can delve further into story development. Finally, we have the “money grab”- the sequel that has NO RIGHT being made because of an absence of artistry of any kind (or minimal) in the making of the film. Here is where most sequels belong. I am not no naïve as to believe that producers are altruistic in their reasons to make sequels; they ALL want to make lots of money. Sequels have a built in recognizability that makes them easier to market to the general public. Absent a long publication history or pop culture references (comics characters, the Transformers, and the Bourne series), producers are understandably loathed to invest lots of time and money into unproven commodities. Even where the generation of multimillions should be a sure thing, some star will go off his rocker and ruin the box office solely because of his or her wacky antics (Tom Cruise or Lindsay Lohan, anyone?). The money grab is the most insidious of sequels because at this point, the producers and directors just do not care about quality; all they want to do is milk the property for all that it is worth or maybe put their own loathsome spin on a strong property that may end up dooming it for all time (something that Joel Schumacher attempted mightily with “Batman and Robin”). Key features of the money grab include (but are not limited to): 1) a different cast (although a cast that is just going through the motions, as was the case in “STT,” also qualifies in my book), 2) a story retread, 3) the introduction of “new, exciting, hip” characters (the “Scrappy Doo” approach), or, the most insidious of all, 4) the lazy writer/too many writers. Ladies and gentleman, may I present “STT.”

Let me start off by saying that this is a GREAT movie for small children. The kids in the audience loved it, and if you are a parent, I recommend this film as good, clean, wholesome moviemaking. The problem here is that the adult audience is a large reason for Shrek 2 being #3 on the list of all time domestic blockbusters (unadjusted for inflation), yet the writers chose to give this audience short shrift. This would be antithetical to the whole reason for the film to be made in the first place (i.e., to entice full paying childless adults who loved the first 2 films). I mean, although “Shrek 2” had the introduction of a hip cool character, the script writers did not make that character (Puss in Boots) superfluous; they gave Antonio Banderas something to play with and also some great material (I still laugh during the “Cops” take off when the knights find catnip on Puss and he intones, as most perps do on the “Cops” TV show, “thas no’ mine, man.”). The film also extended the story of Fiona and Shrek to a logical place: how are her parents going to react? It was kind of like the Shrek version of “Meet the Parents.” I loved that film save for the character of the Fairy Godmother. It had some great sequences, and there was a lot of effort spent on the principles of the cast while changing around the Shrek formula. Here? The film was totally forgettable. There were, to be sure, a few moments, but the moments were few and far between. The pop culture references were not as on point as in the previous films, and the introduction of the other princesses seemed tacked on. They were not personifications of the Disney princesses nor were they send ups of them; they were just thrown in as extra bodies to separate out what had been, to this point, the core of both Shrek films: the relationship between Shrek and Fiona. As the trailers have made clear, there is a baby Shrek in the film, but the baby does not make an appearance (save for a single dream sequence) until the end of the film. Remember how gypped you felt when Darth Vader was in black only at the very end of the film? Once again, the filmmaker does not deliver on the promise from the trailers. The filmmakers missed a golden opportunity to really focus on the changing dynamics of Shrek and Fiona’s relationship and move the struggles that all couples face (courtship in the first film, dealing with the in-laws/early marriage struggles in the second film) to the changes associated with having children in the third one. Instead, the audience is treated to a completely predictable story about Charming’s revenge, Arthur, and the other fairy tale princesses. This was a good film for kids, but if you are an adult, do not go into the theater expecting the same level of quality from the first 2 Shrek films. This was a money grab in every sense of the word, the “safe film” that causes the series to lose its way (yes, “Shrek 4” has already been announced) because of sequelitis.

I also have some non-movie news. I started my summer clerkship! Exams are behind me and I am at the law office every day faced with the prospect that this is what the rest of my life will look like. So far, I must say that this exceeds my expectations. I am eagerly working on my projects, and I wake up looking forward to the day. I realize that being a summer clerk is a LOT different from working as an attorney full time, but I really like it! I will still be writing my reviews, though, so look for my “Pirates” review next week.

1 comment:

Daisy, Just Daisy said...

Anxiously awaiting the review of Pirates!! (Lets leave out the fact that I was a titch bit late??) And, what movie is next on the horizon??