Movies over the weekend: "Shrek 4," the dark unhappy version, made $71 million, the worst showing for any Shrek sequel. That's still a lot of money. It'll probably have to make twice that much before it turns a "profit," at least in the madfantasy world of Hollywood accounting. Considering that nothing in the film actually exists, or had to be fed, or built, or lit, or landscaped, it makes you wonder where all the money goes. Marketing, yes. Vocal talents, sure. But the actual production cost of paying artists to work on computers can't be that great, unless they're all divas who demand a fresh new white keyboard every day and have contracts that stipulate they're paid for each blade of grass they render. Don't get me wrong: I'm all for paying these guys tons of money, but I have the suspicion that Hollywood execs don't see them as important as actors who might invite them to a party or even have lunch some day.
"MacGruber" didn't make any money, but it didn't cost much to make. DVD version should be out by - hold on, mail guy just delivered something to my desk . . . well, it's the "MacGruber" DVD! That was fast. "Robin Hood" is still struggling - cost $300 mil or so, and it's made back $66 million so far. Probably because it looked messy and glum, and people got the idea that it wasn't Robin Hood in the classic sense - you know, a cheerful, uplifting adventure with clanging swords and dastardly villains. Can't have that, you know. Still worth seeing, and maybe there will be a sequel. Jeff Garlin for Friar Tuck!
Or Shrek's long-lost brother, in Shrek 5.
