‘Paul Blart’ Trips Up Thieves (Also Snobs and Movie Critics)
by Mike LongWhy in the world would you turn up your nose at Paul Blart: Mall Cop? The only reason I can come up with is that you go to movies to impress other people instead of to entertain yourself.
The Washington Post–that peerless identifier of good times–put gadfly Hank Stuever up to writing about the popularity of the picture. Hank wrote this: “Living in a country that makes Paul Blart the top movie two weeks in a row is like realizing how many people think crotchless lingerie is sexy….” What would you bet Hank doesn’t think a movie’s any good unless he leaves the theater with a headache?
You wanna know the problem with movie critics (and with a lot of filmmakers, for that matter)? They’re on the lookout for eat-yer-peas movies while the rest of us are out for let’s-forget-for-awhile-that-we-have-to-eat-peas-at-all movies.
And that is the reason for the elitist head-scratching over the success of Paul Blart. The picture is built around a sympathetic and likable character you want to root for. The story is unique. (Well, it’s actually Die Hard without the gore and intensity, but we haven’t seen that story ripped off in a few years, so that’s unique enough.) The humor comes from the situation and the interactions among the people. Come to think of it, Paul Blart is a John Candy picture with Kevin James in the starring role. If you’ve seen Planes, Trains and Automobiles or Uncle Buck, you’ve seen this character and, essentially, this picture.
And that’s fine. There’s a reason we remember Uncle Buck and its ilk 20 years after release–and why we don’t remember, say, 1989’s “Eat A Bowl of Tea” and its cauldron of simmering emotion among first-generation male Chinese immigrants in their struggle to reconcile their wants and needs with the direct and indirect social pressures applied by their Chinatown neighbors.
See what I mean?
I like entertainment and I like art, too, but many movie-goers (and most critics) imagine that unless there’s some art to be found in a picture, the picture’s not worthwhile. They’re wrong. Exhibit A: The well-made, innocent, inoffensive, somewhat touching and entirely fine Paul Blart: Mall Cop.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
75 Comments
Pete is a pretentious bore. *yawn*
On the flip side, many conservative movie-goers seem to think that IF there’s some art to to be found in a picture, then it’s not worthwhile.
The problem is that you guys constantly argue false choices. A person can like BOTH escapist fare AND smaller arty films. Not liking Paul Blart doesn’t necessarily mean that a person is an “elitist” for thinking that.
Pete, “many conservative movie-goers seem to think that IF there’s some art to to be found in a picture, then it’s not worthwhile.”
Really? That is an interesting observation, can you support that with an example of a narrow minded conservative you have either read saying this or heard saying this?
After seeing trailers for this flick I actually want to see it. Looks goofy as hell.My cup of tea.
Pete… huh? Many liberal moviegoers confuse emotionally wrought tales of sodomizing goatherds with entertainment. So what? Your first sentence is completely irrelevant even if true. Many film goers thing many things. Stick with the topic please.
Who wants to escape into 13 or Crash or whatever. Arguably fine films (especially 13 over the execrable Crash), but hardly popcorn flicks. There’s actually an art to Paul Blart-type films. Being funny is not that easy.
Thank you! What is wrong with a happy fun movie with no serious undertones? When did laughing just for the sake of laughing become bad? Life has painful moments but that doesn’t mean we want or should drowned in them. I stopped going to movies years ago because I got tired of being preached at on numerous issues. Or worse yet watch a movie only to have a horrific sad ending.
I haven’t seen Mall Cop yet but I think it may just be the one that makes be break a multi-year streak and go to the theater.
@Pete No one is saying there shouldn’t be a choice between escapist and artsy films.. we’re saying GIVE US THE CHOICE! and for a long time their hasn’t been much of a choice. Artsy, children films or violent /sexual escape? Not everyone likes those choices. Some of us just want a laugh with out being demeaned or preached to.
Nice that Pete is able to declare whatever stereotype that strikes his fancy.
Haven’t seen this, but there is a place in this world for Three Stooges or the Marx Brothers, or John Candy, for that matter. Can I have some more, please?
I loved it. And I’m not a big Kevin James fan. My daughter loved it. It wasn’t dirty and it ended nice.
I finally went to see Gran Torino this weekend. The people who choose the Oscars are idiots. By far the best movie I have seen in a looooooooooong time.
Clint rules.
Okay then, I’ll cop to viewing “art” as a sure disincentive to go to a movie. It’s not quite that simple but close enough for horseshoes.
The thing is… the “art” or whatever social value should probably be there, but if the film (or book or gallery showing) has to present itself as having that higher value it’s a bit like being told that you should eat something because it’s good for you rather than eat it because it’s tasty.
My Sunday School teachers (well, a particular one) used that argument to explain why we had to sing songs that were stupid. “The words are good” she’d say. Well, the songs sucked. Why not have us sing beautiful music with good words? Why not have both?
Elitists can call me uneducated all they wish, I still enjoy stupid comedy. From my early years of enjoying the Little Rascals, the Three Stooges, and Looney Tunes…to my love of BBC comedies, MST3K, Adam Sandler movies, and yes….Mall Cop.
For me, I just enjoy art that provokes emotion. So sue me if my favorite one is amused.
Well, gee, you want some examples of my observation that some conservative movie-goers view “art” as being incompatible with “entertainment”, I would direct you to search this very site’s archives about the Oscar nominations, especially the ones that tacitly equated box office take with artistic worthiness.
Hell, this post alone posits a false choice with the Uncle Buck/Eat a Bowl of Tea example. Those films were two different genres, had two substantially different distribution patterns, and clearly a difference in “known” actors in the cast. The author seems to be saying because people liked a bland steak starring John Candy, then no one should eat a decent Sesame Chicken once in a while.
As for the “critics”, I think some of you are missing a larger point about film criticism in your zeal to brand everyone and everything “elitist”. Movie critics actually have to see EVERYTHING that plays in a theater. They begin to rebel against cookie-cutter films like Paul Blart because they’ve seen the exact same film over and over and over. Consequently, it’s no wonder that they will champion artistically off the beaten path movies like, say, Slumdog Millionaire. Not because they’re hopeless elitists, because they’re bored with seeing the same obvious stuff like Paul Blart.
Goodness knows that if a person wants to see a movie that will be to their liking, they’ll be able to find it, no matter what their tastes are. For every Slumdog Millionaire or Milk, there are five Paul Blarts. For every Gran Torino, you have 10 Friday the 13ths.
I still think that this website overdoes it when it comes to railing against “elitist” films. If you don’t want to see Milk, don’t see it. If you don’t want to see Paul Blart, don’t see it.
Crotchless lingerie isn’t sexy?
We remember Uncle Buck? Do we?
The success of Paul Blart is not something to be celebrated.
I figured I would watch this one knowing full well what it is and is not. It looks entertaining and Kevin James seems a likable fellow. What’s wrong with that?
Pete,
If critics rebel against “cookie-cutter films” when reviewing them, why the almost universal critical praise for films that utilize the standard Hollywood boilerplate heros and villains of the last generation? American Beauty, The Opposite of Sex, A Box Full of Moonlight, An American President, and The Contender, quickly come to mind.
The Contender actually wasn’t that universally loved by critics. Rod Lurie has never been the most popular guy among critics, mostly because he used to be one.
The Opposite of Sex was also criticized by many critics for Christina Ricci’s incredibly unsympathetic lead character.
Don’t confuse “the reviewer doesn’t share my personal political or cultural disdain for this film” with “elitist critics are univerally praising this film that I personally dislike”.
Roger Ebert’s metric of “did this film accomplish what it set out to do” is probably the best way to approach it. That way you can praise or criticize BOTH art films and more populist films.
What about “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon”? Yeah, yeah, I know; not “Hollywood”, but that was a great piece of entertainment. Entertainment with significant “art” qualities. Some of the shots in that movie are so gorgeous I’ll pause the DVD and stare at the screen for a minute or two (the fisherman on the river casting his net; aerial shots of the bamboo forest; the desert scenes). The worst thing I observed when I went to see this move was how many people left when subtitles came up. I’m not kidding, about 10% of the theater (packed room, too) just got up and left. They missed a helluva show all because reading was a bit much, I guess.
It’s Die Hard with Kevin James and a Segway, why would people not see it! It was really enjoyable, not a great film but funny.
“Did I have a good time”, is that really the metric you use to judge movies? Did you have a “good time” at Schindler’s List?
I think you’re being naive if you think that some burned out critics don’t lash out with a little more venom when they have to see incredibly obvious films like Bride Wars.
As for Paul Blart, if you’re going to do a Die Hard parody, try to come up with something unique to say. I’m sure that the team that did the cop film parody Hot Fuzz could have made a Paul Blart that would have put Kevin James to shame.
re: Carolyn – Why can’t those damned critics learn from Sam Goldwyn? Films are entertainment, not sermons.
Carolyn, get a clue. Hollywood’s been sending messages for a hundred years.
Pete – I think you misunderstood the “did I have a good time” criteria!
Yes, I had a “good time” watching Schindler’s List! Because in the end, you know a good man did a good thing – that made me feel good!
You don’t have to LAUGH to have a good time. Heck a good cry at the right time can make you feel “good”! And that comes from a combat-harden former active duty Marine!
You seem to try pigeon-holing as much as you decry it! Lighten up anyway, the last time I checked we are talking about MOVIES!
Crotchless underwear IS sexy! What the hell is wrong with Hank?!
There are no art films from Hollywood. Well, a few maybe. I wouldn’t know, because I haven’t seen a movie in ages, because they are all terrible.
Most of them are entirely clones and Paul Blart seems to be that way (haven’t seen it). Most of the movies with “messages” are… clones, not worth watching and not a dime of difference between them and the “entertainment” films.
You should be moved during a film- it should strike you in an emotional and intellectual way. Laughing is an emotion, right?
“The worst thing I observed when I went to see this movie was how many people left when subtitles came up.”
I’m so accustomed to subtitles that I’ve had arguments with people over what language a movie was in after we finished watching it.
“The author seems to be saying because people liked a bland steak starring John Candy, then no one should eat a decent Sesame Chicken once in a while.”
And this sounds like a value judgment the other direction because it’s not presented as a choice between steak and sesame chicken but a choice between “bland” and “decent”. One is clearly better than the other. (Although sesame chicken is the equivalent of pizza, culture-wise.)
Shouldn’t “burnt out” film critics find a new profession?
Well Pete, Then why didn’t the HotFuzz guys do it? Look you have a very high opinion of what you think about movies. Others of us don’t rate your opinion that high. People like different types of movies. You like what the critics tell you is “art” we like to watch movies that entertain. That doesn’t always mean laugh. I love The Lion in Winter but I also love Caddyshack. I might even put them #1 and #2 on my list of all time favorites. I also love Requiem for a Dream and Vacation. See, two different types of movies both enjoyable for different reasons. Get over yourself and your life will be much sweeter.
Synova,
It’s not a value judgement. Comparing Uncle Buck to Eat a Bowl of Tea is like comparing a fish to a bicycle. The author was denigrating Wayne Wang’s film by playing the tired “no one remembers it, therefore it must not be any good” canard that is often deployed by lazy cultural critics.
I personally didn’t think Eat a Bowl of Soup was nearly on the level of Wang’s “Smoke” and “Blue in the face”, but it was a decent enough film for what it was trying to be.
Uncle Buck doesn’t particularly hold up years later, much like anything in the John Hughes oevre.
However, I can safely say that twenty years from now, NO ONE will remember Paul Blart, unless Kevin James in later life is the center of some sordid scandal involving an autoclave and a Cub Scout troop.
Geez, AllSwell, where to begin. Yes, the HotFuzz guys could have made a better film than Paul Blart. One could say that the better film they made was, in fact, Hot Fuzz.
However, the “well, why didn’t they do it themselves” is kind of an absurd thing to say. That would be saying, “why didn’t Kevin Costner direct Raising Arizona”?
And, yes, I am opinionated about the movies. But, I guess the purpose of Big Hollywood is to have an echo chamber, circle jerk mentality where all the sheep bleat the exact same opinions about every single movie?
I think that you guys ought to watch Mike Judge’s “Idiocracy”. It might open your eyes…
“I’m not sure what is meant by “art” being in a film or an “art film.” The usage of the term “art” related to film seems to be a conceit meant to artificially elevate the intellect of a certain type of moviegoer. It’s a very contrived way to denigrate others based on what “you” appreciate.”
You mean, like, say, the author of this post said: “Why in the world would you turn up your nose at Paul Blart: Mall Cop? The only reason I can come up with is that you go to movies to impress other people instead of to entertain yourself.”
You don’t find that the author was using more than a few value judgements to denigrate those whose tastes don’t veer towards Paul Blart? Does that mean if I go see Slumdog Millionaire I’m doing it not because I’m a Danny Boyle fan and that the film looked interesting, but instead went to impress other snobs?
Seriously, guys, using Paul Bart as yet another grievance in your endless culture wars is a pretty lame move.
Pete,
I went to the IMDB.com reviews page for both The Opposite of Sex and The Contender. Including Ebert and the NYT, both films seemed to get overall positive reviews. Granted, outside of Ebert and NYT, I randomly clicked on a few other reviews. But what I found was consistent with the reviews that I read upon their release.
I’ll watch many films despite where my beliefs and the film’s message may diverge. Many, I will skip as I suspect I’ll be blandly preached to rather than entertained or provoked to pondering a message.
But, back to the “cookie-cutter” subject. I still contend that “cookie-cutter” laziness is often forgiven if it is a quick, easy message that corresponds with a reviewer’s belief system.
http://suntimes.com/video/article/index.html?pid=fA0VrKUfd9j3W20wcZnfdJBjF6vuJ5eH
An officer responding to a car break-in in the parking lot next to the murder scene was within 200 yards when the killings took place.
A lone gunman grabbed women one-by-one as they arrived at the store, tied them up in a room at the rear of the store. Store manager Rhoda McFarland was shot in the front of the head when she dialed 911, and shoppers Sarah Szafranski, Carrie Hudek Chiuso, Jennifer Bishop and Connie Woolfolk all were shot at close range in the back of their heads moments later.
IL citizens are forbidden to carry concealed firearms. Like lambs to the slaughter, we are told to call police instead.
Miko,
Would “cookie-cutter” laziness be along the lines of, say, gags involving an overweight man attempting to do something that involves stealth or athleticism resulting in comedic hijinks like, oh, say, falling through a vent because he’s too heavy?
Generally movies like Paul Blart open in January because they are too mediocre to waste a prime summer or Christmas slot that could be occupied by more deserving films.
Comedies are far and away the most difficult type movie to critique because everyone’s sense of humor is so different. To me — John Candy is funny, Kevin James is not. Caddyshack and Stripes may not be “technically” funny to critics, but I think they are the funniest movies of all time. The story itself isn’t usually important. Bill Murray could just stare at a screen for an hour and I’d laugh my ass off with no story at all! To me, Mall Cop is moronic and a waste of time.
I saw “Paul Blart”. It was neither good, nor art, nor even entertaining.
It was schlock and drivel, box office be damned.
They’ve (unaccountably) inflicted a second Steve Martin “Pink Panther” upon the world, and it’ll probably get watched too; but that, and the success of “Paul Blart” owes more to the old saw about it being impossible to underestimate the public’s intelligence. It also has to with the utter dearth of anything decent to watch at the cineplex since about last November, which shortage shows no signs of abating anytime soon.
If you liked it, good for you.
If I’d worked on it, I’d have used an alias and gotten someone to swear I was actually off playing piano in a brothel.
Pete — the Hot Fuzz team did not make a movie that put Paul Blart to shame, in fact none of the movies you cite, or any of the arty guys, can be funny.
THEY JUST CAN’T DO IT. Not a single one. Quick, name a FUNNY movie that was “deep” and had “art?”
You can’t. Art snobs hate funny movies because art snobs and the movie makers they like cannot be funny. And let’s be honest, art snob movies are the defacto establishment of Hollwyood, from Benjamin Button to Milk to gay cowboys. None of them are funny.
Comedy is very difficult, look at the failed comedies (like Love Guru) vs. the successful ones like Christmas Story or Planes, Trains, and Automobiles. A few guys can do it, like John Hughes, they tend to be conservative in the sense that they value family, loyalty, decency, and compassion (as opposed to liberals celebrating sexual desire and libertine behavior above family).
Chevy Chase (a man who was once ungodly funny) said that most comedies fail because there is not enough money in the budget for on-set rewrites. A joke will look funny on paper, be hilarious in the reading room, and then fall flat on camera. Everyone knows it’s stupid and won’t work, but there’s no time or ability to rewrite quickly. Ghostbusters was funny not because of Big Effects (though even there the tone was to take a monster Action Movie budget and treat the stuff as a joke) but because Harold Ramis was on set every day re-writing stuff that should have worked, but didn’t, to make it funny. It takes a lot more writing skill to be funny than to be arty.
And the funny guys are the true rebels, the outliers, the going against the grain. Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, Sean Penn, they are the establishment. They are arty. And they damn sure are not funny.
[...] iPhone will Bite the Dust Before Nokia N97 ? Blog Archive ? Gadgetophilia (CellPhone,Comparison) ‘Paul Blart’ Trips Up Thieves (Also Snobs and Movie Critics) – bighollywood.breitbart.com 02/02/2009 by Mike Long Why in the world would you turn up your nose [...]
Ok, comedies that were both “funny” and “deep” and “arty” – although I’m going to define “deep” as being below the surface level comedy of your Paul Blarts
Amelie
Delicatessan
Raising Arizona
Being John Malkovich
Ghost World
Groundhog Day
Dr. Strangelove
the original Bedazzled
Tampopo
Almost Famous
Barton Fink
Get Shorty
Hot Fuzz
Shaun of the Dead
Idiocracy
(by the way, the utter obsession you “movement conservatives” have with Milk and Brokeback Mountain is really quite comical)
Is the failure of Eat a Bowl of Tea solely based on the popular appeal of the movie, or is it possible that factors like the original number of screens it played on, or the ownership rights? Was the original studio that made the film still in business (MANY late 80’s indie companies went under)? Who owns the rights to the film now? Is it available on DVD?
Again, to compare Uncle Buck, which had an A-list actor and a large Hollywood Studio backing it to Eat a Bowl of Tea head to head in terms of artistic quality is foolish.
As for the “beloved by audiences”, last year Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull had the fourth largest box office take, despite being critically clobbered. Does that mean that a) it was a good film or b) other adventure films should replicate that winning box office formula?
Pete, I’m sure if you ask nicely Andrew will let you post on the front page then we don’t have to listen to your (to quote a great family comedy) monologing(sp?). We get your point but like a typical liberal you have to keep telling us how wrong and dumb we are. Again and again and again. So please go hang out with the smart people and leave us dummies alone.
I think a lot of people have become leery of ‘the arts’ because the arts have, in large part, stopped being relevant to the common man. To me, I don’t associate ‘the arts’ with expounding on universal truths any longer. To me it implies narcissism, left wing politics shoved down my throats and a bitter nihilistic hatred of everyone and everything. It
simply doesn’t speak to me and it doesn’t speak to most people anymore.
Btw, Pete said, “(by the way, the utter obsession you “movement conservatives” have with Milk and Brokeback Mountain is really quite comical)”
Its because we’re all sekritly teh gayz giggle giggle giggle. Which is apparently a terrible thing to be or something. Can the leftists get us some trolls that have hit puberty please?
If you don’t like stupid, lowbrow movies, you’re a snob!
Aw…Allswell..although I never called anyone “dumb”, it’s interesting to see that when confronted with a point of view you disagree with, instead of actually engaging in an adult discussion, you resort to trite talking points like “typical liberal” and pepper your outrage with extreme psychological projection.
It’s disappointing to see a conservative site that is purportedly about the movies and pop culture degenerate into such predictable culture war bloviating. I mean, come on guys, Paul Blart as anti-elitist hero?
Pete, dissent is not welcomed in this echo chamber!
Aw, Dark Eden, you briefly were hitting a cogent point about nihilism, but you up and ruined it by pulling out the patented Big Hollywood “you’re a teenager” card.
I would respectfully say that not all art is nihilistic or anti-conservative. A person can be very politically conservative, but still appreciate Mark Rothko for instance.
I certainly don’t think that the loudest of the loud screaming about Brokeback Mountain are secretly gay. All I meant was that the near constant denunciations of Milk and Brokeback Mountain by posters on this site is comical to me because of its single-mindedness. It’s too bad that you couldn’t see past your own personal discomfort with the subject matter, because Brokeback was a very skillfully made tragedy.
Pete, You don’t want to have an adult conversation. You want to lecture people. If I shoo a fly out of the room does that mean I hate animals or that I have reached the end of my tolerance for annoying buzzing sounds?
Allswell, I’m simply expressing a point of view. Because you disagree with me, you say I’m “lecturing you”.
Ain’t free speech just so damn inconvenient when a person lives in an echo chamber.
So, in summary, Paul Blart is really NOT the wagon you guys should be hitching your wagon to if you want to be taken seriously. It mostly makes outsiders think that you guys don’t know dick about the movies.
Pete, of course you didn’t mean to insinuate anything by that statement Pete. We all believe you. By the way, I’m bisexual and quite comfortable with it so you might try that line with someone else. I haven’t gone to see either Milk or Brokeback so I can’t really say. My reason for avoiding both was I have an aversion to left wing politics being shoved down my throat. The odds of that with both those approached 100% like so many movies these days. So I opt out of the left wing brainwashing sessions and watch more Anime. Much more wholesome and America-friendly than anything Hollywood produces. Ironic that it takes foreign films to do that these days.
The aptly named Crapass McGee said, “Pete, dissent is not welcomed in this echo chamber!”
Intelligent and thoughtful dissent is quite welcome. That kind of rules out you and Pete though
.
Pete: “As for the “beloved by audiences”, last year Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull had the fourth largest box office take, despite being critically clobbered. Does that mean that a) it was a good film or…”
I think that in a sense it does mean it was a good film.
Who got first place? Dark Knight?
I don’t think that a person could argue that either movie was without depth or failed to take a good, hard look at the issue of being human. Great action sequences and nifty special effects aren’t going to make up much if that’s missing. In order to do really well at the box office a movie, even something like Paul Blart, has to resonate with some common human experience or no one will see it and no one will recommend it. Even escapism has to understand what the human creature needs to escape from, and what primal human yearnings to fulfill.
Yeah, Pete, you’ve got to post thoughtful comments like Charlie’s last one, you liberal elitist troll!
Pete, I think the point goes to the the lavish praise that will be placed on a film “with a message” whether or not it really a good film, and Brokeback is a great example of that. The gay message propelled it, and was its selling point as a serious movie, a fine example of movie making. In fact, it was terrible, because absent the shock value of the gay angle it was a boring story, poorly told. Kind of like the emperor not knowing he is naked.
I doubt I will see mall cop because that type of stuff doesn’t do it for me either. But whether you like Brokeback, or Mall Cop, or the Eat a Bowl of Tea movie it gets silly for someone to take an issue with the public for making a sophmoric film number one as some type of crisis of the body public – which was the point of the original post – because it isn’t intellectually appropriate. Sometimes we like to be scared, sometimes we like to cry, sometimes we like to see the Stooges, sometimes we have to take the kids and just hope it will be tolerable (Toy Story pretty darn good – Young Bear or whatever that horrible cartoon flick about the environment bad). I wish the people who feel like they are being talked down to by the types like Stuever would just ignore him. Movies are enjoyed for all types of reasons. That is what I felt Long was saying, and I think essentially correct. Pete, you are getting a fair amount of garbage because everyone thinks you are defending Stuever. Sure he is entitled to his opinion, just like anyone else. But it was a typical condescending backslap that the elite seem to think should have no consequences. Check the circulation of American Newspapers, and the growth of the movie industry in Hollywood (if you can call a negative number growth).
Gimme a break, Pete. It seems your whole raison d’etre is to pontificate on why every BH post is deficient. You may not feel that’s what you’re doing, but it’s hard to see it any other way going by your comments throughout the site.
When it comes to movies, I think it’s hard to say that if you are “this political viewpoint” you will like or dislike this particular film. There are many film titles mentioned in these comments that have more than their “leftist” or “liberal” points of view, but I still enjoyed them. There are many others that have their “conservative” down home flavor that I could not, would not, sit through a second time. A movie is a movie. Yes, there are the wacko moments that stretch my ability to accept an offered premise, but I can still accept the movie as something that I find enjoyable or not.
The thing about critics is that they are just one person who is sharing their opinion. Yeah, their job is to impart to the movie going public what is good and what isn’t. That does not mean that they are god-like in their labeling a film good or bad. What happened to your judgement? I used to watch Siskel & Ebert every week just to get their points of praise or contention on a particular film. It was rare that I agreed with either of them on every film. About half the time they themselves didn’t agree on a film. I did find that Siskel and I shared a sensibility that meant if he liked it so might I. But not always. But when they both had high praise for something and backed that up with cohesive thought, then you knew that it would probably be something that was “good”, but still, not always.
Go see what you think you’ll like. If you end up not liking it, share your opinion with those who ask you for it. But I would hope that we aren’t too quick to label as bad, entertainment that someone, somewhere is bound to like. Maybe even the director of that film. I won’t rush out to the cineplex to see Paul Blart, but I won’t dismiss it when it shows up on the movie channels.
I mean, I’ve even seen a lot of Adam Sandler’s films like Billy Madison, Happy Gilmore, and The Waterboy, as the better examples of his “comedy”, and I still like him in movies such as The Wedding Singer, Anger Management, and Chuck and Larry. His movies I really do like are Punch Drunk Love and Reign Over Me, even though those wouldn’t be considered comedies. See, I’m sure you could completely disagree with me.
One more reason I read the Washington Times and not the Washington (Com-)Post.
Dark Eden, if you haven’t seen Brokeback Mountain, why are you so certain it contains “left wing politics”? What scenes are you talking about that would back that up? What am I saying, how can you have an informed opinion about a movie that you haven’t seen, yet are comfortable making such sweeping statements about?
Davie, basically every post on BH is deficient. It’s not the “conservative take” on movies, it’s just the same chip on the shoulder, you city slickers think you’re better than me, culture war nonsense that stopped being unique or insightful about 30 years ago.
I guess a conservative movement that views Paul Blart as a defiant statement of anti-elitism really can’t be helped at this point. Hopefully Idiocracy’s prediction that the most popular show in the future will be “Ow, My Balls!” will come true, so you guys will have some new mediocrity to embrace.
“Quick, name a FUNNY movie that was “deep” and had ‘art?’”
Are you serious?
Dr. Strangelove
Raising Arizona
Fargo
Pulp Fiction
Both Kill Bill pictures
MASH
The Player
Network
Trading Places
Annie Hall
Princess Bride
Blazing Saddles
Manhattan
Life of Brian
Ferris Bueller
Rushmore
Bottle Rocket
Spinal Tap
Shaun of the Dead
Delicatessen
Cue Beef Supreme making the limp wrist gesture at Pete.
Pete, I never said I had an informed opinion about Brokeback. Actually I said exactly the opposite. I was merely saying why I didn’t go see it. It had Liberal Agenda written all over it. After so many movies spit on me and everything I hold dear, I become a little gunshy about giving Hollywood a dime of my money unless I really like the film or I am pretty sure its not going to have any completely inappropriate cheap shots at my expense.
To David Watts… again the liberal contortions to erect straw men and beat them down is impressive. Nobody is holding up Mall Cop as an example of defiant anti elitism. We’re pointing out how silly it is for elitists to use it as yet another example of why America is Stupid.
Let’s return to the central quote that started this off: ““Living in a country that makes Paul Blart the top movie two weeks in a row is like realizing how many people think crotchless lingerie is sexy….”
That’s your typical left wing elitist, this post is your non elitist reaction to it.
“…it’s just the same chip on the shoulder, you city slickers think you’re better than me, culture war nonsense that stopped being unique or insightful about 30 years ago.”
Yes, but…
Did it stop being true?
“Pete, I never said I had an informed opinion about Brokeback. Actually I said exactly the opposite. I was merely saying why I didn’t go see it. It had Liberal Agenda written all over it.”
You admit that you don’t have an informed opinion about Brokeback Mountain, yet you didn’t go see it because it had “liberal agenda” written all over it. How do you know if you haven’t seen it?
“Nobody is holding up Mall Cop as an example of defiant anti elitism.”
Except the author. The title of the damn piece implies that if you don’t like a goof-ball Kevin James picture, “snobbery” is the likely reason why. Hell, the TITLE OF THE PIECE EXPLAINS THIS right off the bat. Such is rendered further hilarious by your closing statement that “[t]hat’s your typical left wing ELITIST, this post is your NON ELITIST reaction to it” (emphasis added).
We get it; you’re not an elitist unlike all those elite liberal elitists. And to prove it, you won’t see any movies that you suspect might challenge your delicate sensibilties. My hero.
Its not my job to go see leftist movies and catalogue their obvious biases. Its Hollywood’s job to get me to watch their movies, and they are failing spectacularly. I’m not going to pay leftists for the privilege of being insulted by them.
Its hard for elitists to see the point of this entire thread through their thick shell of self importance. The Point, with a capital P is that Mall Cop gets ordinary people in to see it because it doesn’t insult the audience, ram leftism down their throats or contain some elitist ‘art’ message about why America is responsible for everything bad that’s ever happened everywhere.
I suppose by definition any movie that doesn’t have its metaphorical head up its metaphorical ass is by defintion anti elitist so I guess I will tentatively concede that point.
Dark Eden, just to be clear, you didn’t see it because it had “Liberal Agenda” written all over it? Such as what? Can you point to a scene that someone told you about that screams “Liberal Agenda”.
I know you don’t want to believe this, but the movie itself was rather apolitical. It was basically a tragic tale of two people who fell in love when ultimately it wasn’t the best thing to do under their particular circumstances.
If you think that the movie was a “one day we’ll all be equal and we can get married” screed, you couldn’t be any more mistaken.
Again, it’s hard debating the specifics of a movie if you claim that you haven’t seen it and won’t because of the “liberal agenda” that you think is there.
I actually haven’t seen the movie yet, I just find it funny that our usual leftist troll suspects are trying to defend the odious comments of the reviewer in the original post, and somehow turn it around onto the right for apparently not hating the movie enough or something.
Legalize… what movies did you go to expecting to have your delicate sensibilities challenged? A list would be nice.
Who goes to movies thinking they want to have their delicate sensibilities challenged? No one. No one does that.
I’ll assume that you, like most people, watch movie trailers and read reviews. Did *you* go to Brokeback Mountain without a clue what it was going to be about? Of course not. No one else did, either.
Unless you’re someone who goes to absolutely everything (as one person up-thread said he did) then you chose what to see and what not to see. I see a handful of movies in the theater in a year. It would be stupid to make even one of those a movie that I expected to dislike.
It doesn’t matter in the end because the conceit that a person must go to a movie that challenges their delicate sensibilities assumes that they aren’t paying attention to life. Do I need to attend the various anti-war movies that came out when I am actually living in the world? Do I need to watch a tearjerker “social issue of the week” movie to understand child abuse? What does it say about a person if they assume that without sitting in a theater a person can’t have their sensibilities challenged?
I know I have this reaction to the “social issue of the week” movies and I freely admit that I despise “women’s” television because of it. I don’t understand how anyone could be so blind to the suffering around them that they have to watch it on TV.
Pete,
You imply that “cookie-cutter” is a sin for the Paul Blart films. I say that they are just as much a sin for The Opposite of Sex films. The Opposite of Sex meandered through a complicated, sometimes witty portrayal of several characters though a very trying and difficult time in all of their respective lives. How is this summed up at the end? All of the characters took control back in their lives and learned something about this journey that they had just traveled. Each was accepted for what they were. Oh…and the ‘gay high schooler’ who had lied and blackmailed his teacher (He said that they had a sexual relationship) then lied again and said the local church leaders had put him up to the first lie. So the story did get its villain.
Cookie cutter, lazy and makes a thinking person just roll their eyes as they walk out of the theater.
Hey we all have our blind spots. Maybe laughing at a Paul Blart type film is mine. But, hey. I loved The Naked Gun films as well!
Wow, Christina…you must have really put a lot of thought into your post.
Miko,
I don’t entirely disagree with you about “Opposite of Sex”, although what I primarily didn’t like about the film was its complete absence of any sympathetic characters. I remember that this movie was out at the same time as “In and Out”, and I joked that we had a new sub-genre of movies where “Hoosiers react to homosexuality”. In and Out was the far superior movie.
“I actually haven’t seen the movie yet, I just find it funny that our usual leftist troll suspects are trying to defend the odious comments of the reviewer in the original post, and somehow turn it around onto the right for apparently not hating the movie enough or something.”
Say what? This is the most incoherent post on the thread. Try again.
At 88 comments I doubt this will be read, but I wanted to point out: I noticed (and mentioned) the same thing with Taken. It’s not the best movie ever but it’s damn fine entertainment and the best vigilante film I’ve seen in ages. Look at RottenTomatoes: scores of critics complaining that it’s “racist”, “culturally insensitive”, and so on.
Movies are supposed to be entertainment. They aren’t supposed to be political platforms or to raise the consciousness of mankind. SOME can, sure, but it would take people far more gifted than the current spate of high-pay screenwriters to achieve such a goal. I’ve never really understood the value of critics; it seems no matter who you are, a critic is only “right” if they echo your opinion, so it’s essentially an online friend validating your opinion. But the thing is, I don’t need someone to tell me I’m smart for liking a movie, or dumb for not liking it.
I was particularly upset to see one of my favorites, The Filthy Critic, spend his whole column this week railing about how horrible he thinks Taken is. Makes me wonder what has happened to this country when a man who calls himself The Filthy Critic actually doesn’t like a movie because “the hero only wants to solve his problem through violence”. Some problems can only be solved through violence, folks. And it can make damn fine entertainment.
Pete,
You have me curious. I am assuming that you work in the film business. If so, may I be nosy and ask in what capacity?
FWIW, I would enjoy popping the cap off of a couple of good lagers and shooting the breeze with you on some films. Too bad, I think I live out of your neighborhood.
The film that should be at the top of the “funny” “deep” and “art” list, is “Sullivan’s Travels”. A truly great artistic movie that combines comedy with tragedy and is fully satisfying from start to finish. It also happens to address the issue in this discussion about “serious statement movies” versus “mindless entertainment”.
For me movies can be either an expression of serious art or simply pure entertainment, I appreciate and enjoy both. However in my view a “good” movie is one that tells a coherent, believable complete story, that makes sense and perhaps provides some insights into human behaviour.
The vast majority of Hollywood films whether they attempt to be serious or funny are implausible, illogical fantasies, that worst of all, always start with a bang and quickly degenerate into a pointless and senseless mish mash with with escapist and unwatchable endings.
I haven't seen "Paul Blart: Mall Cop" yet, but I'm planning to. I saw the trailer and if it is as funny as those scenes, I expect to have some laughs.
Is that OK or am I breaking some kind of pretentious Hollywood insiders' rule?
I wouldn't be able to sleep at night if I thought I might disappoint the ruling clique.
Good for Kevin James and Adam Sandler! Two non-political filmmakers who make movies the public wants to see. Removing the only blockbuster Benjamin Button from the best Picture nominations the remaining 4 films grossed a total of 117,639,970. Those low numbers tell me the public isn’t interest in political, 3rd world poverty or generally depressing subject matters. Think Hollywood is listening?
i’m a recovering liberal, and few years back wouldn’t be caught dead seeing Paul Blart. i guess i’ve grown up, and ‘am over’ trying to be artsy. i love ‘art movies’, but now am OK going to see a dumb movie just to laugh. i think it might be another reason i’m a happier gal now, too, just leaving the angst behind. i’m so tired of hearing time and time how dumb americans are. i’ve traveled to 4 continents, and there are dumb and smart folks everywhere. this authors original post was a reaction to that sentiment and i appreciate him saying what i have thought many times. i love telling the snooty moms in my play group that i love beef jerky, and can’t wait to see Mall Cop.
their heads just want to explode.
After a hard day's work at home Saturday, my wife and I needed a break. So, I suggested seeing "Paul Blart" followed by dinner at one of my wife's favorite restaurants. Though skeptical, my wife agreed after seeing the positive buzz here and on Plugged In:
http://www.pluggedinonline.com/movies/movies/a000...
My wife LOVED the film, which scored lots of brownie points for me.
She was laughing through the movie, which is a clever, more family friendly Die Hard spoof. My wife really like Blart for his heart, smarts, courage and principles. One of her favorite scenes was Blart telling his daughter to honor, not hate, her mother.
A Hollywood encouraging kids to respect their parents? It's the end of the world!!
So, add two more officers to the Paul Blart Brigade. This funny film deserves to make lots of money while baffling the Hollywood "experts."
You must be logged in to post a comment.