Best Picture Oscar Nominees Go Wide But ‘Mall Cop’ Still #1 And ‘Underworld’ #2

COMMENTS (40)

• Mall Cop looks tasty, but I’m saving my money in case they decide to make Big Momma’s House XVII.

  Seriously though, times are tough. People’s lives are tough. This is a bad climate for “serious” movies, because we’re already in a serious enough mood as it is. We want something to break the tension, not create more of it. I spend enough time contemplating the futility of human endeavor when I watch the news.

  I find it amusing how comedies get panned even when they do well, but some heavy-handed crap is always Oscar bound, regardless of whether it tanked at the box office.

  Comment by Max — Sunday January 25, 2009 @ 12:19pm PST  Reply to this post

• Mall Cop had a funny trailer, and Kevin James is an extremely likable everyman type. The film isn’t great by any means, but it has some amusing bits and fulfills the general audience’s expectations for the genre. Faint praise, I know, but I’ve seen much worse.

  On the flip side, I just love the reverse snobbishness of those who get bent out of shape when the studios dare to release something that lacks broad appeal (Revolutionary Road). It’s like complaining that McDonald’s added a veggie-burger to the menu. You don’t like it? So what? It’s not FOR you. Buy your Big Mac and be on your way.

  “Wristslitting” films aren’t exactly crowding wide-appeal films out of the marketplace (see chart above)!

  Cathy: All due respect, but do you want the studios to release only those films that appeal to your taste? I haven’t seen Frost/Nixon, but SOMEBODY is interested in it. It’s out there, it’s nominated, it’s making a few bucks, it’ll do well on DVD and cable. But it’s no threat to the more commercial stuff, so why fret?

  And if your assessment of the studio heads were correct, wouldn’t the Frost/Nixons far outnumber the Paul Blarts? Even during Oscar season, the commercial product always outnumbers the “elitist” stuff (again, see the chart). Shouldn’t you be gloating instead of complaining?

  Comment by jbryant — Sunday January 25, 2009 @ 12:21pm PST  Reply to this post

• I went to see Mall Cop for one simple reason. The trailer made me laugh out loud. The reasons it succeeded are:

  1.) There’s not a lot of new competition in the marketplace right now.

  2.) Americans like to go out.

  3.) When families go out, if they want to bring their kids, they don’t want offensive material in a movie.

  4.) It had some funny, laugh out loud moments in it.

  Was it the greatest comedy ever made? Of course not. Was it even memorable? Not really.

  But right now, for those of us who enjoy going out, it’ll do. I paid 6 bucks for a matinee. Totally worth it.

  So, let’s not call people morons for wanting to have fun for a couple hours, in these troubled times, drink.

  Especially when there are plenty of other reasons to call morons, morons. Like the non-sense that people post on message boards these days. =)

  Comment by AvgAmerican — Sunday January 25, 2009 @ 1:44pm PST  Reply to this post

• I proudly consider myself a bit of a film snob, but picking on a film such as Paul Blart as being some horrible part of American film making is rather absurd. I will watch just about everything, and running a movie theater I screen most every mainstream film prior to running it for the public. The only films I refuse to watch are the torture/horror porn (Saw 1, 2, 3 etc…) and films starring Dane Cook. Paul Blart was not that bad of a film, I enjoyed it for what it was, a mindless family comedy with a good heart. There was nothing particularly original about it, nor was there anything terrible about it.

  I have stood inside the theater as Paul Blart plays, and I hear lots of laughter. People tell me they thought it was great as they exit. The idea that the American people want great films is a joke. People want to be entertained, that’s why they go to the movies in the first place. Not everyone finds There Will Be Blood as entertaining as I do, but why should we look down at those who prefer a silly family comedy over a 2 1/2 hour intense masterpiece?

  Honestly there are many terrible terrible mainstream movies to criticize, Paul Blart isn’t nearly in the bottom tier. The new Underworld was truely horrible, so was Bride Wars, and you know what? So was The Women, which you went on and on about being so important for older female actresses. The American public just wants to be entertained, and who can blame them, and seeing how the last few “spoof” films have crashed and burned maybe they are not as dumb as you think.

  Comment by Donald — Sunday January 25, 2009 @ 1:58pm PST  Reply to this post

• Nikki, excuse me for piling on about your opinion of Paul Blart. It is not that I object necessarily to the idea that it’s a bad movie, but that you, for the second week in a row contradicted the statement within two ratings. As you pointed out “Gran Torino”, a movie that by all rights should turn off casual audiences, was number two last week and number three this week. To me that indicates that people are equally willing to watch good movies as they are bad. Indeed, nearly everyone would say that the two most popular movies of the year, “The Dark Knight” and “Iron Man”, were “good” movies. Thus evidence seems to suggest that Americans are willing to see good movies.

  Besides, “Paul Blart” is a family film, which requires that it be treated differently. These film makers are not trying to make a great movie. Instead they’re trying to make something innocent that appeals to families. If it isn’t the highest quality film, so what?

  Comment by Stephen — Sunday January 25, 2009 @ 2:11pm PST  Reply to this post

• Cat, the root canal would be a better choice than sitting through “Revolutionary Road”. I knew I was in trouble when eight minutes into the film, I wanted to kill both Leo and Kate’s characters.

  Is it a total loss? No. Michael Shannon is great in his very brief role and Thomas Newman’s score is quite good. But are those enough to sit through the film? Hell and no.

  Comment by SF — Sunday January 25, 2009 @ 3:14pm PST  Reply to this post

• To all those who object to movies that make you want to “slit your wrists”:

  I don’t quite understand your sentiments. Is the only criteria for quality entertainment, something that makes you “feel good”? I guess that rules out roller coasters?

  Life isn’t always about prat falls and fat jokes. Sometimes there’s pain and suffering, but usually that pain and suffering can be lessened if it can be approached and/or avoided by understanding the origins and causes of that pain. Films, TV shows, and literary stories that deal with “wrist slitting” subject matter are a way to examine (with all of its depressing realism) life and those individuals going through difficult situations and themes.

  Sometimes it ends on a positive note, sometimes it ends with a negative resolution, but one can gain a better understanding of those darker places (that life sometimes brings) in order to better deal with those trials and tribulations.

  Laughing about the bars of your cell can be needed escapism, but sometimes taking a real look at the walls that surround you may just facilitate an actual escape.

  Comment by RTA — Sunday January 25, 2009 @ 3:24pm PST  Reply to this post

• Too bad about “Inkheart.” I really enjoyed it. I wish more people had given it a chance.

  Comment by Reader — Sunday January 25, 2009 @ 3:27pm PST  Reply to this post

• Great timing by EW with their Respect Brendan Fraser piece. They really need to stop writing whatever PR flacks want them to and do some actual reporting.

  As for Mall Cop, I can’t comment on it because I haven’t seen it but I wouldn’t go so far to dismiss the inoffensive slapstick comedy. A PG film, it’s essentially a kid’s flick that might tickle the funny bone of some parents. I won’t see it but there’s definitely room for lighthearted, check your brain at the door comedy in the world.

  Comment by SoulHonky — Sunday January 25, 2009 @ 3:35pm PST  Reply to this post

• The bizarre thing about Mall Cop is that the script is totally ripped off from a couple of kids who didn’t know better than to copyright it and moved very slowly in getting it out there to potential participants. They even had a table read way before Mall Cop was written and there’s a direct line from someone who pitched the script to someone who is connected with Mall Cop. At first I urged them to sue but maybe the lesson they should learn is you snooze you lose. These kids are young, smart and funny so this isn’t the only shot they will have. Now, to have it be a big hit is even harder for them to take!

  Comment by innerealm — Sunday January 25, 2009 @ 4:11pm PST  Reply to this post

• I’m a man in his late 20′s who saw Mall Cop because of the Happy Madison production association (which has produced several non-Sandler headlining releases that I enjoyed like Grandma’s Boy). I thought it was lame, sitcom-y, and only sporadically humorous but I realized at the time of watching it that I wasn’t the target audience. It’s an innocuous movie for families with kids who are in the 9-12 range. The people in my showing who fit that bill most assuredly seemed to be eating it up: the parents derived enjoyment from seeing their kids in that particular age bracket belly-laughing at the eponymous character falling down repeatedly. Kevin James is a really likeable actor who genuinely seems like he’s one of the rare industry guys that isn’t a douche so I’m happy for his success here. It’s kind of depressing though that something like this has already turned a massive profit relative to the studio’s meager investment while an unapologetically ambitious project like Benjamin Button, which took major fortitude for the financers to invest in, will have to rely on overseas markets and home video to break even.

  Comment by Larry — Sunday January 25, 2009 @ 5:58pm PST  Reply to this post

• Kevin James is awesome. The business model is undeniable — PG, comedy, clean, family, funny. If you want to make money, look no further.

  This was the only movie I went to take my entire family to since Wall-E. We saw it opening night with a packed theater.

  Couldn’t be happier. Can’t wait for the next one! And the next! Kevin James is here to stay! Way to go!

  Comment by richarddouglas — Sunday January 25, 2009 @ 6:06pm PST  Reply to this post

• All hail the new millennium’s fat funny guy!

  Former Fat Funnies:

  John Belushi – Dead
  John Candy – Dead
  Sam Kinison – Dead
  Chris Farley – Dead
  Artie Lange – Just about dead

  Hey Kevin, just a suggestion: stay away from the drugs, drop thirty pounds and don’t become friends with Howard Stern.

  Comment by MeanGirl — Sunday January 25, 2009 @ 6:36pm PST  Reply to this post

• I watched both INKHEART & BEDTIME STORIES and I would have to say that INKHEART was better.

  Comment by Ileana — Sunday January 25, 2009 @ 7:40pm PST  Reply to this post

• Larry is exactly right. 9 to 12-year-olds like silly films, and parents have fun watching their kids enjoying silly films. The kids giggle, they laugh out loud, and they look over to their parents to see if they are laughing too.

  There’s room for all sorts of movies. Someone understood that at Sony, and it will help pay for all those dreadful independent movies that do everything but entertain.

  Comment by eb — Monday January 26, 2009 @ 1:12pm PST  Reply to this post