Why is it that films like this come in pairs (this and Paul Blart)? I can understand some 'big idea' films coming in pairs, but why something like this? Surely they could come up with some other similar storyline ('slapstick' with regular people)... it can't be pure laziness, can it?



Can it???



I remember Deep Impact and Armageddon were an early example of this phenomenon-- again, they could have come up with another people-save-world-from-natural-disaster stories.

While I'm not allowed to see what Mark said (stupid region restrictions), I'm sure it's pretty close to what was in the podcast.



That said, I haven't seen the film partially due to his review and partially because the premise of the film has the dubious distinction of being taken from an internet bulletin board discussion. A discussion that was actually pretty damn funny and sad at the same time.



Do yourself a favor and give a glance at https://lonelymachines.org/mall-ninjas/

I like it how Mark says King of Comedy 'was' the best film Robert De Niro ever made. Sounds like he's implying Bobby doesn't make any decent films anymore.

I think Dr. Kermode was commenting on the performance, rather than the film. He said that Rupert Pupkin is "the best thing he ever did", perhaps suggesting that he doesn't have a great performance in him, anymore... personally, I'm not so sure.



It wouldn't be defensible to suggest that De Niro hasn't made a decent film since 1982. It would be quite, quite stupid.

AntiDan:

He didn't say he thought it was the best film Robert De Niro ever made, he said he thought it was Robert De Niro's best performance. There is a big difference between the two statements.

Hey uxbboy, the review has been published to youtube, too. You should be able to see it here:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAUcOvqqbbg

I am glad the good Dr exposed Seth Rogen for what he is - unfunny, untalented and fat. The idea that any woman would find him even remotely attractive is 10 times funnier than his god aweful comedy

AntiDan:

Well Bobby doesn't make any decent films anymore

Don't put stuff on the blogs that's region restricted. It's unbelievably irritating and it entirely misses the point of a blog.



It's bad enough as a British licence payer not to be able see some BBC stuff and have adverts when I'm 20 miles away across the channel but to interrupt my internet viewing is just too poor for words.



If you can't show it, don't blog it.

While everyone's entitled to their own opinion - and Mark's is certainly vehement, one charge he levels against 'Observe and Report' isn't really fair.



'Observe' was written way before - and shot before - 'Paul Blart'. Due to the inevitable lags that face independent movies, Columbia's 'Paul Blart' pipped it to the cinemas. There are several interesting interviews in which Jody Hill and Seth Rogen reveal being heartbroken when they found out about the existence of the other "mall cop film" and that it would get into cinemas before their own film.



None of this changes Mark's point that the two are too familiar for 'Observe' to be genre breaking stuff. But it's a little unfair to imply it's a carbon copy of a film that came around a lot later and sucked a lot harder.

I always think, when critics such as yourself say "there was one or two laughs but other than that it was terrible," that in fact it's very likely a given that one will find at least one way to chuckle at a comedy film. Whether it's a good one (In The Loop) or the opposite (Disaster Movie), someone on-screen will inevitably do some sort of pratfall or somehow dig out an interesting line that manages to inspire a tiny bit of laughter. So no matter how bad a comedy film is, to say that it's completely laugh-free might be misleading.