Moviegoers like to laugh. Imagine that!

"Paul Blart: Mall Cop" is No. 1 at the box office for the second week in a row, and they could apparently use him over at Woodfield today. I haven't seen "Paul Blart" yet, and probably won't until it inevitably plays three nights in a row on TBS around this time next year, but I don't think its popularity is a sign of the end times or anything. (But this picture might be.)

Why is the success of "Paul Blart" -- a kid-friendly comedy that, I'm guessing, is playing mostly to families -- bothersome to so many people? Check out some of the reactions online:

• There is no God: "Paul Blart: Mall Cop" takes in almost $34 million this weekend. Tag is for America's collective taste -- FARK headline, next to FAIL tag

• "The selling out of this movie was probably caused by the same sentiment that kept former President George W. Bush in the White House for eight years: settling for the mundane and mediocre." -- ReAnne Utemark, Washburn Review

• "Again, if Americans want Hollywood to make better quality movies, then they should stop showing up for crappy ones." -- Nikki Finke, deadlinehollywooddaily.com

That last quote really bothers me. Yes, Nikki, we only support crappy movies. Never mind the $532 million we spent on "The Dark Knight," the $318 million we spent on "Iron Man," the $224 million we spent on "WALL•E," or the $111 million we spent on "Tropic Thunder."

This same scenario plays out four or five times a year, when snobs take the moviegoing public to task for the films they have made popular. And it always infuriates me. "Paul Blart: Mall Cop" is not a hit because adult moviegoers are choosing it over "Frost/Nixon," or "Slumdog Millionaire," or "Revolutionary Road." "Paul Blart: Mall Cop" is a hit because:

1. Families like to go to the movies together

2. Teenagers like to go to the movies

And guess what? Those are two gigantic pieces of the moviegoing public. They might be the biggest. Not all moviegoers are lonely, single men who want to see all the Oscar favorites before Feb. 22. (You know, like me.) If you are a teenager going to the movies with other teenagers, you're pretty much going to see "Paul Blart" or "Underworld: Rise of the Lycans." If you're in a family with young children, you're going to go see "Paul Blart," "Hotel for Dogs," "Inkheart" or maybe, just maybe, "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button." But of those choices, "Blart" is the one most likely to appeal to Mom, Dad, the 13-year-old son, the 8-year-old daughter and the 5-year-old son. And let's not discount this reason:

3. Kevin James was the star of a hugely popular sitcom

The snobs may laugh at the notion of Kevin James as a star who can open a picture, but "Paul Blart" has proven as much. So we can all look forward(?) to more of this belly-aching from the Hollywood intellgentsia when "Paul Blart 2" opens in 2010. (Hey, if George Romero wants to make another zombie movie, maybe we could get a "Paul Blart" / "Dawn of the Dead" crossover. What, no good?)

And finally, there's this:

4. Times are tough, and people want to laugh

And "Paul Blart" is the only new comedy in the marketplace right now, aside from "Bride Wars." I'd hardly say those are reasons to declare armageddon.

Come to think of it, I could use a good laugh. Does anyone actually recommend "Paul Blart"? (You know, aside from this guy ...)