> I'm not talking about personal taste, here -- and the submission guidelines for the site make that distinction, too. I'm talking about people who don't enjoy a movie for some reason or other and take the prerogative of calling it "a bad movie," especially in light of the far more likely candidates IABBBBM already celebrates. You may not have liked "Sleepless In Seattle," I take it, but you would seem to acknowledge that is a matter of personal taste and not have such an exclusionary view of those tastes as to presume to decry it as a colossal failure of the moviemaking enterprise. I can make that distinction -- which is why, for example, "Taxi Driver" isn't on IABBBBM -- and it boggles my mind that others can't, or, worse, won't.

"Personal Taste" can be too flexible, I think. Nearly any movie can seem good to someone. I've heard friends of mine (not good friends) swear on the Holy Grail that "Armageddon" was a good movie, with my small critiques (no plot, characterization, meaning, etc.) having no effect. Of course, I'm unwilling to budge in some of my movie beliefs. I genuinely think that Rocky Horror Picture Show is a good movie. It's supposed to be a parody, and a musical. As far as I can tell, it does both rather well. RHPS midnight shows have given me a second society that lets me be as loud and obnoxious as I want. For all intents and purposes, RHPS united me with the love of my life. Not everyone has the same experiences as me, though. I can certainly see how it could be viewed as garbage, by the strictly religious, mostly. I guess it's just the other side of a large fence, not being able to understand what goes on over there, and they probably feel the same.

I don't understand why a lot of people, religious excluded, can't seem to like the movie. It's not supposed to be a true work of pathos. It's just supposed to be a bunch of misfits/outcasts/bored people having a good time.

Mi "When did I lapse into ludicrosity?" key