> "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.
Then your friends are just wrong. "Armageddon" is not a good movie. I believe (as does anyone who wants to criticize any form of art) that there is an objective good and bad when it comes to things like books or movies. We can argue about what criteria to use when judging these things or even what the things are, but if we're going to discuss it at all you have to accept that there is such a thing as good or bad outside of personal taste. Note that this does not mean that you can't enjoy a bad movie or whatnot. I love the computer game "Myst" even though as a game it's pretty horrid. If I ever reviewed it I'd give it a low score. But I still enjoyed playing through it for reasons of my own. Heck, I like a lot of the "Xanth" books even though most are crap.

> 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

Well, I don't think it's funny. At all. I don't particularly like the music either. And I don't agree with it's supposed message. I could see how people might enjoy it, but I honestly could not call it a good movie. However, I think comedy is tough to objectively rate. In a comedy, all I care about is if a movie makes me laugh or not. IMO the best comedies are those that can make the most people laugh the loudest. RHPS seems to be such a polarizing and personal movie that I don't see it as anything more than a cult film (which is really an odd category in and of itself).

Stephen