Not so much hating you, as just disagreeing really.

And, what you might call "stupidity", others call "fun". Just as with any other art form, what some find beautiful, others will find hellaciously ugly. For instance, Ken knows better than to even suggest to me that we spend an afternoon at MOMA. I'd rather watch paint dry - it'd be more interesting and "artistic" to me. But, that's just my general opinion on most modern art. Everyone has their own tastes, and there isn't one flavor that is "right" or "wrong". :)

And I've had fun with plenty of stupidity (seriously, do you know how many Jackie Chan movies I've seen?). But stupidity is something to be overcome not something to be sought. And stupid can be smartly constructed. And to me, this movie was simply stupid, not fun stupid, not smart stupid, just stupid. The story makes no sense internally or externally. The acting is almost universally wooden (and when it isn't it almost goes too far the other direction as with Michael Sheen who would have been too much if even one other actor had shown a hint of personality). The CGI world is visually interesting at first (and well done technically) but it just hits the same note over and over and over with only two exceptions. It is padded to over two hours.

I'm fine with people enjoying the movie. I'm just always amused as the people who take it personally that I don't agree with them. It is always like they think I ended the review with "You, yes you. Sitting there in front of your computer on 23 Elm Street in your underwear reading this review before taking your morning shower. You're an idiot for liking this movie."

By the logic I see suggested (not by everybody, not by you) there is no such thing as a bad movie just a failure on the pat of the watcher to sufficiently lower their standards to the movie's level. The Country Bears wasn't a bad movie, it was just a silly kids movie with cheesy jokes, I just don't know how to relax enough to enjoy it for what it was.

This is not to say that good vs. bad is a purely objective concept, it isn't. But when I say I don't like a movie and here are my reasons why and the response is not some form of "well, I liked it and here are my reasons why" but instead "you just don't know how to enjoy yourself, of course it is a stupid movie, just turn off your brain" I don't see where any defense of the movie (or whatever) has been offered.

And the other thing I don't understand is the apparent expectation by many (again, not speaking of any particular person) that a movie critics job (and yes, I use that term very loosely for it to encompass me) is to try to successfully predict whether each individual reader will like a movie. It generally isn't. I view it as my job when writing those reviews to simply present and explain my reaction. I could go a different way and do it like Variety where the reviews aren't so much the reviewers opinion of the movie but instead an evaluation of the movie's box office prospects (read their review, it isn't so much a positive review because the reviewer liked it but a positive review because the reviewer expects it will make good green this weekend). But that would be boring to me (and even more boring to the reader).

Whew, long tirade over. I was called an idiot four times today. Once by someone who admitted they hadn't even seen the movie yet.

Ooh, lordy! Now THAT is just stupid. I certainly don't envy your position of writing reviews. People do have a choice to listen to them or not, and there's no need to take it out on the reviewer. I take entertainment reviews with a grain of salt, because I have very eclectic tastes, and have been subjected to hours of lost time in the past when I've watched something with rave reviews and hated it.

English Patient what?

You can't beat Kellogg, I guess...
 

I've just bought and tried a generic "Home Brand" version of Rice Krispies.

...They don't go Snap Crackle & Pop...

...More like Snaff, Crapple & Pock !

*sigh*

When I was a kid we always had generic cereals. Most were fine but the rice krispies equivalent was truly awful. You had about 2 minutes to eat it before the cereal would absorb all milk and then congeal into a kind of sweet cement.

The need Clark Griswald to save the day...

I think one of the issues is when you call the movie "stupid" and someone else enjoys it. I'm sure there's no good way to say it without people getting offended. I'm not the type to worry about it because there are plenty of films with terrible scripts and poor acting and pointless dialog that I enjoy, and when reviewers or friends point out these flaws I'm usually aware of them enough to agree and still smile about the movie. Some others aren't able to separate out these elements and feel ok within themselves for enjoying a problematic movie. All they hear is "what you like is stupid" and they take it personally.

Confidentially, people who can't parse this out aren't particularly intelligent. ;)

There was a recent movie that many people loved; and I was attacked when I said that I hated it. So I can greatly sympathize with Alex.