Two people in this thread have specifically called out Stephanie for the SHOCKING sin of not liking a particular movie (in this case, "Pulp Fiction"). Oh my god! Oh noes! How can she be a legitimate reviewer and not recognize the objective truth of the magnificent glory that is "Pulp Fiction," aka "A bunch of random people in LA in random violent situations who are interconnected in a narrative that is temporally disjointed"!? How dare Zacharek deny the one, true god? Allah Tarantinobar!

You guys are freaking nuts. Let me let you in on a little secret: Taste is subjective. Aesthetic sensibility is not mathematical, it's personal. The only thing Zacharek has to answer to is if she has an opinion but fails to clearly and honestly communicate why she has that opinion.

Some people think "Citizen Kane" is the most inventive, important movie ever made. Some people think it's a self-important, stilted work of mean-spirited character assassination. I've heard convincing arguments for both sides. This conflict of evaluation is important and makes the filmgoing experience that much richer. If we were all made to feel that we must mindlessly bow to the genius of such-and-such movie, that would be dull!

Somebody mentioned "Clockwork Orange." It is certainly an amazing cinematic work. But the esteemed critic Pauline Kael pointed out the many ways it contradicts the humanistic message of Anthony Burgess's novel, turning the protagonist into a charsmatic anti-hero and rendering all other characters grotesque. Her take on it makes sense. After reading her review I came to appreciate "Clockwork Orange" less for its story than as a window into Kubrick's perverse mindset, through which he imagined a self-negating horrorshow that is nonetheless enjoyable.

Somebody else mentioned "Blade Runner." It is indeed a masterpiece and a visionary stylistic achievement right up there with "Metropolis." But read Roger Ebert's review of it sometime -- he's right-on in criticizing the film as a clunky noir/action movie. Take away the excellent visuals and sound design and what you're left with is at times a somewhat boring picture. (Don't get me wrong, I love it just the same.) Don't get me started about the director's cut, which I think is pretty lousy.

Somebody wrote: "It's like those people you meet at cocktail parties who have to tell anyone and everyone within a 50-foot radius that they don't own a TV."

This is a tired methaphor. It's also a non-parallel. People might wear not having a TV as a badge of honor, but not liking a single film? Is that really anything anybody would brag about? "Hey everybody, look how cool I am -- I think 'Wizard of Oz' is a piece of shit! No, really, I do! Check me out! Am I on the edge or what?"

The same asshat also wrote: "A movie critic not liking 'Pulp Fiction' is like a food critic not liking French cuisine."

Another non-parallel. A true parallel would be if you compared "Pulp Fiction" to a single dish ("I don't particularly care for escargot"), not to a whole cuisine. For a true parallel to cuisine, you'd have to compare it to a film genre, like Westerns. Can you imagine a film critic who doesn't like Westerns? I can.

Now for the real reason I am writing. I am here to say that "Pulp Fiction" is not all that.

(continued next message)