Good film, annoying reviewers

Rating: 10/10 (6 June 2004)

i find it unbelievable that someone can come to this site, look at a film that has an average rating of 8.3 (from over 32000 votes) and have the audacity to comment that "there's no accounting for taste" when they think the film is rubbish. i'm not saying we're right and you're wrong, but you don't even provide a decent argument as to why you don't like it, you just call it a confused mess. clearly you didn't even understand the film or take the time to try and figure it out. there's a reason why this film is loved by so many people and you've just outright refused to figure out why that is, and, in your inability to try and understand the film, you've become frustrated like a child and decided that we all lack taste i don't think this film is Shakespeare. i'm not even sure if it all adds up without loopholes. but i do know that i thoroughly enjoyed it, even more so when i looked into it. ultimately a film is a piece of art. art is supposed to have emotional impact, and this film did, with over 32000 people. i'm sure you're list of favourite films includes the godfather, apocalypse now... lots of really highbrow films with epic and wonderful tales. because this film is a little different, is written and directed by a new face, stars a young cast, featured patrick swayze, didn't feature al pacino, wasn't directed by martin scorcese, and wasn't scored by the London philarmonic orchestra (or something similar) you write it off. i hate you.