> I basically judge quality of movies by how much enjoyment I have when I'm watching them. (This just makes sense to me, but it seems sometimes as though I'm in the minority. But this is a separate topic entirely.)

It is, and so let's put up a new subject line.

I think, contrary to popular belief, that most people judge movies this way, even critic types. Once in a while you get a film critic that so very clearly doesn't even *like* movies, and so who knows what he's doing, but the good ones merely have tastes in entertainment that, when expressed, sound like all sorts of things *except* "entertainment." I know I come across this way too, but if I express my appreciation at a certain element of original artistry, it's probably because experiencing that entertained me.

Tastes and perspective change, too, with exposure. I've seen almost 2500 movies in my life so far. This is comparable to some professional critics; far less than most, but far more than the average person. If I go to the movies with someone who isn't as obsessed with film as I am, that same movie could be fresh and fun to him and a predictable retread to me.

There *are* times when I admire a movie I don't enjoy, or vice versa. I tend to note these cases in At-A-Glance, and they're the hardest ones to figure out a star rating for. But when I pull back from the mode of "reviewing" and just get into a good discussion of film, like this one, my perspective becomes entirely subjective again.

Because no matter what you look for in a movie, be it inspiration or escapism or art or vision or adrenaline or laughs or thought, movies are still basically about entertainment.