Good article. As someone who eats, sleeps, and breathes cinema, I discovered I was a bit "special" in this way very early on. (For instance, when at the age of eleven I couldn't understand why my other school friends weren't interested in Channel 4's Andrei Tarkovsky season. What's not to like about bleak, existential Russian trudges?)

These days, I qualify my recommendations by dividing "Favourite" films from "Greatest" films. I have two separate lists. Some of the films on the "Greatest" list are objectively great, even though I might prefer others in my "Favourites" list. (Example: Whilst I enjoy Hitchcock's Psycho, and objectively see it as a great and influential film, I much prefer other Hitchcock films like North by Northwest, Rear Window, and Vertigo. So Psycho doesn't appear on my "Favourite" list, only the "Greatest".)

Some films are marmite. There seems little middle ground with the likes of David Lynch and Terrence Malick. You either love or hate their films (I love them both, for the record). If someone says to me they found 2001: A Space Odyssey slow and ponderous, I understand why (though I don't agree - I love that film too).

Some films that are brilliantly written, acted, and directed I also hate. (Example, Michael Haneke's Amour. I'm very glad I watched it, and it is brilliant, but nothing will ever induce me to watch it again, and I certainly wouldn't want to inflict it on anyone either.)

However, with some films, you have to draw a line in the sand. If someone tells me Monty Python and the Holy Grail isn't funny, I simply pity them. If someone tells me they don't like Back to the Future, I suggest they seek urgent medical treatment.

Thanks again for your article.