Kevin Cary, CPA, Latham: "Mr. Magoo. It was awful, I think Leslie Nielsen was in it."
Hilary Ferris, occupational therapist, Stephentown: "Terminator movies. I don't like Arnold. He's not a good actor. I don't like the concept of the movies."
Michele Gava, tech support, Schodack: "Kill Bill or Pulp Fiction. I don't like either one of them."
Tom Marsolais, assistant mechanic, Lathan: "I have a lot of favorite movies, but the worst was Lord of Flat Foot. I watched it when I was 18 in the drive-in."
[For the sake of arguments, I did a Google search, but as I suspected, there's no movie with that title, though whoever transcribed Mr. Marsolais's response had no reason to know that. As he seems to be a middle-aged man from his photo, I'm going to guess that he actually said The Lords of Flatbush.]
Finally, Lorraine Tidd, teaching assistant, East Greenbush: "Joy Ride. It is about a truck driver terrorizing people. It was an edge of your seat movie but it was very bloody."
It looks like Ms. Tidd doesn't even have the same standard of "worst" as her fellow respondents, That's the moral of the story, really. Some people's classics are others' "worst" films, and a movie can be the worst for someone not because she thinks it was poorly made but because it violated her sensitivity in some way. Even in this limited sample, there's nothing close to a consensus of standards that could define a "normal" taste in movies. Perhaps there'd be more agreement if they were asked to name the best films they'd seen, but I wouldn't take that for granted. Amid such diversity of opinion and taste, whose taste in movies can actually be called deviant? Nobody's, perhaps -- unless you like the label yourself.