You're trying to make good a simple matter of "this is good" and "this is not", and the world just doesn't work that way, particularly when it comes to art and literature. While it may be true that some things are just universally accepted as good or bad, art is not one of those things because it is so individualized.
"I'm sorry but if there is a movie that not many people like but you like, it doesn't mean it's a good movie. It just means you like bad movies."
And who gets to decide it's a bad movie? You? Is it bad because nobody likes it? Is that how we measure bad - not many people like it, so it's bad? Is the kid chosen last on the playground bad because nobody likes him? And why are some movies "good"? Because they're popular? Because critics like them?
"But what YOU have got to understand is that Bad and Good to exist in even subjective topic's. Other wise neutral wouldn't exist. Neutral is a mix of GOOD AND BAD."
No, neutral means the exact opposite. Neutral isn't a mix of good and bad, it is neither good nor bad. Since you like dictionaries, here's another one for you. According to Oxford, neutral is defined as "having no strongly marked or positive characteristics or features" and "not helping or supporting either side in a conflict, disagreement, etc.; impartial". It is entirely possible for good, bad, and neutral to exist in subjective topics. I never said that there's no such thing as good and bad; I said that for some things, particularly subjective topics like art, good and bad are a matter of individual taste, not one person's arbitrary definitions of it. (And I wasn't going to say anything about this, but since you see fit to resort to ad-hominem statements, you should know that apostrophes are only used to indicate possession, and the correct spelling is "pseudo-intellectual").
Also, if you're going to say something you know to be rude, there's no need to preface it with "not trying to be rude, but...". Just say what you're going to say and be willing to face the reply. I respect that much more.