But as with any art form, theres revisionism because perspective and understanding changes with time, films like The Shining or The Thing were poorly received when they originally released and are now considered almost masterpieces of their genre, something I agree with, cause they are that good.
"Too bad they're good" is an entirely different thing tho. These are bad films - its in the name. We just find them enjoyable because they're ridiculous. Like, Tommy Wiseau's The Room or 2006's Wicker Man.
Fantastic that you mentioned these two. Both are masterpieces and I cannot understand why they failed in the beginning. That seemed to happen to Kubrick: Woody Allen himself said he didn't understand a thing the first time he saw 2001, as happened to a good portion of the critics, but now seems to agree it is the best sci-fi movie ever made.
On the topic of "too bad they are good", nowadays people don't seem to care that this is a perfectly valid "category" of film. This is mostly because many people, and moviemakers, take themselves too seriously. Take "Commando" for instance. It would never happen nowadays, because there is the need to "deepen" the persona of the bad fellows, explaining there is a reason for him to be that way, while also making the hero fallible, like any other normal person. Boring! Back in the day Arny would take his Bazooka and bring down a bunch of dobadders and there would be no philosophy in between. Good movie? Hell, no, but tons of fun for what it was. And don't anyone come to me to say "there is no such thing as pure bad"! As the Trump administration in the US and the one right now in Brazil have showed, pure evil does exist and is closer to us then we care to admit.