I don't like it, and I enjoy pointing out that it's origins are not quite what most people would thing (translated by Anglicans at the behest of a king who was not exactly a paragon of CHristian virtues etc). That's not meant as a criticism of people who use it today, just the people who seem to ginore the fairly obvious limitations and revere a particular translation more than they seem to the actual words of God.
Since this seems to be controversial, let me go ahead and state seriously and specifically, my own position on translations.
There are a great number of different translations of the Bible in English. They have their pros and cons, and one is not necessarily "better" than the other, just better at different things. A lot of this has to do with what you're using it for. Amplified has synonyms for every major word, which is great for studying a confusing passage but very hard to read. NIV is more thought for thought, which I personally don't care for as I feel it allows more translator bias, but it is very readable. I think it's goal was a lower reading level than some other translations, lowering the bar to understanding for those who don't have good comprehension skills. ESV is a pretty hardline word for word, which I still feel is imminently readable. And so on, and so on.
KJV is undoubtedly the most lyrical of all translations and when I want to appreciate that the Psalms were originally songs to be sung I'll read it. I can certainly appreciate those who simply grew up reading it and are more comfortable with it. But for serious study it has centuries old scholarship leading to a great many oddities and errors ("Thou shalt not kill" anyone?). If you view the Bible as a collection of truths God passed down to a. reveal His character to humanity & b. give instructions to us in how to live a life honoring Him, then reading it in the most archaic and lyrical version possible seems like an odd choice to me personally. If I wanted to know how to build a fire or skin a deer, I certainly wouldn't want an instruction manual that reads like Shakespeare. And it was translated by adherents of a religious order founded by a notably corrupt monarch in order to 1 get divorced 2 seize the riches of the Catholic community in England and 3 establish himself as a religious as well as secular power. I seriously doubt the objectivity of such a source of translation.
All that being said, I certainly respect it's place in the historic pantheon of English translation, just like I do Wycliffe's version. I have no problem with people who choose to read it themselves. But I have a serious problem when "Christians" say that it is the only acceptable translation, and ostracize or punish those who would prefer something else. It is (to me anyway) symptomatic of some issues with the modern American "Bible belt" churches, but that's an entirely different discussion.
