It's funny. CraigP and Grunt are both right in a way.
I do think that someone who is a legitimate "critic" must be mostly objective in their reviews. Sure, they will bring their own prejudices and expectations to bear on their perspective of what they are reviewing, but good criticism should leave personal opinion at the door. I think it's far more important to be able to deconstruct and interpret the objectives/motives of the artist's work and inform a viewer/listener of the value of said work.
And usually, after time, a consensus is formed. That is why someone like Stanley Kubrick is considered a great filmmaker. I think he's perhaps one of the best directors to ever make movies. That's my opinion, but it's also the consensus of most critics. A lot of people think his work is cold and technical. I can see that as a valid criticism, but still, he is regarded as a genius by critics, and rightly so.
The same for Hitchcock. Whether you like his work or not, he was a master director who invented a rich film vocabulary (especially structurally, as in the editing and pacing of his films) that is still used in countless movies today. Films that people (who don't particularly like Hitchcock) enjoy immensely. Modern movies would not be the same without his contributions. That is a fact, not an opinion. I think that is the problem with armchair critics, they confuse their likes/dislikes with the actual value of the work and it's place in the context of cinema/music as a whole. And if that is not of interest to you, then you are a consumer of movies, not a student of "cinema".
For example, I'm personally not into the music of Bruce Springsteen, but I recognize his importance and value as an artist. He is an incredible writer and performer and I would like to think that I could be objective and rate his work within the parameters of his past/current work and to be able to competently convey that to someone who loves his music unequivocally. To bring a different perspective that a gushing fanboy, who might not be able to be as objective, would miss.
Buts that's just my opinion, lol!
Seriously, film and music are the two subjects that I can discuss at great length and with vast knowledge. Baseball? Nope, I'm an idiot. Architecture? Well, I can say "that's a cool building!", but can i dissect why it's cool? No.
Lol, reminds me of what someone once said about music criticism, "Writing about music is like dancing to architecture."
