Critics who are "mostly objective" are still just using their knowledge to convince you of their personal opinion. I don't have a problem with that, either. The idea is to find a reviewer whose tastes closely match your own before you shell out money to either be entertained or arted on. Long-winded appraisals of the technical merits aren't really going to be an effective guide for whether a movie is going to be of value to you. That being said, it can still be interesting to read about the little tricks in cinematography that make the scenes work better. The only problem is that these descriptions of the genius at work are usually more interesting than the actual genius at work.
I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing again. Don't mind me.
