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".
I would make a distinction between “critics” armchair or professional and academics. Perhaps it’s just semantics but I look to critics to find out if I’m going to enjoy something or not whereas I look to academics to deconstruct and explain something. Certainly the distinction between the two can be blurred especially with contemporary work. Historically critics can be notoriously harsh on something and then the scholars come along much later and point out it’s technical merits. Which often then becomes “critical” acclaim for later generations.
One can dislike something while still accepting it has technical merit. In almost every endeavor it’s commonplace to see people “like” something because of “critical” or scholarly acclaim, it’s fashionable (not implying liking Hitchcock is just fashionable). OTOH if one doesn’t “like” the icons of the genre then they are perceived as naïve. I just see this as a form of snobbery and if any field is rife with this attitude it the arts.
