Should a critic be "objective"?

[Norris2k]

"Nothing is objective" is something I read a lot, and that would be because you can't be perfectly objective. But could you be "perfectly subjective" ? I mean, without any consideration for the objective qualities of acting, FX, scenario, dialogues, music, without a standard based on other movies, without considering the genre and target audience, out of thin air, just based on a pure subjective feeling about it ? And would that be any interesting to read "I had fun, period." without any objective reasons ?

So, it should be both, subjective and objective, with a good balance, what I'd call an educated subjectivity. Because the point is not to know if the writer liked it or not, it's about the reader knowing if he will like it or not.

For example, you can like an actor, that doesn't make him a good actor, and you can have a good actor, and that doesn't mean you have to like him. The writer should be able to tell if and be clear about if he likes the actors based on a feeling, or if he believes (right or wrong) that there is a good acting in the movie. Also depending on the movie, if the acting/actor matters that much or not. I mean I like to see Chuck Norris in a movie, just because that's freakin' Chuck Norris, but I would be disappointed if Brad Pitt had a weak acting and dialogues because I believe he's an excellent actor, and I could also like a movie with actors I can't even remember if the scenario is intriguing and the suspense built up. So it's important the critic expose his standards, expectations, and objective reasons for someone to like the movie or not.