I'm sort of in the middle on this. Meaning that I do think we should try our best to be non-biased and understand that we're talking about different decades and styles of filmmaking and we should take this into account... you make a good point there. However, by the same token, people do bring their own set of standards and preferences and personalities into film critiquing. That's why Michael Elliott's reviews would be unique from Mario Gauci's or Joe Karlosi's, or anyone else's. If everyone reviewed each and every movie without personal baggage, then where would be the individuality? Each and every movie ever made would be getting the exact same review, same descriptive texts, same amount of star ratings. A movie review should be a reflection of that person's tastes, standards, interests, etc. I think that what then tends to happen when we follow a certain critic is that we identify with a reviewer whose pattern seems close enough to our own tastes. So if I see a reviewer always "bashing" older horror films like DRACULA because he personally is bored by them and prefers more "T&A and gore like modern films", then I am not going to take this person seriously, and he's not for me. HOWEVER, there are hundreds of like-minded people just like him who may identify and so they'd use his opinion to help them decide whether or not they ought to see Lugosi's DRACULA.