Mercurius
Legend
I would agree with you to an extent, and even a group of experienced and skilled film-makers are going to vary on what they like and don't like. But I do think there are two factors that tend to get written off, or at least diminished, in such conversations: One is actual skill and craftsmanship (of film-making, acting, musicianship, etc), which tends to be over-emphasized by snobbish types. There is a bit of a backlash against this, perhaps due to understandable anti-snobbishness, but also what could be described as the "punk mentality." Punk music was, among other things, a rejection and reaction to the excesses of prog rock, which tended to get lost in skill-over-soulfulness.I think the contextualization is more then probably necessary - it's essential. It might be one thing to measure how well the camera's stayed in focus (if intended to be in focus) - that's objective and little affected by the point of view of the observer/critic. But even various aspects that might indicate quality - sophisticated characters, believable behavior, effective use of scenery, interesting dialogue - all depend on subjective interpretation and filtering anyway because whether or not something "works" for the observer is inherently subjective.
The second aspect is one that is much harder to quantify or even discuss, and has to do with what could be called depth of subjectivity; this isn't necessarily an in vogue take in an artistic context dominated by postmodern thinking, but not all subjects view art (or whatever) from similar psychological depth and aesthetic development. It isn't the same thing as skill, but has more to do with soulfulness, heart (not to be confused with sentimentality), or even some kind of transcendent element.
Or to put that another way, there are different intersecting planes. The focus of most discussions tends to be on the "horizontal" aspect (X) - which basically boils down to the diversity of subjective tastes, of which there are no wrong choices, just different opinions, tastes, flavors, etc. But there is also a "vertical" aspect (Y), which has to do with development and depth, with the "z-plane" of skill, craftsmanship, etc (or you can swap Z and Y, if you prefer). Too often "Y" is reduced to the former, so everything becomes of equal quality - or even, "quality" becomes meaningless. Or, at best, skill (Z) is recognized, but seen as the purview of snobbishness, so secondary to "what I like" (X).
In my way of looking at things, these three planes are interacting, but distinct - and shouldn't be reduced to the other, but often are. Mostly, discussions focus on X (subjectivity) and Z (skill), with Y (soul/depth) being entirely written off, or as a variation on X. Postmodernism, in other words!