What are you, a theater critic or something?

First, I’m delighted that someone listed my friend M. David Blake’s “Absinthe Fish” as one of the top stories of the 21st century to date. You can buy it online in BullSpec #5.
Reviewing the rest of the list I found some I strongly agreed with (Gene Wolfe’s Book of the New Sun), some I completely disagree with (Ursula LeGuin’s Word for World is Forest, which I think is a dreadful, unusually heavy-handed work from her) and some I’m on the fence about. As I said before, although Lud-in-the-Mist is good, I’m not giving it the cult classic status so many people do.
And that, in turn, got me thinking about what makes a good critic. Three things, I think:
•Good taste. This, of course, is a highly subjective one: If I follow a critic’s recommendations and go “oooh, I’m glad he suggested that,” then he’s doing his job for me. It’s much more important that I get recommendations for stuff I wouldn’t otherwise read than get warned away from stuff.
Leonard Maltin, for example, is my go-to critic for movies. If he gives it three stars, I’ll usually give it at least 2.5, except genres where I know our tastes diverge (I’m going to give a higher rating to most SF films, for instance).
Terri Wyndling and Ellen Datlow (of the longest-running of the various Year’s Best Fantasy anthology series out there)? Not so much. The Best Books of the Year they recommend in each volume usually strike me as pretentious, mediocre or both.
A lot of critics, of course, are all over the map—our tastes match enough that I listen to them, not enough that I rely on them.
•Good reasons. Bill Warren, in Keep Watching the Skies, said what makes a great critic is that by saying what he liked or didn’t like about a film/book/play, he can make you understand your own reactions to particular movies/books/stage shows (some examples here).
That’s very true. Even when I disagree with a critic, a good analysis can help me understand the movie better. And it helps me see why I do (or don’t) agree with a particular critic.
•Insights. It’s not essential, but a critic who has something to say about a movie most people don’t notice (assuming it’s accurate) is a good one.
•Good writing. If I don’t enjoy reading what a critic has to say, it doesn’t help much if she’s perceptive. I’m not in film school, I want something that’s enjoyable to read, whether because of snarky humor, clever observations or at the very least, clear, readable prose. Again, this is a subjective one: A lot of people love reading the late Pauline Kael but her writing style grates on me (and I don’t agree with her insights or her taste, either).
The exact weight given to any of these varies with what I’m reading. If it’s a film history, I want more insight, but I’m less worried about taste. If it’s current reviews, taste matters more.
Good writing is always a plus.