Objectively speaking, yes... the opinion of professional critics and my own carries more weight than the average individual.
LOL!
I have no doubt that you actually believe that.
Because it's objectively true the film analysis of film critics, as well as my own, carries more weight than someone who doesn't understand how to analyze the quality of film. You can prefer Adam sander's "jack and Jill" to the godfather, but it doesn't make it a better film. And if don't understand why that is, your opinion on the subject will not hold much weight at all.
Clearly you need a dictionary. Because you obviously don't understand the difference between the terms objective and subjective.
There's thousands of articles and posts out there that can explain for you better than I can. We don't need to dive too deeply into it here. But in short, your taste is subjective. What we consider quality, isn't. Unless you think it's impossible to claim anything is "objectively" good, in which case, you are no longer permitted to call anything "good or bad". Stuff just exists. You can merely say, "I like it" or "I did not like that". And you can just walk through life like a confused little puppy thinking any competition that measures art/writing/films/food/singing/etc has completely random results with no baseline for quality. You can watch the Academy Awards and wonder why every single movie isn't nominated and handed out awards. Start a petition demanding that Kevin Spacey's performance in the recent cat movie
"Nine Lives" should be nominated for "best actor", cuz "art is subjective".
The problem is, every time one of these objectively bad movies comes out with a built-in fanbase, there's a bunch of whining from fanboys who throw out the ol "art is subjective" line to defend the objectively bad piece of art. When in reality, they should just accept that it's ok to like a bad piece of art. I have crappy pop art all over my walls. I enjoy all sorts of junk food. I see lots of bad movies (most recently, the objectively weak movie called "Nerve"... the premise was fit for "Black Mirror", the first half was mildly entertaining, the ending was atrocious. Objectively, not a good movie. I enjoyed it nonetheless).
Every time one of these objectively bad movies drops, there's threads explaining this concept all over the internet. Here's a quote literally from a few hours ago in regards to a fan claiming "Suicide Squad" shouldn't be criticized because "art is subjective":
"good" isn't subjective.
It can be relative, but not subjective (as we can't all make up our own definition of "good" because there are specific constraints).
Good is always on the positive side, indicated a certain level of positive quality to an item, specifically above average quality.
Liking something is subjective because it's wholly based on your experience and your preferences with no need to take into account the quality of the thing you like.
Anyways... "Suicide Squad" was a dumpster fire.
Moving on... "Nerve" was pretty schlocky, but the premise is fun (an app that lets people dare you to do things... the dares inevitably escalate). Maybe worth watching for free when it's on HBO or something.