Here's the thing. Perfection is overrated.
As a film fan, sure there are accountable things we can evaluate that help bring about a more accurate idea of a film's merits. But I don't think a film's power can be summed up through a simple critical breakdown. Just because one film is technically superior to another - doesn't necessarily have a direct correlation with its effect and impact on me, the viewer. Judging art cannot hinge solely on whether it achieves a state of critical "perfection". Art exists for the viewer to respond to it, as a result, its value comes from my interaction with it, what I bring to the table.
A film could be as arbitrarily perfect as possible - but that doesn't mean my own reaction to it will be anything but ambivalent. It helps, to be sure, to be formally brilliant, but it takes my experiences, my feelings, my thoughts, my personality, my baggage to really bring a film to life, to get me to respond to it.
If we all could truly put one film up and call it the best of the year without debate (i.e. if artistic perfection could be measured by the sum of its technical aspects hitting their marks) and everyone agreed on it, then the value of art, the value of the medium itself would be diminished.
The fact is, it is perfectly valid to recognize those imperfect films that impact you more as being "better" on your personal scale, despite the lack of logic to see them as such. Cult films, for example, are valid experiences that are sometimes even celebrated for their flaws and I don't think people should feel any shame at recognizing those films as having a larger impact on themselves. Sometimes, the very things one might critique in looking for perfection, are precisely the things that create that unique aesthetic, that piece of work that is unlike anything else out there. A filmmaker like Michel Gondry, for example, is messy and sprawling - and that rambling, low-tech, kitschy quality is precisely what defines him as one of the unique talents out there. Stripping that individualistic streak for a more mainstream veneer may result in a more balanced film but loses out on the qualities that make him so interesting in the first place.
I think we can still generally say a film is a bad one or good one - but we have to recognize that some flawed films can also be just as good or better in their own way - they can still hit home and work their magic. We can embrace and love those flaws for what they're worth.
In fact, that's taste. The best critics in the past generally have had very unique/recognizable sensibilities. There shouldn't be this pandering to the idea of a universal "Best Of" that can be defined simply through technical means. Your taste in film should reflect you as a person - not some kind of consensus viewpoint. The best critics know how important it is to allow their reaction (yes, their bias, if you will) to the material filter through. Without their own reaction, it becomes a systemic breakdown of elements - and explaining a film away through this robotic procedure, eliminating the human response, is surely missing the point of art.
I've seen people get more and more obsessed with the idea of technical perfection as a requirement in film. More and more, I've moved in the opposite direction. I'm not opposed to technical perfection by any means, but I'd prefer a flawed film with ideas or feelings that connect with me than a technically perfect film that I can't begin to penetrate.
To me, it's a combination - the combination of understanding the achievements of a film on its more objective levels while taking into account its subjective ties to the critic, the gut response that cannot simply be directly corroborated by this element or that.
It's the same reason why I no longer rate films using a scale. I don't believe it's a proper judgment of a film - it's heavily reliant on rewarding formally perfect films and penalizes bolder (and possibly more flawed) work, and I've begun to feel that that's the wrong approach to viewing and critiquing.
