Sure, humor is subjective. Some people like droll, others black and the Hoi polloi physical and scatological. Does that mean a reviewer shouldn't try to categorize or describe the humor of a comedy?

The reviewer states that by her standards it has its moments, but doesn't hold up throughout, in comparison to other comedies by the same directors. Seems like a reasonable enough way to convey her thoughts about the movie. From hers and a couple others' reviews, I can tell whether or not I want to see it.

All art and entertainment is subjective. So what? A good reviewer will give his/her point of view and hopefully explain why (without giving too much of the movie away). Are you suggesting comedies should not be critiqued in terms of their humor? That seems a most sterile exercise.

As for the mood of a viewer affecting his/her response to a movie -- comedy or otherwise -- sure there could be some effect, but what are you gonna do, exclude humans from writing reviews? However, I don't think this effect is all that strong; I saw Stripes for the first time when I was in a really bad place emotionally and yet I found it -- at least the first half -- hilarious at the time. As comedy often relies on shock and surprise, usually the humor comes through best on the first showing, which is usually what a reviewer goes on for writing a review.

The bottom line is that one needs to callibrate one's tastes to specific reviewers in order to use their reviews effectively.

Your beef on this matter is all meat by-product.