There exists among film critics a misplaced belief that humour is somehow measurable objectively.

Thus, The Big Lebowski is hilarious, but this film is not.

I have This Is Spinal Tap on DVD. Sometimes I watch it and laugh till I cry. Other times, I wonder why it's considered such a comedy classic. It all rather depends on my mood.

It would be nice if reviewers could somehow reflect this fact, rather than trying to tell other people what is funny, and what isn't.

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.

No aestehtic judgment is "objective"; that is not the point. What a reviewer judges is wit, no hujmor, because, as you say, who can tell what some dolt will laugh at when?

Ah, but is all valid humor the product of wit? Wit is generally verbal and much of the best humor is conveyed through expression, timing and body language as much as by the words spoken.

In any event, a good movie reviewer doesn't just tell you whether they found it funny or not. They explain enough about it to give a perceptive reader some indication as to whether they themselves will find it funny. And I would hope that you don't think me a dolt if I find some things funny that you or Dana don't, or vice versa.