If you wanted to decide whether to see the new Spiderman movie, you'd be able to read a review that warned you the new Peter Parker was a consistent liar, which is to say the least a novel interpretation.
Reviewers are corrupt because they don't share your reaction to the movie?
In looking at a comicbook movie, the fact that the hero keeps lying is noteworthy. That's not a reaction, as you well know, but an observation. Calling it a reaction is just another bad faith argument. But it is an observation that film reviewers should have made. A film reviewing system where something so obviously important to the viewing experience (but isn't a spoiler,) still can't make it out into the reams of print and pixels has something very badly wrong with it. The reviewing system cannot be regarded as an honest consumer guide but is merely a semiindependent division of the publicity. It is an integral part of the commercial film industry.
Those of us who are not interested in joining the film industry have a different perspective on the alleged contributions of movie reviews. From that perspective (which is not that hard to grasp,) the reviewing system is
amazingly corrupt. This is a criticism of the fundamentals. Perhaps it makes you uncomfortable or perhaps you hold that kind of criticism to be unacceptable for some reason. So what? It's not a criticism of you personally.
You should ask yourself how you could get so irate that you deluded yourself into thinking that pointing out that reviewers weren't taking dictation was somehow a rebuttal. What is it about a rejection of the system that so disturbs you that delude yourself into thinking that you can change a fact into a reaction? My guess is that you know perfectly well that the film industry, including its reviewing component, have earned fundamental criticisms and your ambitions have misled you into identifying with it. Well, you may identify with it, but it won't provide you an identity, much less identify with you.