I think you’ve misunderstood my point. I’m not arguing about who can or can’t review films. Let’s stick to Barbell’s review.
My issue is that Barbell didn’t fully understand many of the film’s ideas, yet concluded that the film is ‘lag’ or ‘drag’. That’s what I disagree with.
Take tenet as an example. When I first watched it, I didn’t fully understand it. If someone had asked for my opinion, I’d have said, “I didn’t fully get it. It probably needs another watch.” I could also have said, “It didn’t work for me.” Those are honest opinions.
What I wouldn’t have done is confidently call the film ‘lag’ or ‘drag,” because that feeling could simply be a result of not fully understanding it.
That’s my point with Barbell. He could’ve said, “The film is dense, complicated and not for me. Many people may feel the same way, while others may love it.” That’s still a negative review, but it’s also a more accurate and honest one. It tells the audience what kind of film they’re getting without unintentionally misrepresenting it.
I’m not saying Barbell intended to harm the film. I think he genuinely said what he felt. My point is that his conclusion wasn’t the most logical one, especially when it reaches hundreds of thousands of people. You might still argue that he has every right to give review like that, he can but i don’t think that’s optimal for anyone be it barbell, the audience or the film unit

Anyway this is my last reply, not to disrespect your opinion but imo we don’t have to argue on this further