is there such thing as a good restaurant review?

for mostly entertainment, I have been reading the restaurant reviews in SF Chronicle regularly for years. In my opinion (remember, I don't really know shit), the main restaurant critic at this soon to be bankrupt paper is fucking terrible. not only all the reviews, good or bad, read exactly the same, he is known to do favors for people he knows and slam people/joints that may not have kissed his ass as he wanted. I have been to many of the restaurants that he has reviewed over the years, and I know quite a few people who worked in those places, I have not agreed with the shit he said nor have I heard a good word about the person and his work.

I have also been reading the Times for a few years now. And this frank bruni guy who review restaurants for that paper at least writes much better than bauer. But not having visited most of these places in new york or knowing many people who have, it is hard for me to tell if he is just another bauer with better command of english.

just because 'critic' is in someone's title or job description, it doesn't mean they have to stop being objective, and just solely focus on what they like or don't like, as a certain Mr bauer does. I wish Mr bruni is nothing like jackass bauer, no city and its industry responsible for feeding people should be as unlucky as san francisco.