Very interesting discussion. Oddly enough, neither of these perspectives align at all with what I, as a reader, want out of a review. To me, product reviews and media (movies/albums/books/shows/games) reviews function in a completely different manner and have a completely different purpose.
With a product review, I want an exhaustively considerate, audience-dependent forecast/guide of what function/use something might have for any given person and the degree that the product satisfies that-- I want a detailed outline of all the information available for that product so that the reader can make an informed purchase decision (there's no room for mysteries), followed by an anecdotally persuasive positive/neutral/negative recommendation by the reviewer with the understanding that we probably aren't going to be too far off. Essentially, I want both. So I agree with you guys there.
With a media review however, I don't necessarily want either, to be honest. I'm not reading it in order to learn everything I need to know about a movie so that I can make an informed purchase decision based on my wants and needs. If anything, the idea of a movie reviewer acting as a guide that tries to credibly guess at what my subjective impression might be because I can be generalized in certain ways feels all kinds of wrong and obnoxious to me. For one thing, I don't want a reviewer to defer to me as an authority on what I want and then solely (not to mention artificially) cater to that perspective-- I want them to indirectly challenge and inspire me with what they think I ought to want. The suggestions of someone with a wishy washy "well, some people like this and other people like this, it's all equally valid and comes down to their preferences/biases-- what kind of person are you? Maybe you would like this then." attitude doesn't have much value to me. On the flip side, if a review too deliberately tries to be persuasive and feels like it has an agenda, that can feel off-puttingly possessive, manipulative, and arrogant to me. Eloquence and persuasiveness are just part of the flavor, fun, and theater in reading a review-- I don't really think of it as the substance. I would never judge a review by how persuasive OR informative it is, personally.
All I really want out of a media review is an unfiltered window into the mind of someone who has a compelling perspective, and get the most uncompromisingly critical, well-expressed, and raw/sincere impression possible. I want to know everything that this person views as truths about that thing and see if that connection organically sparks an interest/curiosity/impressionability in me. If we're operating on completely different wavelengths, I'll find someone else to read-- don't bother making an effort to condescendingly pigeon-hole me by impersonally recommending something based on assumptions that you don't even connect with yourself. A big pet peeve of mine is when someone goes "Personally, I think this thing is awful, but I'm sure you'll like it because of <preconceived notion>."
I have no insight into the process of writing a review (I'm not considerate about it and usually don't even feel like writing anything, I just use it as a purely self-interested excuse to vomit out, organize and share my thoughts), but that's what I do and don't appreciate about reviews as a concept.