Art has an inherent subjective element to it. So how is anybody going to objectively review a piece of art or movie or a book or a video game? Regardless of what some people say, art or beauty is not purely subjective.You can't justify the beauty or creativity of any kind hiding behind the term called "subjectivity". Poison is poison no matter which angle you take to look at it. But some poison are less painful and sometimes taste better. I could compare my laptop with one that is available in the market. I could talk pros and cons. I could say 8GB RAM with 1TB HDD is better than 4GB RAM with 1TB HDD and a bigger screen and a better battery life. But that's subjective.

Let's say we bring in a MacBook Pro or an Alenware high end gaming laptop to the comparison. Suddenly there is not so much subjectivity. One is superior and you don't even need to look at the specs. What are the mechanics behind this situation?

Meta-Analysis

Subjectivity is only a part of life. It is only a part of criticism or evaluation. Sometimes it is purely a preference like Car Vs SUV. But there are metadata (if you can call it that) we can analyze to come into objective conclusions. Is a random LAMBO better than a random SUV? Yes. You can analyze things like the company, the quality of the brand, prices, prestige and several more factors to come to an objective conclusion. It's like calculating the surface area of a complex object using a triangular mesh. You don't directly make your calculations. It's never going to work. But there are workarounds.

The Most Objective Review of Mindhunter:

This is a meta-review and it is short, efficient and requires you to be already aware of several things. I challenge you to do a better and more objective description/review of the series if you can in the comments.

Mindhunter is a slightly lesser version of Zodiac (2007) that is much loosely based on the real events that is 8.5 hours long

Objective meta-reviews cannot be self-contained and intrinsic. If you don't know Zodiac (2007), then there is really no objective way to look at the series. Instead you'l have to rely on something like this from IMDB:

I read the book by John Douglas (who consults to the show) some years ago...twice. Every now and then I get a memory or part of the book come back to me. This is very close to how I'd imagine the book made into a series - not a movie would look. For those that want a nicely tied up story each episode or answers for everything, you won't find it here. `The description is only partially right, this is about the development of the unit within the FBI that would eventually concentrate on serial killers and develop profiles for the offenders. For them to do this they had to interview thousands of serial murderers and find out how they clicked, their drivers and motivations. This was new ground with untested theories and often against the FBI's own protocol. So, mistakes were made, lines were over stepped and they didn't always get it right. The two main characters play their parts well, I thought. Often bumbling about, arguing and unsure of what they are doing. I notice some reviewers mistake this for wooden acting and aren't able to like the characters, yet in my mind it works well. You have to remember this is set in the early 70s, so even the title 'serial killer' wasn't coined yet. Instead they called it 'sequence killer'. They were up against old thinking where even the mention of colloquial or slang terms for penis etc. were frowned on by the FBI. It is unfortunate that some of the reviewers have treated this like a typical Hollywood cop or CSI show. Everything has to be laid out for them and they want some clever theorising and a nice tidy ending. Where as the story is in the journey, not the result. Hang in for the long haul, it's well worth it. The only unfortunate piece for me is the lead's name 'Holden Ford'. If you are an Australian or NZer you will understand. Makes me cringe every time his name is said in full. Anna Torv makes a welcome member of the cast and gives it a nice air of sophistication. It's a solid 9 for me.

How was that review? Didi it give you a complete picture about what the series is. It is one of the best reviews I've seen. It is detailed and descriptive. But in my opinion, it doesn't give the full picutre. Neither does this:

I watched the entire series from start to finish. It's depthless, features almost no criminal psychology, and relies upon cheap shocks like explicit gore, sex, and violence to elicit emotion rather than actually developing the characters or plot such that one is invested in happens to them. The plot, which is nebulous at best, is drawn out by drowning the viewer in pointless details and complications which arise through senseless behavior. This sort of elaboration is reminiscent of how someone would speak to you if they were trying to prolong a conversation but had nothing more to say. The characters are depicted in plenty of varying situations, but are never really given any depth. It has all the variation and lack of substance that one might find in a stream of selfies. The lack of criminal psychology is quite disappointing and the attempt to compensate for this by name-dropping professionals and theory names comes across as a careless afterthought. The premise was a good, solid idea. But, it was never brought to fruition. Watching this first season just felt like a chore. I'd find myself getting up to go do other things because I was so bored with it. I'd come back and rewind it, not wanting to miss anything, only to find out that yet again, nothing happened. There are so many shows that are better than this one, that it's really not worth wasting one's time with. Instead of this one, I'd recommend: The Killing (US), Bron/Broen (Danish/Swedish), Broadchurch (UK), Dicte (Danish), Une chance de trop (a.k.a. No Second Chance, French), and River (UK). Those which are not in spoken English are available with English subtitles. For the record, I'd still give this one another chance when they come out with the second season (which I hear they've already ordered), but that's only because I've been impressed with Torv's work in the past. None of the other actors in this series moved me at all. She wasn't given much screen time this season, but I felt more depth from her character than any of the others — not to mention, she was really the only character depicted as competent. To those who actually found this season deep or moving, please do explain in detail. I feel that I gave this series a fair chance by watching the entire season, but found nothing worthwhile in it. So, if you did, it would be nice to know what in particular that was. Perhaps your observations could add to the viewing experience for the rest of us. Thank you.

39 out of 65 people on IMDB voted the above review as helpful. Then there are more mixed reviews detailing the good and the bad. This review was a 6/10 and 23 out of 39 people voted it to be a helpful review.

Mindhunter is the single most overrated series in years. Why is it that people are euphoric about it? Have the standards fallen that much? Neither me nor my wife have, at any point, been truly gripped by the stories. Let's try to rationalize why. Technically, in terms of 'production value', Mindhunter offers everything you could ask for. It all looks perfectly seventies (with one BIG exception: the people), the camera work is top of the bill. But that's not why you watch a series. Then what is it? Is it Holden Fords boring (Hannah Gross) girlfriend Debbie, an aloof, left-wing graduate student, who has no business at all to be in the series? Is it Holden Ford himself, with this increasingly irritating, innocent and slightly surprised, boyish look on his face, who shows little if any emotion at any time? Is it the neurotic 'I'm all ratio and have no emotions or maybe I am just oppressing them'- Dr. Wendy who spews out her lines like a robot and has an instant explanation for literally everything, a caricature of a psychologist. My favorite line was her answer as to why the murderer ironed his victim's hair: 'That's how he shows his dominance'. It's certainly not his partner Bill Tench, who is the only one (props for Holt McCallany here) who brings some humanity in this environment of AI cyborgs. Who I like the most are the actors that play the inmates. Boy, they are awesome. I couldn't care much for most of the rest. The stories, what to say about them? Just okay. Pretty much run-of-the-mill crime stories with gory details we've seen many times. But the plot is seldom the reason why you get gripped or not by a movie. The greatest movies in history have the simplest stories. It is the emotions, the psychological depth, the intensity, or just good fun, the characters have to offer. Thats where Mindhunters falls painfully short.

Now can you makeup your mind after reading these reviews? Some would simply jump into the show because David Fincher is involved and some would go in simply out of curiosity. Maybe you'd simply follow the word of a trusted friend or your favorite critic. But how clear was the "review "for you?

Let's Do an Exercise

You wouldn't need to come this far if you have already seen Zodiac (2007). you've already had your most objective review. I invite the rest of you to watch few videos that are much shorter than the 158 minute movie.

Of course there are lots of spoilers. You can choose to skip parts. But Zodiac (2007) is really about the investigation which is a borderline documentary.

Even if you haven't seen a single David Fincher film, those 4 video clips and my simple meta-review should create a significantly clear picture of what Mindhunter is. This is my first time writing a review like this and it is pretty much an experiment of mine. You could say I'm cheating when I make the "Most Objective Review". But that is what life is. Our civilization evolved through lifehacks. Every piece of technology you use is a way of cheating the nature. We are supposed to walk and swim; not drive or fly on planes. I just made my review objective by making the subjective factor a self-adjusting variable based on the person who reads the review.

Bonus:

Hyper Efficient Content Consumption - The way I beat the 10,000 hour rule to become a polymath and why I don't read most of the books I recommend.