That's a really weird way to look at criticism. I don't go into a movie with a checklist of things I want it to do and then negatively criticize the things it doesn't do. I go into a movie hoping to be engaged, and if I find things distracting my engagement then those become the things I criticize, just like I praise the things I enjoy or find engaging or enlightening. All criticism, positive or negative, comes from how the film interacts with my tastes and values, when I express it I am expressing that interaction. Negative criticism doesn't make misery any more than positive criticism makes joy. The joy/misery/indifference/etc feelings are there, criticism is a way of trying to discover and express why they are there.
I like to look at those things that may immediately bother me, think about them, and see if there is another way of thinking about them that may provide insight or appreciation for their existence. Sometimes it works; sometimes it works and I come to think that it would be worse any other way; sometimes I realize that I missed the entire point by being bothered instead of engaging and understanding this element. This isn't theory, as I can provide many examples of each. Sometimes I fail, but I still find the effort worthwhile.
I disagree with your assertion that criticism is an expression of the interaction between the film and my tastes and values - that is merely my un-critical reaction. Where you say (film) criticism is a way of explaining my reaction, I would instead call that self-reflection or self-criticism. Film criticism is, to me, essentially, "A close examination of a film in order to overcome, expand, and approve my initial uncritical experience and reaction." If it wasn't meant to improve my life through the film, but merely categorize the state that the film put me in, then I would call it something else, and I wouldn't do it. I do think that this is all that negative criticism is, and this is why I don't do it, because I don't care to understand why something failed to produce something worthwhile in lieu of using the same time, faculties, and processes to reclaim that time that was initially sub-optimal and squeeze more out of it.
I'll provide a ridiculous squeezey example: Let's say I find a lemon which happens to be the biggest pain to eat because it has so many seeds. You can barely take a nibble without spitting out 3 seeds. But why would I even want to eat a lemon? They're so bitter! Well, this lemon happens to taste like lemonade without adding any sugar, and I'm somehow magically certain that I'm not setting myself up for diabetes. Anyway, there are many ways to approach this issue. I could say that this is a pretty worthless lemon because it's such a pain to eat, and if I'm honest, the skin is a bit too thin and it also doesn't feel amazing to touch. I could go on describing the issues with eating it, and why it's various qualities cause issues to me and I could investigate these frustrated feelings, but I won't, because I'm going to squeeze it and have the most delicious and healthy lemonade ever, and I'll probably come to realize that while this lemon is terrible to eat, you probably shouldn't eat lemons anyway and my life is now forever enriched by this amazing new way of ingesting the contents of a lemon. In the future I will continue to squeeze fruits of all shapes and sizes, to varying results. In the fruit game of life, the squeeze isn't always the best method, but the best method is to figure out the best way to ingest the fruit, not to lament the ways in which the worst way doesn't work.
All of my philosophy can be traced to fruits of various types, for what it's worth.