From the It Comes at Night thread:

Quoted from Penoyer79 critics had a collective orgy over this one. meanwhile it's getting absolutely TRASHED by movie goers.

Very true, and something we see a lot, especially with art-horror. Then you've got comedy, especially, where the critics often hate something that audiences like (Grandma's Boy, Scary Movie 5, Diary of a Mad Black Woman).

Do you tend to agree with one or the other? Is it bad that critic's tastes often don't align with audiences? Do mass audiences have bad taste?

I like movie critics that write for the public, in Siskel and Ebert style. There are a lot og good critics like this now, I think.

Those critics, and there are also a lot, writing more to impress their peers, are often useless, annoying, and damaging. They bring a lot of pet peeves. They don't judge a film on its own terms. They are obsessed with seeing things that have not been seen before, yet they judge based on pre-formed standards in their minds.

I think critics definitely have their place. If nothing else, they make watching films more interesting, whether you agree with them or not, and because everyone has a platform now, there's more variety amongst critics than ever. As an audience member, they really only have as much power as you give them, because at the end of the day, you like what you like and if your great experience was their bad one, you're probably the winner of that situation. Personally, I love the debate amongst films and have a fair amount of critics that I enjoy, again, whether I agree with them or not. The notion that everything is subjective and nothing is worth having an opinion on is boring.

I take it all with a grain of salt.

The only time i ever really listen to reviews is when I'm on the fence about seeing something in the theater, then i'll check out what the word is on it. if it's good i'll go see it or else i'll just wait for video.

I'm glad they are there, and it's fun to read their comments after I've watched a film.

Often I disagree with them.

For instance Terry Gillian's "Tideland" is one of my favourite films. I think it's a work of real genius, with such a refreshing story and point of view yet it has 29% approval from critics on Rotten Tomatoes, and numerous of the reviews are flat out wrong in what they say about the film.

There's a very clear "type" of film that the body of critics like...issues based drama film and I find they overrate those films at the expense of others.

There's also a massive discrepancy between their views and my views as a horror fan. It is basically impossible to get a fair view of what is good horror from mainstream critics. The things they like tend to be dramas with dark edges, and very soft,

I'm also tired of their use of identity politics in analysing films. There's an increasing tendency to view every film through that filter, rather than on its own merits as art or entertainment.

I am pretty much a rotten tomatoes rating guy now. In the past, I have scene too many stinkers that the critics loved and too many good ones they hated.

I do agree that Siskel and Ebert had an interesting show.

I never really read movie critics, because I think whether or not you like movies as well as scripts is quite a subjective matter. I just LOVE the Terminator-Series and I want Arnie to play in it, even when he's 80 years old, while most people in the net just beg for mercy every time a new movie is announced. And while I liked the old Star Wars movies, I absolutely hate all the new ones while everybody else goes crazy about them. It's a matter of taste and I don't need a critic to tell me what I should like or not.