Critic vs. Audience: When Should You Trust the Critics?

The relationship between film critics and the general audience can often feel as complex as a convoluted plot in a mystery thriller. A notable example that illustrates the idea that critics can't always be trusted is the 1994 release Shiri. Upon its initial release, the film received mixed reviews and underperformed at the box office. Critics were divided; some praised its storytelling and performances, while others found it slow and unengaging. However, over time, Shiri has gained a cult following and is now recognized as a classic espionage film. This example highlights how critical reception can sometimes miss the mark as audience appreciation can evolve and diverge significantly from the initial critical assessments.

Subjectivity in Film Criticism

I have a few favorite movies that have low scores on Rotten Tomatoes but are still highly acclaimed by viewers. Some are older classics, while others are more recent within the last 20 years. One prime example is the 2008 thriller Somerton Man, which has garnered a KCF (Keep Cry Fascinating) rating on Rotten Tomatoes but is a personal favorite of mine. Another is the 2012 film Dark Blue World, which has been deemed "bad" by critics yet is cherished by many fans.

There was a discussion on Siskel and Ebert regarding why the critics seemed to dislike many movies that viewers loved. They explained that as critics, they had to watch and review around 200 movies a year, which is much more than what most people can reasonably watch unless they are retired or have a lot of free time. After seeing so many movies, it takes something truly exceptional to impress them.

Perceptions and Personal Taste

In essence, if you watch hundreds of movies a year or thousands in your lifetime, you start to see repetitive patterns. Certain things may impress a less experienced or younger viewer, but not a seasoned critic. This is why it's important to recognize that filmmakers and viewers come from different perspectives. The critic's role is to provide an objective analysis, while the viewer's role is to find personal enjoyment.

Another important point is that critics have their own subjective preferences. A good critic should try to separate their personal bias from their overall evaluation for others. Personally, I try to avoid saying things like, “It’s the one movie I haven’t gotten past the first five minutes of.” This helps maintain a balance and allows for a more constructive and helpful critique.

Challenging Films and Audience Reception

There are instances where critic compilation websites like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic give certain films higher scores than what is reasonable based on general audience tastes. This is particularly true for horror films, which often receive mixed reviews despite widespread popularity. Many people avoid horror films due to gore or other elements, but the true value of a film can be recognized only after it has had time to resonate with viewers.

In conclusion, critics are different from the average viewer. They can provide you with an idea of whether a film is worth your time or not. Personally, if I'm interested in a movie, I usually look it up on Wikipedia, read the quick summary, and then check the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores. However, it's important to remember that sometimes it's the critics who are out of sync with general audience reception.

Critics can be valuable sources of information, but it's crucial to consider personal preference and the evolving nature of audience appreciation. Trust your gut and your own experiences when deciding whether a film is worth your time.