The gap between critics and the audience

[As2162]

It’s interesting as I don’t think there’s ever been a time when the gap between critics and the audience has been so wide. Take two examples:

1). The last Jedi - critics loved it. Barely seen a bad review, but it’s like marmite in general reviews.
2). Bohemian rhapsody - rated average by critics, but given very high scores by the public.

Is it that agendas have taken over films? I would much more trust in the viewers score on IMDb before the critics.

What does everyone think?

I see your point. I think if critics see so many films they are so clued up on cliches and methods it must be tricky to actually enjoy some films.

That’s a really good point. It’s a shame as I used to trust film sites and that. Especially having a young family I might have 3 films to chose from.

Choose

It depends how well you fit the mass audience, I suppose. Not yet seen BR but all my friends say its got good acting and loads of Queen songs so obviously it's fun, but beyond that it's dreadful. Which is roughly what the critics said, only some of them weren't Queen fans so the songs weren't a perk.

I also think it's down to critics having seen so many more films than the average cinema goer.

If I go and see a film and it has a story that keeps me entertained and some decent acting, I'll say it's a good film. If a film critic has seen an almost identical ten times before, they're going to think its fairly unimpressive. That's my theory anyway.

What do you mean by 'agendas', is there a populist subtext?

I only listen to Kermode & Mayo & they don't seem remote from public opinion or what has public appeal. Kermode is intellectual & views film as art, while Mayo goes on his gut. Both refer to how others in their group liked the film (or didn't). All have a place.

I avoid reviews. They regularly tell me more than I need to know. I’m lucky enough to have a very cheap cinema as my local, so if I like the actor or even the poster I’ll trot along.

The Last Jedi is really challenging. Good opening and ending, weird middle section. As an epic sci-fi it also suffers from fanboy (and girl) flaming by those who think they own the franchise and can't stand it to be moved away from their comfort zone. But then it also had superman-Leia (what were they thinking!!).

Generally, average movie watchers tend to like re-runs of the same thing. It's easy to access and enjoy. Eventually, the concept will wear thin and a new popular genre will spawn. Recently, we lost RomComs and spoof movies; we have super heroes and the return of the slasher/home invasion type horror.
Critics are likely to tire of the tropes quicker. The clever twist on the cliche is good if you only watch one or two from the genre; when you see them all, it's less impressive.
I used to teach film, so can sometimes enjoy a 'how' about a film rather than the 'what'; but it's not universal. I was impressed by Watchmen, yet hated Lost in Translation. I loved both of the '300' movies, whereas some tired of the tropes before the sequel, same with Sin City.

The Greatest Showman

I think that sums it up

I find that most of the time the opinion of the critics and audience is in alignment.

I also often find that my opinion is usually closer to that of the critics than the general public

That's probably because of the genres I like and those I don't

I like quality well written character based dramas for the most part.

I'm not into sci fi/adventure/fantasy/superheroes/action etc etc

With the latter genres although they may be entertaining for many they're not necessarily of high quality .

For that reason sometimes maybe they're not highly regarded by the critics but popular with the paying public

Sometimes I'm at a loss to understand how certain movies are popular with both the critics and GP.

A recent example is Hereditary.

I thought it was absolutely awful yet everyone seems to love it, I haven't been able to find one single negative review anywhere.