Are film critics losing sync with audiences?

>Critics have always recommended movies that wouldn't appeal to the working Joe , in a sort of condescending manner.

Finding a critic that’s in line with your taste is like finding a doctor that works for you.

It’s sometimes about understanding goes the critic rates films too. They may be the sort that very rarely gives the top score. So 2.5/5 is actually quite watchable.

My favourites were Margaret and David At The Movies. They both had their vices and combined they matched my tastes. I could often predict their ratings.

A review's not just a review, and that's that: a review has an angle; a philosophy; a purpose.

Is the film good art? Does it approach the sublime? Does it achieve what seems to have been its goals? Will it probably please most viewers? Separately, and maybe very differently, will it probably please its intended audience? Does it seem to have an intended audience, in that you can imagine any group of people it might be intended to appeal to (seems funny, but some films are bad in ways that make it hard to even discern what this might be)? Is the craft itself particularly skillful?

A good reviewer will make it pretty clear—if not in the piece itself, elsewhere that's accessible—which of these is playing into whatever final, concise rating they give, or to the overall tone of the review, and it can be totally valid to base a review in just some of these criteria—in fact, it can be hard to cover all of them in one piece without creating an unreadable, confusing mess, and then someone's still going to demand some boiled-down star rating or whatever at the end, which could mean any number of things and is nearly worthless without context.

There are whole books and courses about how reviews and criticism work, including those intended for a wide non-academic audience, what their purpose is, how to approach them, how to structure them, et c.

Ebert is a great example of a reviewer who largely tried to meet films on their own terms, with the result that, if a movie looked like something you might like, and Ebert gave it even 2 stars, you'd probably like it well enough. If it wasn't normally something you'd like or didn't immediately look appealing... well, you better read the review, even if he gave it 3 stars. That made him an excellent reviewer for a broad audience, but it doesn't mean his approach was the only, or most correct, one (not to downplay how good he was).

[EDIT] Haha, all of which is to convey that I agree with you, and expect and want very different things from a professional reviewer vs. audience reviewers.

Ebert was one of the last real effigies of good reviewing. The folks who took over after he died haven't really done his name justice.

That said, I think "reviewing" took on much more than what Roger Ebert stood for. I don't think he saw himself as a gatekeeper of quality as much as someone who could put the summary of the experience of watching a movie in text quite succinctly. Nowadays with things like rotten tomatoes, it literally is a rating, and it's definitional gatekeeping.

I sometimes hear this, but I disagree.

If you're 40 years old, you need to be able to consume any kind of media and then place yourself into the mindset of a younger person and judge it from that mindset - because you used to be that younger person.

Truly exceptional media is good enough to transcend the age barrier and is enjoyable for everyone, e.g., The Incredibles is enjoyable for young kids because it's a cartoon and it's flashy and exciting, it's enjoyable for young boys who want to be the "best" at a sport, it's enjoyable for girls transitioning to puberty because of Violet's storyline, it's enjoyable for men who have lost some of their steam and can relate to Mr. Incredible, and it's enjoyable for women because of the struggles Elastigirl has as a mother and a homemaker. Even Syndrome is shown as a sympathetic villain who is evil not because he is a bad person, but because he was dismissed and ignored by his idol. There are plenty of people who can relate to that.

Ghostbusters (1984) is another expertly crafted movie that is fun for kids, but well-written enough to be incredibly enjoyable for adults.

When my young cousins or my nephew corral me into playing a game with them, I'm not playing it from my 41-year old perspective, I'm playing it through their eyes.

If you can't do that, then don't review content. Content always has a specific audience. Really great content can weave together enough bits to at least satisfy every audience. Exceptional content manages to speak deeply to every audience. I still feel that's why The Incredibles is one of the best movies ever made. The struggles shown in that movie are relatable for every single person on the planet.

I think the numbers are just a distraction. What the critics like is informed by the desire to maintain access to the studios and the quality of the goodies they've been given (access journalism/junket whores), and what the public likes is informed by the size of the marketing spend and what the critics have already written before they saw the film.

A better proxy for public sentiment would be viewer scores from test screenings.

For me, it would be easy enough to blame any increasing divergence on the fact that now, due to the internet and consumer culture/conventions, critics scores matter less and direct marketing spend matters more. That would also account for why genre films diverge most, because each spends the budget of a small country on promotion.

edit: sorry for not being an amateur psychologist about this or moaning about ivory tower elites, but these are products.