Were they ever in sync? I've always seen critics as a "negative recommendation" -- if a critic recommends a movie, it's usually bad and vice versa (and like all rules there notable exceptions like Thor Ragnarok, which both critics and normal people loved).
And this is true not just in movies but books as well. Critics in both domains love the "ooh lala, fancy pancy hard to understand arty farty" book/movie that doesnt make sense but makes the critics feel smarter than the holloi polloi.
Critics have always recommended movies that wouldn't appeal to the working Joe , in a sort of condescending manner. (and yes, like all rules, there are exceptions)
Coming to this article-- as someone who isn't a data scientist, I wasn't sure what point the author is making? Correlation is 0.7-- eh?
That doesn't ring true to me at all. In aggregate, the opinions of professional critics always push me towards better movies or tv shows. Go watch some of the best rated movies of the year on Rotten Tomatoes by critics, then the best rated by users. It's immediately clear the critics picks are not just better but leaps and bounds better. I have the same experience with restaurants. What my friends say is their favorite restaurant is usually something like a local hole in the wall taco place that makes amazing carne asada. That's not bad, and it's great for that one person or that one dish/experience. But generally a pick from the Michelin guidebook is going to be a completely different experience start to finish, down to the smallest details. It's objectively better.
It sounds like you, understandably, are very much on defense and think of critics as "arty farty" from the jump. Perhaps you saw someone say a super artistic french film was great and it seemed like nonsense to you, or you saw some chef serve up a gastro-scientific jelly bean for $500 and it's colored your view pretty heavily.
What my friends say is their favorite restaurant is usually something like a local hole in the wall taco place that makes amazing carne asada. That's not bad, and it's great for that one person or that one dish/experience. But generally a pick from the Michelin guidebook is going to be a completely different experience start to finish, down to the smallest details. It's objectively better.
Continuing this thought... There's also nothing inherently wrong or bad about the local diner (or the generic recipe blockbuster movie). They fill a niche. People like easy comfort food and they like relatively mindless entertainment. But, they also enjoy a fancy meal that is also an experience and movies that challenge their notions about the world and make them think.
I enjoy a Michelin meal. I wouldn't want one every day - I'd be both bankrupt and become jaded to the experience. Same with movies. Most of the time, I'm ok with another MCU/Avengers spin-off, but sometimes I want Memento or Hunger.
>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.
Have you ever considered that there might actually be something to "ooh lala, fancy pancy hard to understand arty farty" movies that you are merely unable to appreciate and that your failure to appreciate any virtue doesn't constitute proof of its nonexistence?
The whole point of pursuing the opinion of critics isn't averaging them to see what smart people like its in finding critics whose taste isn't wholly out of line with yours and using recommendations to cut through the crap and find things worth watching.
Artsy movies are great... sometimes, and unartsy movies are also great sometimes.
Sometimes I want to watch the Seventh Seal and sometimes I want to watch Die Hard - both movies have their place but a lot of critics tend to lean strongly into arthouse movies and sell them well above their actual appeal. I think one of the hardest parts of being a genuinely good critic is being able to leave your own tastes at the door when walking into a new performance - and those tastes are generally ones that have been honed by an education in classic works. Some movies use extremely bold cinematography choices to add a lot to their work (I'd point out Sin City and Schindler's List both of which made extremely good use of high contrast black and white (mostly) filming to add heaps to the story) but then you've got so-so art-house pieces that play into those familiar tropes without delivering anything of real value.
It takes a really good critic to watch a movie they really personally enjoyed and tell everyone that it's probably not for them - please do talk about what you liked to inform like minded people - but don't give a 5/5 just because it appealed to your specific tastes.
I think the most valuable thing a critic brings to the table is a wide breadth of experiences to compare new experiences to - you're watching all the crappy movies to pick out the good ones to recommend so that people don't waste their time on something flat.
I used to love artsy stuff then I realized that often they are not any better or deeper they just appear to be or the depth and meaning is projected on them through interpretation which has its place I guess.
Critics are overall a good influence in movie picking in my experience - you just need to understand when they have an agenda and they push some crap movies just because they want to push some social message down your throat.
And this is true not just in movies but books as well. Critics in both domains love the "ooh lala, fancy pancy hard to understand arty farty" book/movie that doesnt make sense but makes the critics feel smarter than the holloi polloi.
Critics have always recommended movies that wouldn't appeal to the working Joe , in a sort of condescending manner. (and yes, like all rules, there are exceptions)
Coming to this article-- as someone who isn't a data scientist, I wasn't sure what point the author is making? Correlation is 0.7-- eh?