Good critics aren't 'prescriptive'. They are scholars of various media who elucidate where a new piece of work sits with in an artist's oeuvre, or the larger canon that the work is contributing to.

While some self-anointed blogger critics might have certain ideas about what they wish an audience would watch, an actual critic's (broadsheet paper, industry trade) only job is to contextualise a work in the larger bodies of genre, medium, and culture.

> User reviews are retrospective: how much did they actually enjoy watching the movie.

How can ANY review not be 'retrospective'? In fact, probably the majority of film criticism speaks to how much or little the critic enjoyed a film. Pauline Kael (probably the most incisive and celebrated American critic in film history) built a legacy based pretty much on how much she much she enjoyed the film.

> I think a very interesting graph would be so see to what extent critics prescriptions are accurately forward-looking to viewer attitudes.

Why do critics and audiences have to have the same opinions? I this is the fundamental misunderstanding and wonky premise of the article.