Before I even get started, you're probably thinking: 'Tristan, aren't you a movie critic?' No, I am not a movie critic; I see myself as a movie reviewer. Now you may be thinking: 'Tristan, what's the difference?' Well, I'm not sure if I can give a clear answer but hopefully, this article will help differentiate the two and show you why movie critics are WRONG.

Movie critics judge a movie on very rigid criteria. They judge a movie on how ground-breaking it is; whether it is likely to win an award at the Oscars. This will include things like outstanding acting, outstanding visual effects, outstanding music; if anything about the movie is 'outstanding' then it is a good movie in a critic's eyes. That is why movies like Dune get such good scores from critics even though many audiences find it hard to enjoy these kinds of movies. 

And that is exactly what I try to judge a movie on: how enjoyable it is. It is like movie critics can't judge whether a movie is enjoyable. They have set criteria and if a movie ticks a certain number of these criteria, it gets a certain score. Enjoyability is not one of these criteria. Movie critics remind me of artificial intelligence; they are great at identifying the 'outstanding' elements of the movie but can't look at the movie as a whole and whether it is going to be enjoyed by your average viewer.

All these 'outstanding' elements, as I am now going to call them, are of course important to a movie and can make or break the film but sometimes movies that put all their effort into ticking the critic's boxes don't focus enough on just creating an enjoyable film for the general audience. That is the key to what makes a movie good in my eyes: whether it appeals to the general audience. All these 'outstanding' elements appeal to three groups: movie creators, movie nerds, and of course movie critics. But if the movie isn't enough to be enjoyed by your average movie-goer, then I don't see how it could succeed outside of that tight circle.

I think the best way to explain this is through some examples. One thing I love about the Rotten Tomatoes website is it separates the 'Tomatometer', or critics' score, from the 'Audience Score'. Of course, this system can be flawed as the audience members who have a Rotten Tomatoes account and log on to give their score must have some sort of movie-nerdiness to them so will be leaning more onto the side of the critic. However, we can still find many examples where there is a stark difference between the Tomatometer and Audience Score.*

One movie that marked a big event in the Only The Best Movies calendar was Jurassic World Dominion. I loved the movie giving it a 9.5/10 with the majority of audience members agreeing giving the film a 77% Audience Score. However, film critics destroyed this movie when it came out saying that the franchise has 'lumbered a long way down from its classic start' resulting in a 29% Tomatometer. The George Clooney and Julia Roberts film Ticket To Paradise is a funny and entertaining film. I gave the movie an 8/10 and audiences scored it at 87%. Critics, on the other hand, called it 'immature, unfunny foolishness' giving it a 56% score. The even more recent movie, Champions, won't make it onto my top ten list but the film was very heartwarming and audiences certainly left feeling that their hearts had been warmed and stopped by Rotten Tomatoes to give the film 95%. Of course, cold-hearted critics who can't have their hearts warmed even if you put Woody Harrelson teaching basketball to intellectually disabled kids in front of them called the movie 'amiable' at best and thought it deserved their rotten tomatoes thrown at it and gave the movie 59%.

I've spoken about Dune (which actually received a high Audience Score on Rotten Tomatoes so unfortunately cannot be used to prove my point) but there are other movies that critics seem to love but audiences just don't get. Star Wars: The Last Jedi is one of these movies. It is hard for me to talk about The Last Jedi because it is Star Wars so I will love it no matter what. However, critics adored the movie giving it a 91% but Star Wars fans felt it had ruined the franchise and gave it 42%. Critics somehow thought that Peter Pan & Wendy deserved your time giving it 63% whilst audiences couldn't wait for the movie to end giving it 11%. I'm not sure what they see in Into the Woods that makes it worthy of 71%; audiences think it is worth 49% (maybe even a little too generous). Critics also seem to still think that the Marvel movies are great, but I won't get into that subject because I know that there are plenty of people out there who love those movies and I could go on and on about what makes them so terrible.

There are some movies we agree on and seem to act as exceptions to this rule. Recent movies such as Top Gun: Maverick, Spider-Man: No Way Home (which is actually a good Marvel movie), and No Time To Die all received fairly similar scores from audience members and critics on Rotten Tomatoes. And of course, critics agree with us on the classics such as Jurassic Park, The Dark Knight (both of which received the exact same score from the audience and critics) and Back To The Future. And as they should; if a movie critic has problems with any of these movies, they can take it up with me personally.

I think that movies that are 'outstanding' in the critic's eyes, such as Dune, still must be produced. They push and stretch cinema in ways that are important for the art form to carry on. However, I will never trust a critic's score until I see the movie myself and can give my own thoughts.

*The Rotten Tomatoes scores are subject to change. These scores are the films' scores as of the 30th of June 2023. 

Article by Tristan Carr

Last edited: 07/07/2023