comment: >
  
  I was going to argue against the OP but you nailed it.
context: The truth is the opposite of this post >
  
  Critics like what critics like. Since movies are a money making venture, it’s problematic that critics tend to like the stuff that doesn’t make money and hate the stuff that does. >
  
  critics arent a monolith >
  
  I think you can’t objectively rate art and movies too are art >
  
  I hate movie critics they are alwaysssssssss Wrong > >
  
  bootlicker >
  
  I never trusted Roger Ebert after he gave both "Popeye" and "Stella" good reviews. >
  
  Popeye is a severely underrated movie >
  
  Except they don't "align with the quality of a movie" because its completely subjective, you could take 10 people, have them rate the same movie 1-10 and get 10 different answers >
  
  it's not completely subjective, but it's not completely objective either. there are obviously objective qualities to a film. does the plot make sense, are there any major plot holes, do your characters have an arc, is the dialogue well written, are the actors any good, etc... all actual qualities you can measure. but whether you like a film or not is obviously subjective in the end. I have loved films that I can honestly say are objectively quite bad, and I've hated films that are quite good. >
  
  but people who like a film that is "bad" find it good to some degree, again making it subjective >
  
  I’ve found they tend to trash comedies a lot… and over-rate dramas. >
  
  Don't care for critics personally and don't really take their word anything more than something a friend could tell me, I prefer to watch for myself >
  
  This is bizarre and simply factually wrong, as many movies that are now considered highly-regarded classics were critically trashed upon release.