I also collect data, from the very high-brow critics in Cannes, and recently also Sundance for comparison.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;cannes-rurban.rhcloud.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;cannes-rurban.rhcloud.com&#x2F;</a><p>What is evident is that very often critics gather to champion objectively awful movies. Even for professional movie critics standards awful movies.
Looks for example at the surprising success of this years &quot;Carol&quot; and &quot;The Assassin&quot; in Cannes and their disappointing acceptance in the real world. Well, &quot;Carol&quot; is one of those special needs cases, which still has some champions left over. 
And compare it to the exceptional Cannes movies this year: Dheepan, Umimachi Diary and Embrace of the Serpent. The critics didn&#x27;t appreciate them and didn&#x27;t see it coming. However the professional festival programmers and jury in the followup festivals saw it.<p>But the same happens almost every year. &quot;ADIEU AU LANGAGE&quot; (Godard) highest rated movie 2014, &quot;HOLY MOTORS&quot; (Leos Carax) 2012, &quot;Le Havre&quot; (Aki Kaurismaki) 2011, &quot;FILM SOCIALISME&quot; (Jean-Luc Godard) 2010.
The jury votes are usually much better than the critics votes.<p>Comparing quality to quantity (advertising budget, imdb ratings) makes no sense at all.