Film critics depend on access to early screenings, relationships with studios, and a film industry that increasingly does not need them. The result is criticism that is often less honest than it could be. Here are 8 things most contemporary film critics will not say.
1. Most contemporary blockbusters are not good films
Critics have learned to write about superhero films and franchise sequels with respectful seriousness because the audiences for those films are who the publications need to reach. The honest assessment — that most of these films are mediocre by any reasonable standard — is rarely stated bluntly.
Reality: The dominant theatrical product of contemporary cinema is, on average, weaker than it has been in any era since the studio collapse of the 1960s. The films that get the most attention are mostly the films that least deserve it.
What this means: Trust the critics who actually criticize blockbusters when they fail rather than the ones who treat each Marvel release as worthy of serious analysis.
2. Streaming originals are mostly mediocre, even the prestige ones
Netflix, Apple, Amazon, and others produce enormous quantities of "original films" that fill platform libraries. Most of them are not good. The few that are tend to be heavily promoted; the rest disappear into the algorithm.
Reality: The streaming-original economic structure produces films that are designed for views rather than for actual quality. Even the prestigious ones (the Oscar-bait films major streamers produce) tend toward calculated rather than genuine.
What this means: Apply more skepticism to streaming originals than to theatrical releases. The films that survive theatrical exhibition tend to be more rigorously made.
3. The critic-audience gap is real and growing
Critics often praise films audiences correctly recognize as boring or pretentious. Critics often dismiss films audiences correctly recognize as great. The Rotten Tomatoes critic vs audience split is sometimes wrong from the critic side.
Reality: Critics are mostly people who watch many films per week and live within a particular professional ecosystem. Audience members are mostly people who watch a film occasionally and approach it from a different perspective. Both perspectives are legitimate.
What this means: Look at critic AND audience scores. When they diverge substantially, the audience is sometimes right.
4. Festival hype is wildly distorted
Films that premiere at major festivals get inflated initial reviews because critics watch them in festival environments — selected audiences, grand venues, midnight screenings, festival fever. The same films often disappoint when they reach normal viewers in normal contexts.
Reality: Most "Sundance hits" disappoint when widely released. Most "Cannes triumphs" turn out to be modest films when removed from the festival context.
What this means: Discount festival reviews substantially. Wait for the second wave of reviews from critics watching films in normal conditions.
5. "Best of decade" lists are mostly recency bias
Critics writing "best films of the decade" lists in 2030 will look very different from the lists those same critics would have made in 2024 about the 2020s. Most critical assessments of recent films are wildly distorted by recency.
Reality: The films that endure are mostly not the films that get the most attention at release. The films that fade are often the ones with the most "buzz." Five years separation is the minimum to assess what films actually matter.
What this means: Be skeptical of "instant classic" claims. Wait several years to see what actually matters from any given period.
6. Most "critically acclaimed" films are not as good as their reputations
The contemporary critical consensus is heavily shaped by who tweets about what film, who has industry relationships with whom, and which films match current critical preoccupations. The "consensus" is much smaller and more incestuous than it appears.
Reality: Many "critically acclaimed" films from the past decade have not aged well. Many films dismissed as minor have grown in esteem. The contemporary consensus is not a reliable predictor of long-term quality.
What this means: Watch films you are interested in regardless of critical consensus. Form your own judgments.
7. Film criticism as a profession is dying
The number of full-time professional film critics has declined dramatically. The publications that once supported film criticism have folded or reduced staff substantially. The remaining critics are often freelance or part-time, which affects what they can risk saying.
Reality: Most contemporary film criticism is produced by people who depend on maintaining access and relationships. The kind of independent, harsh, honest criticism that mid-20th-century critics produced is increasingly rare.
What this means: Look for critics who clearly maintain independence — those without studio relationships, those willing to give negative reviews to major releases, those whose taste does not perfectly track institutional preferences.
8. Many cinematographers and editors deserve credit that goes to directors
The auteur theory of filmmaking — that the director is the primary author of a film — substantially overstates director contributions and understates the contributions of cinematographers, editors, production designers, and screenwriters.
Reality: Many directors known for their visual style are largely working with extraordinary cinematographers whose contributions are underrecognized. Many directors known for their narrative pacing are largely working with editors who deserve more credit.
What this means: When you find films you love, look at who shot them, edited them, designed them. Following these collaborators across films often reveals more about why specific films work than following directors does.
The bonus truth
Bonus truth #9: Most "best film of the year" critical lists from any given year include films that nobody talks about three years later. The films that genuinely matter usually emerge slowly. The films that dominate end-of-year lists are often a different set.
This is partly because critical end-of-year lists are produced under deadline pressure based on what is recent and visible. The films that endure are often ones that critics did not adequately recognize at the time.
How to read film criticism better
Some practical advice for getting more value from criticism:
- Find 3-5 critics whose taste actually aligns with yours over time
- Read full reviews rather than score aggregations
- Note when critics distinguish between what they liked and what they think was good (these are different)
- Look for critics who write about films they disliked thoughtfully rather than dismissively
- Be especially skeptical of unanimous critical praise; consensus is often wrong
- Trust audience word of mouth after the first wave of opening week noise dies down
The takeaway
The film industry — including its critical infrastructure — is selling a particular version of cinema that may not match what is actually worth watching. The honest version requires more skepticism than most criticism provides.
Watch films that interest you. Form your own judgments. Use criticism as one input rather than as authoritative guidance. The films you will remember in 20 years are not necessarily the films currently being praised.
