Plus: Todd Field, assigned.
I have to comment here, because, Sonny, you've kind of answered something I've been working on for a long time: "Simply put, it’s that audiences tend to be easier to please because they’re merely looking for movies to be entertainment while critics are trying to judge them artistically."
I've been looking for this answer for a almost a decade. I watched all 100 (plus) of American Film Institute's 100 years, 100 movies. I read about movies, I read Slate's movie club every winter. And then I go out and try and watch these critically acclaimed movies, and do you know what happens every single time, my wife, "These movies are awful, why do keep making us watch these awful movies!"
Now, in the meantime, this informal education I've pursued has taught me how to watch movies and appreciate them differently. I understand why critics seems dislike MCU or DC movies, and I myself even have grown very tired of them. So my last comment here is several times, I've asked critics like yourself on Twitter or email to help me understand this delta, and this is the closest and most any of you has engaged on the topic. So thank you.
BTW, I really do want your opinion on those tweets I sent you about Breakfast at Tiffany's. There is something there, I tell you...
I am neither ‘audience’ nor ‘critic.’ Having said that- this is one of your best columns to date.
I would also suggest that part of the difference in scores is driven by the combination of (1) sample selection bias and (2) confirmation bias. That is: people select to movies that coincide with their tastes ... (I can assure you that my wife is NOT going to John Wick IV when it comes out ... but I will) and once at a movie ... most people are loathe to admit that they just wasted $30 bucks ...