Why is it that Critics rarely give popular movies good reviews?

I have never based my movie going experience on what some pompous, self righteous movie critic says about a particular film, typically I base my movie choices on word-of-mouth, in fact I usually poll a few people before I shell out $20 for a DVD.

There have been times that I picked up a movie without feedback, knowing that a particular movie has received poor reviews, perhaps just to spite critics. And in some of those instances I wish I had listened.

The disparage between reviews and box office performance is so inconsistent at times that there is no way to ever trust a moron critic. You would think that if you are one of these clowns employed to tell the masses what to watch you would learn to conform to popular taste.

Here is what I have come to understand about movie critics: Movie critics usually have some sort of writing or arts degree. Here lies the problem, many critics view movies as either literary or visual art and they try to dissect them as such. Many critics also have social and political agendas that influence how a movies gets reviewed, this is also the case with many Oscar nominated films, but I will save that for a later post.

Movies can be art, they can also be a mindless roller coaster ride that might be all visual but no substance. Just a few examples of fun movies that critics hated: Almost all superhero movies, Transformers I and II, and Apocalypto, which I thought was extraordinary on multiple fronts.
This being said I think a critic needs to have an open mind about what they are reviewing, judge a movie based on multiple criteria, not just pretense and pompousness.

In the case of the movies which were used as example above, the critics should have viewed these movies as amusement park rides and rated them as such, when you go on a roller coaster the point is to get a thrill and to get the adrenaline pumping, not to have some sort of intellectual experience. Analogically speaking a merry-go-round would be the "intellectual" experience that moron critics seem to prefer. And in the tradition of the amusement park analogy, the roller coaster always has a MUCH longer line than the merry-go-round.

Lets summarize your typical Critic: He/She is a pompous asshole who thinks they are smarter than you. He/She feels that if the movie being reviewed doesn't represent their own social/political views then you shouldn't see it. He/She has no soul, therefore when they see an action packed movie it has no effect on them. He/She gets paid way too much.

Who keeps these people employed? Don't the employers of these buffoons realize that they aren't representing the opinion of the masses? If a movie like "Milk", or "Slumdog Millionaire" gets rave reviews and honors yet eats shit at the box office, shouldn't that tell the "mainstream" movie "experts" that their taste in movies is narrow-minded and represents a very small segment of movie-goers.