Rotten Tomatoes: How Critics and Audiences See Movies Differently—and Why It Matters

When you check the Rotten Tomatoes score for a movie, you’ve probably noticed something interesting: there’s often a noticeable gap between the critics’ ratings and the audience scores. When you check the Rotten Tomatoes score for a movie, you’ve probably noticed something interesting: there’s often a noticeable gap between the critics’ ratings and the audience scores. For example, you might see critics give a movie a 50% rating, while the audience rates it 70%, or vice versa, with critics scoring 70% and audiences giving it a 90%. A good recent example is the new Lilo & Stitch movie, which scored 71% on the Tomatometer, but a much higher 93% on the Popcornmeter.

This difference between the critics' review (Tomatometer) and audience response (Popcornmeter) has been a common trend for as long as I can remember, and I believe the reason behind these differing scores boils down to one key factor: experience. Critics are, by nature, professional reviewers—they see countless films and tend to focus on technical merit, plot structure, and overall filmmaking quality. On the other hand, the general audience, who may not watch movies as frequently, tends to rate a film based more on their overall experience—how much they enjoyed it, how it made them and those with them feel, and simply the fun they had in the theater. This creates a dynamic where the audience might be more forgiving of the movie’s flaws, while critics tend to give a more analytical review.

Let’s dive into an example where this divide between critics and audiences really shows up.

More Often Than Not, I Tend to Favor the Critics' Perspective

Take Man of Steel, for example. This was a Superman movie designed to be a reboot before the new one came out. As a big superhero movie fan, I was excited to see it, but I absolutely hated it. The film became one of the most polarizing superhero movies. On Rotten Tomatoes, critics gave it a 55% rating, while the audience was much more forgiving, giving it a 76%. So, why the big gap?

Critics were quick to point out the unrealistic depictions of destruction, the lackluster storytelling, and the grim tone of the movie. But the audience? They were there for the action, the intensity, and the superhero fantasy. They didn’t mind the flaws as much because they were swept up in the spectacle.

But what really stood out to me was this one incredibly weird scene—the iconic moment when Superman and Zod are throwing each other through buildings, and just a few blocks away, people are still sitting at an IHOP like nothing’s happening. The world is ending, the city is crumbling, and people are calmly asking, “Where are my pancakes?”

Let’s Talk About This IHOP Scene

Now, take a moment to think about this. If the end of the world was literally unfolding right in front of you—alien invasions, buildings collapsing, chaos everywhere—do you really think anyone would still be sitting down at IHOP, calmly asking for a side of hashbrowns?

Worse yet, to the people eating pancakes are the waitresses still serving them, and the cooks are still making the pancakes as if it's just another ordinary Tuesday. If I were in that IHOP, I’d be demanding my pancakes to go—because if the world is coming to an end, I want to at least eat my pancakes somewhere safe, right? But nope, in Man of Steel, the IHOP crowd is just chowing down, oblivious to the fact that the fate of the planet is hanging in the balance.

There’s a concept in film called "suspension of disbelief", which means that in order to enjoy a movie, you have to accept its world—even if that world defies logic or reality. But it’s hard to suspend disbelief when I see people eating pancakes while the world is literally falling apart. It’s a tough ask to believe in a world where pancakes take priority over alien invaders.

So, What’s the Lesson Here?

This serves as a reminder that audience scores often reflect the emotional experience of the movie. For many viewers, the excitement of watching Superman fly and save the world outweighs the silly moments like people eating pancakes during destruction. They’re thinking more about the fun of the movie and less about realism or plot consistency.

On the flip side, critics tend to focus on the coherence of the story, how well the film works within the genre, and whether it holds up to the standards of good filmmaking. Critics were likely distracted by the unrealistic moments, like people calmly eating while the world falls apart.

Not All Critics Are Right

Now, does this mean critics are always right? Absolutely not. I can give a personal example: I absolutely hated Gosford Park. Critics loved it, but my friends and I spent most of the movie bored to tears, laughing about how much of a slog it was to get through. We’ll even joke about how slow and dreary the experience was—and yet, critics raved about its depth and character development.

It’s not that the film didn’t have depth, but it didn’t feel like a good viewing experience for us. Sometimes, critics focus so much on depth and symbolism that they miss the fact that a movie can be deep without being a drag. So, just because critics give something a high score doesn’t always mean it’s enjoyable for everyone.

Movies Are an Escape

At the end of the day, movies are meant to be an escape. Whether it’s Superman punching aliens or Gosford Park giving us a peek into the world of British aristocracy, we turn to movies to escape reality. We’re often willing to overlook the flaws and inconsistencies because we’re there for the experience—the emotions it stirs up, the excitement, and the moments that stay with us. Whether it’s a superhero battle or an intellectual drama, it’s about how the movie makes you feel.

And that’s why, no matter the critics' opinions, it's all about how we experience the film. Just like in life, we don't always see the hidden design in the events that shape us, but sometimes we walk away from a movie with a new perspective—realizing that even the seemingly random moments can have a bigger purpose.