I’m a movie critic. There it is. I’m one of those people who may have contributed, positively or negatively, to the score of a film you love or can’t stand. I’m also recognised as a Rotten Tomatoes-approved critic, which means my opinion is out there in the mix, for better or worse, depending on how you feel about the film in question.

What has always fascinated me, though, is how often criticism itself becomes the target, usually from people doing exactly the same thing: offering an opinion.

“Screw critics” has become a familiar reaction, especially when there’s a gap between critic scores and audience scores. One side is high, the other low, and suddenly it becomes a standoff between critics and “the people,” as though these are two entirely different species. But that sentiment usually comes with a quiet asterisk. Because it is rarely just “screw critics.” It is more often: screw critics, unless they agree with me.

If a review lines up with what someone already thinks, it gets shared, quoted, used as validation, and sometimes even folded neatly into marketing. But when it does not, critics suddenly become out of touch, biased, or part of some broader problem. Same process, different mood.

From Chats with Mates to Published Reviews

I did not start out as a critic in any grand or lofty sense. I started out the way most people do: watching films, reacting to them, and talking about them with friends. “That was great.” “That didn’t work for me.” “What was that ending?” That is where it begins for just about everyone.

Over time, those conversations turned into something more structured. A small blog, some social posts, and eventually Screen Realm. The platform grew, the reach expanded, and the label “critic” followed along somewhere in the process. But the core of it never really changed. Watch something, think about it, and share a perspective. That is still the job. The rest is just a slightly more organised version of being the person who has too much to say after the credits roll.

Critics Then vs Now

To be fair, critics did occupy a different space once. Before social media flattened everything out, film criticism was largely shaped by a smaller group of voices in newspapers, magazines, and television segments. If you wanted a widely visible take on a new release, that was where you went.

In that context, the line between critic and audience was much clearer. Critics had reach, and audiences generally did not, at least not at scale. So yes, there is a fair argument that critics once held more concentrated influence than they do now. But that line has not just blurred since then. It has almost dissolved.

Now Everyone Has a Platform

These days, a review does not need a publication behind it to travel. A TikTok reaction can reach millions. A post can take off overnight. A YouTube breakdown can help shape how people view a film before they have even seen it.

At that point, what meaningfully separates that person from a critic? Not much. They are engaging with art, forming a view, and sharing it with an audience. That is the same basic process, just through different channels and with different levels of polish or reach.

How Did We Get So Divided?

At the same time, this frustration with critics did not appear out of nowhere. There have been moments, rare but real, where trust in criticism has taken a hit. Perceived bias, access journalism, overly soft reviews tied too closely to industry relationships, or in some cases benefits that may influence coverage. Even when those cases are in the minority, they leave an impression, and impressions tend to stick.

So when someone approaches critics with scepticism, there is often some broader context behind that reaction. That does not mean every review is compromised or that every published opinion comes with an agenda attached to it. But it does help explain how the conversation became so charged.

And then there are the more extreme examples, the kind that pour fuel on the whole argument. At the time of writing, the Rotten Tomatoes page for Melania shows a 10% Tomatometer from 58 critic reviews and a 98% Popcornmeter from more than 1,000 verified audience ratings. That is such a dramatic split that it almost dares people to pick a side and assume the other side must be acting in bad faith.

If someone already leans in favour of the film, it becomes easy to say, “Well, clearly, screw critics.” If someone cannot stand the idea of the film, it becomes just as easy to say the audience score must be manipulated, inflated, or politically driven. This is not about taking a side. It is about recognising how quickly both critics and audiences can be treated as suspect the moment a divide becomes extreme.

There’s also this factor: audiences are no less susceptible than critics to organised enthusiasm, dogpiling, political tribalism, score-bombing, hype, backlash, or strategic boosting. People often talk as though the audience score is the pure voice of the people and the critic score is the compromised one, but reality is often messier than that. We’re all capable of being influenced.

And this does not just play out in comment sections or review sites. You can see it in long-form discussions as well. Some of the biggest podcast voices in the world will openly dismiss critics as out of touch or irrelevant, only to then spend ten minutes breaking down a film themselves, explaining what worked, what did not, and why. It is essentially the same act, just framed differently. The irony is easy to miss, but it is there.

The Problem with “Critics” as One Voice

Another issue is how quickly nuance disappears. A single review gets treated as the voice of an entire outlet. One opinion becomes “what that site thinks,” and suddenly a wide range of perspectives is flattened into one assumed stance.

You have probably seen it. “Of course they liked it.” “That site always loves these films.” “Let me guess, they gave it a bad review.” But when you actually look closer, those broad declarations rarely hold up. Different writers respond to different things. Opinions vary. Sometimes they even clash within the same outlet. That is not inconsistency. That is the whole point of having multiple voices in the room.

Taste, Merit, and Taking It Personally

Film is personal. When something connects, it really connects. So when someone doesn’t feel the same way, it can feel like your experience is dismissed. But that’s where taste and merit diverge. Taste is that instinctive “I loved it” or “that didn’t work for me.” Merit looks at craft, intention, and execution. Both matter, both overlap, and both are subjective. Disagreement isn’t a flaw. It’s simply part of engaging with art.

So… Who Gets to Be a Critic?

If watching something, forming a view, and sharing it is the criteria, then the definition stretches pretty far. It applies to the reviewer writing for a publication, the creator posting a viral reaction, and the person walking out of a cinema saying, “I did not buy that ending.”

It is all the same basic act. Just different platforms, different audiences, and different levels of reach.

A Better Way to Look at It

I have been doing this for years and have been fortunate to find a place in the film conversation online. It has given me a chance to turn my enjoyment of movies into something I can share, and that is something I am grateful for.

Think of it this way: we are all in the same room, watching the same film, and taking something different from it. That is the fun of it. If we all felt the same way, there would be nothing to talk about. The discussions, the disagreements, and the different perspectives are what keep it interesting.

Because whether it is written, posted, or simply said out loud afterwards, everyone is a critic. And that is kind of the point.