More on Movie Critics

A while back, I talked about how movie studios have started avoiding preview screenings for critics, thus presumably avoiding negative reviews before opening night. This sparked a comment from dave, wondering why movie critics and movie goers have such mis-aligned tastes. That is, why isn't there a market for a "regular Joe" critic who likes White Chicks and Underworld: Evolution, since the movie-going public seems to like these films?

Today, A.O. Scott, a critic for the NY Times, addresses this question in a column which highlights the difference between the critical response to "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest" and that of the public, which launched it to the highest-grossing opening ever. (Even beating Aquaman.) Scott complains:

I must face a frequently — and not always politely — asked question: What is wrong with you people? I will, for now, suppress the impulse to turn the question on the moviegoing public, which persists in paying good money to see bad movies that I see free.

He then asks (and answers):

So why review them? Why not let the market do its work, let the audience have its fun and occupy ourselves with the arcana — the art — we critics ostensibly prefer? The obvious answer is that art, or at least the kind of pleasure, wonder and surprise we associate with art, often pops out of commerce, and we want to be around to celebrate when it does and to complain when it doesn’t.

But the original question still stands: why isn't there a market for a "regular guy" (or girl) film critic? Of course, you can peruse message boards and blogs, but shouldn't the New York Post (or someone similar) carve a niche with a critic with tastes similar to those of the average American? Let the New York Times have their haughty-taughty (is that a word?) film critic, and give the regular, subway-riding New Yorkers a film critic they can relate to? What am I missing? Why doesn't this happen?