+1
The casual moviegoers could listen to the critics because its obvious that the critics have seen more films than the average moviegoer and have accumulated much knowledge to at least discern whether a movie is worth watching or not. Although one can make the case for the choice of movies casual moviegoers go for. Generally, they seek movies that entertain. The critic, on the other hand, having seen a lot of CGI infected blockbusters (while seeking more unconventional, thought-provoking films of today) would naturally dissuade casual moviegoers from the genuinely good entertaining movies. Thus leaving the casual moviegoer scratching his head over say, The Tree of Life.
For the cinephile, the professional critic might fail because s/he mostly watches recent films and this will distort the critic’s sense of what is good and bad in a way that isn’t helpful for a cinephile. I would guess that many cinephiles try to see as many good films as possible—current movies or movies from the past. At the same time, they try to avoid many bad films. The professional critic, by the nature of their job, has to see a lot of bad movies. So I’m suggesting that seeing all these bad movies might make some of the average or pretty good movies seem a lot better than they are. (I’m wondering if this partly explains the reason critics rave about films that many cinephiles don’t highly regard, eg. Citizen Kane, Gone With the Wind)
So film critics have a hard time satisfying both the casual and experienced moviegoer. My advice: Use your brain and your experience when judging your movies. The movie that you watch and enjoy is yours, not someone else', and definitely not the movie critics'.