Here's 23 Movies That Audiences Loved But Critics Hated, And Vice Versa

Audiences thought this film was a C+ popcorn flick, while critics hated it and graded it with an F.

The critic consensus was that: "'Warcraft' has visual thrills to spare, but they -- and director Duncan Jones' distinctive gifts -- are wasted on a sluggish and derivative adaptation of a bestselling game with little evident cinematic value."

Audiences basically told critics to "lighten up" with their reviews. Overall, none of the reviewers expected extraordinary acting and enjoyed the fun action this movie offered. I remember seeing the trailer and the heavy CGI dependence of the film being an automatic turnoff.

Maybe one of the more shocking grades was that critics loved this raunchy animation and the majority of audiences hated it.

The critic consensus was that: "'Sausage Party' is definitely offensive, but backs up its enthusiastic profanity with an impressively high laugh-to-gag ratio -- and a surprisingly thought-provoking storyline."

Audiences seemed to think it leaned too hard on "crude and vulgar" humor that was dragged out into a feature-length film. I remember the trailer being mildly funny, but felt no urge to actually see the film that I would assume would be a movie dependent on raunchy jokes you wouldn't see in children's animations. Seemed like it would get old fast.

This LGBTQ+ teen comedy really didn't stick with critics, who disliked it compared to the masses.

The critic consensus: "Too broad to make any real statements, 'But I'm a Cheerleader' isn't as sharp as it should be, but a charming cast and surprisingly emotional center may bring enough pep for viewers looking for a light social satire."

However, audiences thought it was a sweet love story that was worthy of cult status. I saw it a LONG time ago, and recall it having a lot of late-'90s vibes, and I remember it had a cute ending. I didn't finish it and go, "Man, I'd give that movie a 32%."

Critics bowed to the king of Skull Island, but audiences graded it an F.

The critic consensus: "Featuring state-of-the-art special effects, terrific performances, and a majestic sense of spectacle, Peter Jackson's remake of 'King Kong' is a potent epic that's faithful to the spirit of the 1933 original."

Audiences, however, weren't as impressed, thinking it relied too much on special effects.

My take: It's long. Like, really long. The 3-hour and 7-minute runtime feels like a 3-day runtime. Solid stuff in this, but could've been edited down overall.

Antz received an A from critics.

The critics consensus said: "Featuring a stellar voice cast, technically dazzling animation, and loads of good humor, 'Antz' should delight both children and adults."

Audiences brought their bug spray. Some seemed to think it didn't connect with kids, while others just didn't like it as much as A Bug's Life. I weirdly remember watching it a lot as a kid, so I'm assuming I must've liked it somewhat.

Another very distant grading scale between critics, who gave it an A, and audiences, who gave it an F.

The critic consensus: "As thought-provoking as it is visually compelling, The Witch delivers a deeply unsettling exercise in slow-building horror that suggests great things for debuting writer-director Robert Eggers."

The audience didn't feel the same way. Some thought it was too slow and not scary.

Everyone's entitled to an opinion, but y'all are just wrong about this one, LOL. I love this film, and it is one of my favorites.

There was a big difference in scores, and the critics brought a ring of garlic to see this family movie.

Critic consensus: "'Hotel Transylvania's' buoyant, giddy tone may please children, but it might be a little too loud and thinly-scripted for older audiences."

Adam Sandler movies definitely have a fanbase, and the audience thought it was a funny, cute flick.

Not my favorite animated film, but I think the critics were a little extra harsh on this one.

These grades are a galaxy away from each other. These B- and F- grades imply that critics and audiences had wildly different expectations for this anti-hero movie.

The critic consensus was that: "'Venom's' first standalone movie turns out to be like the comics character in all the wrong ways - chaotic, noisy, and in desperate need of a stronger attachment to Spider-Man."

Audiences seemed to have a blast and didn't take the film too seriously.

To me, this was a very forgettable movie, but I would've had this somewhere in the 50- to the 70-percentile range. Critics need to settle down.

Sci-fi and mystery are two very different genres, but Ad Astra tried.

The consensus from critics for Ad Astra was that it: "'...takes a visually thrilling journey through the vast reaches of space while charting an ambitious course for the heart of the bond between parent and child."

It seemed like audiences that love sci-fi really found it to be nonsensical and a lesser movie compared to other heart-pounding space blockbusters. I recall it having a weird trailer where there was a space buggy chase, but very forgettable otherwise. I couldn't tell you what the heck it was about.

A rare critical A-grade for an Adam Sandler movie, but audiences graded it an F.

The critic consensus was that Uncut Gems: "...reaffirms the Safdies as masters of anxiety-inducing cinema -- and proves Adam Sandler remains a formidable dramatic actor when given the right material."

A lot of audience members described the film as "boring" and "excessive" from start to finish. I remember watching the trailer and thinking it was interesting, but then I saw the 2-hour, 15-minute runtime and said, "maybe another time."

*Narrator voice* "There never was another time."

Critics shockingly gave this movie an A, while audiences gave it two aggressive thumbs down.

The critic consensus was that it was "a kinetic and fun movie that's sure to thrill children of all ages."

Although millennials might look back upon this movie with fond memories, the audience grade wasn't as family-friendly, and it seemed like it was a big miss.

I remember giant thumbs, a guy that reminded me of Pee-wee Herman, and something with a submarine. I can't critique a movie that I hardly remember.

A surprisingly high grade from critics (specifically for horror standards), but fans felt left in the dark (tee-hee).

The critic consensus said that the film: "...makes lethally effective use of its bare-bones trappings while proving once again that what's left unseen can be just as horrifying as anything on the screen." 

Audiences who didn't like this film seemed to find it boring and uneventful.

I thought it was fine, but will admit that I was a little disappointed about aspects of the movie versus how the trailer had presented the film.

Wow, 25% is an F- by a letter-grade standard.

The critic consensus was that: "An all-star comedy lineup is wasted on a paper-thin plot and painfully clunky dialogue."

A hard disagree from me. Like audiences, I found this film hilarious and didn't mind the more dramatic tones compared to other Murphy comedies. The style of the film really stands out versus some other comedies that feel like they were made to appease a laugh track.

The lowest score on this list from critics: 11%. Oof.

The critic consensus for Grown Ups: "...cast of comedy vets is amiable, but they're let down by flat direction and the scattershot, lowbrow humor of a stunted script."

I think all the actors have such a likability to them, but that didn't pass over to the characters or script. I like the word "low-brow" humor used by critics, because it describes it well.

The critic consensus was that: "'Joker' gives its infamous central character a chillingly plausible origin story that serves as a brilliant showcase for its star -- and a dark evolution for comics-inspired cinema."

Audiences ate it up, believing Joaquin Phoenix did the impossible by offering a Joker different from Heath Ledger's version that thrived.

I believe the film was well-made, the performance by Phoenix was astounding, but the story itself was very forgettable to me.

The critic consensus was that: "While believable characters are hard to come by in 'Transformers,' the effects are staggering and the action is exhilarating."

Well, they made several more of these films... The audiences expected a blockbuster, and that's what it delivered.

I was not a Transformers kid, so I have no hot take. If I recall correctly, I thought the special effects were pretty cool at the time.

The critic consensus was that: "With sweeping visuals grounded by strong performances in service of a timeless tale told on a human scale, Darren Aronofsky's 'Noah' brings the Bible epic into the 21st century."

Audiences wanted to abandon ship and found the movie to be an absurd epic. I remember seeing the trailer and thinking that it seemed like a weird, unnecessary story to tell. Biblical works had worked before, but just the overall feel of this one garnered zero interest from me.

The critic consensus was that: "A charismatic turn by star Matt Damon and a consistently ironic tone boost this quietly funny satire about a corporate whistle-blower."

Audiences didn't find it as humorous as critics.

There's no way to soften the blow: I can confidently say that I have watched over a thousand movies in my lifetime, and remember watching this in my teenage years. It stays with me, to this day, as the worst movie I have ever seen and couldn't finish.

Look at critics being all friendly with their B versus audiences with their F.

The critic consensus was that: "'The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out of Water' won't win over many viewers who aren't fans of the show, but for the converted, it's another colorful burst of manic fun."

I honestly think the negative audience score stems from hardcore SpongeBob fans thinking more movies were excessive. Like, I doubt little kids are logging on to Rotten Tomatoes like, "I'll give them a piece of my mind!"

I watched SpongeBob as a kid, so I'm sure I would've enjoyed this, but who knows!

Not the most widely known movie, but the difference between the two scores is startling.

Critics seemed to hate the story while audiences thought it was funny and family-friendly.

I gotta say, I'm interested in seeing it just because of the two wildly different scores. I literally am watching the trailer as I am writing this, and it seemed pretty harmless. It felt like a family movie you'd see in the 2000s.

The critic consensus was that: "Though the plot elements are certainly familiar, 'Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull' still delivers the thrills and Harrison Ford's return in the title role is more than welcome."

Audiences remember monkeys swinging in the forest and that weird refrigerator scene.

I rewatched this recently, and it is actually fine. I get that people hold Raiders as THE standard for the series, but this one had the same goofiness and over-the-top scenes as the original. It's the fourth best out of four movies, but I think fans were a little too harsh.

The critic consensus was that: "Sam Raimi returns to top form with 'Drag Me to Hell', a frightening, hilarious, delightfully campy thrill ride."

Audiences didn't realize they were getting Raimi horror. There were some good scares and plenty of ridiculousness. It didn't take itself seriously, so maybe that's what horror fans didn't want.

...but, again, Raimi films are meant to be outrageous.

The critic consensus was: "Having lost much of its bite transitioning to the big screen, 'Twilight' will please its devoted fans, but do little for the uninitiated."

Audiences, especially Twilight fans that enjoyed the novel, were blown away.

As a teenage boy, I thought it was one of the worst movies ever and had laughable acting. Now that I've grown up, it isn't nearly as bad as I remembered. Plus, I'm guessing I'm not the target audience.