Why do audiences disagree with critics on King Arthur?

Why do audiences disagree with critics on King Arthur?

At the end of the day, audiences just want to be entertained and critics want to analyze
King Arthur had a lot of flaws in things like pacing, but it was still a fun movie to watch.

critics hate funkino

Because generally the wide mainstream audience has the average level of intelligence. Not smart, but not entirely retarded. They have busy lives and shit to do, they go to the movies to relax and have fun, sometimes get the noggin joggin'.

Critics on the other hand are certifiably braindead - even dumber than mainstream movie goers. If critics had any bit of intelligence or skill they wouldn't be critics. They are the lowest of the low. Because they realize they have nothing insightful, interesting or compelling to say about the films they watch they have to both make shit up and nitpick to the extreme for job security.

because all that matters is that you as an audience enjoy the show.

Critics were not ready for a FUN but RAUNCHY summer blockbuster

Because audiences are pleb as fuck and like shit like Transformers or Star Wars.
This movie is a total and complete shit

more importantly what the fuck is ritchie doing with his life?

arthur? alladin? sherlock holmes? negro please where's real rocknrolla?

because it's a solid fun movie despite the QTE action

I honestly thought the movie was going to be some Ridley Scott Robin Hood snooze fest tier judging by that poster, but I was really surprised how cheesy/magic based it really was.

Not bad at all desu, Pretty entertaining.