I think it's pretty pointless to have a discussion about this unless you first have a discussion about what Film critics are doing. What they're doing, most oft

I think it's pretty pointless to have a discussion about this unless you first have a discussion about what Film critics are doing. What they're doing, most often, is not giving a rating out of 10. They're generally looking at a film and evaluating a huge number of things - do the individual parts of the film work, the cinematography, the script, the pacing, the acting, the set design etc. There are lots of mechanical things they're judging. They're also judging the film in the context of other films. What is the message of this film - what is it adding to the genre, what is it trying to say and does it succeed in getting across that message. Does it even have a message? What does it do compared to other films in the genre? The Metascore takes all those different features and goes BANG "1-10". What are IMDB scores noting? Did I like this Movie rating 1-10. Note how those two things are fundamentally different (and one of them is a highly questionable metric anyway). I think the relevant question here is what is the expected correlation between those two metrics. I'd guess it should be positive - well made movies should generally be more enjoyable than badly made movies. But is it 1? Hell no, you can make a great movie that only a niche audience will enjoy. So when we say "The correlation of these two metrics have moved from 0.75 to 0.65" I'm not sure what that even means.