It's like how HN and /r/programming users brag by hating on things that are popular and loving the esoteric such that they peacock to the other neckbeards about how refined their tastes are. Ugh, DAE hate Javascript?
I prefer IMDB user ratings and Metacritic's user ratings, basically the opinions of the unwashed masses who can at least tell you if a movie is actually enjoyable.
Critics may be bad signals when conditioned on the things that you individually prefer. this is hardly an objective measure.
Your preference for user ratings could also be biased towards the kind of things that you enjoy about movies, which may align more with non-critics, while at the same time my preference for (aggregrated) critic ratings could be biased towards the things i enjoy about movies, which might align more with critics; those two sets of things might not exactly be the same. (i.e. there could be tribes that rate enjoyableness differently)
Lastly, there is this [1], which is tangential to your claim but worth considering what a good distribution of ratings should look like. Now even though the analysis isn't perfect, it's still interesting that _if_ the assumptions of the analysis were true, metacritic has the most well-behaved distribution.
A good example (I think, at least when ignoring drama) is Total Biscuit. He makes it clear when playing a genre of game he doesn't care for or if a game is in a setting he loves. He lays it out and tries to be fair and objective (even if that pursuit is a fool's errand).
P.S. I'd also like to say that the pursuit of an unachievable goal (objectivity, perfection, etc...) is a noble pursuit even if unobtainable, as it will cause a drive to be better and improve. Rather than an excuse to be lazy since, "perfect/objective/... is impossible.
Whereas (as far as I know) RT has a simple average for critic reviews and general internet user reviews.