Whether a film is good enough to warrant(值得，使……有正当理由) a trek to the cinema(跑一趟电影院) is not always easy to ascertain(查明，确定). Recently viewers have praised “Digger”, a satirical(讽刺的) black comedy about a wealthy oil tycoon(大亨，巨头) whose company triggers an environmental catastrophe. It has a 76% audience-approval score on Rotten Tomatoes(烂番茄影评聚合网站), a review aggregator. But critics did not dig the film(不喜欢这部电影): only 53% reviewed it positively, complaining it was ponderous(沉闷的，冗长的) and preachy(说教的). Fans calling themselves “Digger Nation” have mobilised online to defend the movie.
一部电影是否好看到值得跑一趟电影院，并不总是那么容易判断。最近，观众对《掘金者》赞不绝口。这是一部讽刺黑色喜剧，讲述一位富有的石油大亨，他的公司引发了一场环境灾难。在影评聚合网站“烂番茄”上，该片的观众好评率为76%。但影评人并不喜欢这部电影：只有53%的人给出正面评价，他们抱怨影片沉闷说教。自称“掘金者国度”的粉丝们在网上动员起来，为这部电影辩护。
Signals about films’ quality can be confusing to decipher(解读，破译). In April fans judged a biopic(传记片) of Michael Jackson to be a thriller, with 97% of them enjoying it. But most critics thought “Michael” was bad. In January “Melania”, a documentary about America’s First Lady, reflected the politically polarised(两极分化的) times, with a 90-point gap. “An absolute masterpiece!” gushed(滔滔不绝地夸赞) one audience member. “Gilded trash(镀金的垃圾)”, said the Guardian.
关于电影质量的信号可能令人困惑，难以解读。今年4月，粉丝们认为一部迈克尔·杰克逊传记片是惊悚佳作，97%的人表示喜欢。但大多数影评人认为《迈克尔》很糟糕。今年1月，关于美国第一夫人的纪录片《梅拉尼娅》反映了政治两极分化的时代，评分差距高达90分。一位观众赞叹道：“绝对的杰作！”《卫报》则说：“镀金的垃圾。”
Critics and audiences have often failed to see eye to eye(意见一致). The history of film criticism is littered(充斥，满是) with judgments that aged badly(随时间推移显得过时/错误). (Pity the reviewer who dismissed(贬为，不予考虑) “Citizen Kane(《公民凯恩》)”, now considered one of the greatest films ever made, as “well-intentioned, muddled(混乱的，糊涂的), amateurish(业余的，拙劣的)”.) Today many think that critics seem out of step(脱节，步调不一致)—perhaps more than ever before.
影评人和观众常常意见相左。电影批评史上充斥着后来被证明大错特错的评判。（那位将《公民凯恩》——如今被视为史上最伟大的电影之一——贬为“用心良苦、混乱不堪、业余拙劣”的影评人，真该被同情。）如今许多人认为影评人似乎与大众脱节——也许比以往任何时候都更严重。
