Aggregate critic and audience scores can be useful, but feel too weighted towards our modern desire for quick and easy answers to questions, such as is this a good movie?
As the late great Roger Ebert said, a good movie review should explain the movie in a way that the reader will know whether or not they want to see it. The actual ranking is not the be all and end all. A critic could rate a movie one star because it's just mindless action, but they should describe it in a way where the reader can say, great, I love mindless action so I want to see this movie.
People don't necessarily want to put in the effort to find a reviewer that speaks to them or even read detailed reviews that describe a movie. Instead, it's just taking ten seconds to look up the average scores and incorrectly thinking that tells one much.
Critics tend to want more substance from movies, whereas audiences are often looking for a fun popcorn flick. There's a reason Marvel movies don't win Academy Awards but are generally crowd pleasing. Hence the disparity between rankings. Neither side is "correct" or "incorrect", but it's good to understand what the two groups tend to prefer as part of making an informed decision.
If you like the more "artsy" movies that critics often prefer, their scores are more useful. If you just want a fun movie, audience scores may be.
