Well Larry, that is an interesting list. It just confirms something that I, and other exhibitors that I know, have known for many years. That most film critics are totally out of touch with the average movie goer.
Now please, don't take that as an attack or as a negative about your position, as I agree that there are some fantastic films on that list. It's just that unless they were played in a well established arthouse, they wouldn't do a nickels worth of business, and the audience in a regular commercial theatre would find them boring and a waste of time, and their money.
I as you, am also a booker. I only book one arthouse which did extremely well with most of those films. However, if I had booked them in any of the others it would be safe to say on many showings no one would have shown up.
I think it's safe to assume that most critics are people that love movies, or at least movies as an art form, but their tastes are certainly different then that of the average moviegoer. Therefore, the question becomes. Who should be a film critic?
Another theatre owner and I often discuss this topic. It seems that his local critic hates all commercial films. But if it's an art or foreign film we know even before the review comes out that it will be a good one, and sure enough it is. My local critic isn't quite as bad, but still leans toward all the highbrow product.
Aren't movies an entertaiment for the masses? Shouldn't film critics be someone that reviews movies with them in mind, not just their personal tastes? Or, better yet, maybe critics should be people that come from within the ranks of the average moviegoer.
Forums 
