Criticism

If you get into any media field you will be dealing with these people.
They are strangers so they don't know you and for the most part, can base their views on the content and your craft.
Otherwise, they're dumb as shit.
Most critics are failed artist. Or cowardly artist. I've only respected one critic in the history of film criticism and that was Roger Ebert. He's like some really dumb things ("Speed 2"?!) but he always explains why he liked it. Most critics cannot. They just hate your film.
But that is the job of a critic. To get dumber people than you to either go see it or don't.
A lot of films are critic proof. Those superhero movies come to mind. They don't need Joe Morgenstern from the New York Times to wax about it. Nor Rex Reed to shit on it. Nor even Martin Scorsese to tell you there are too many of them. People will just go for the diversion. And, though I appreciate the fact that it is what is keeping the cinema-plexes alive, they are truly killing varying stories that can reach group audiences. Nothing like "Kramer vs. Kramer" will ever end up on the big screen again.

The other thing about critics, if they happen to be filmmakers themselves. If you happen to see their work and it's not your cup of tea, it is perfectly sane to discount that person.
I'm on a photo site where a guy has critique an image of mine. A small dig into his photo gallery told me everything I needed to know about his style which didn't coincide with my own. Is he wrong? Absolutely not. I just don't happen to think he was the person to comment on my image and give it the critique he thinks it needed regardless of the "technical" truth it required. I didn't engage, as he suffers the same fate most hobbyist do, poor subjects (his wife and kids). So check the source.
In terms of acting out there. That is the single most subjective anger inducing critique that comes to mind. While it's true you can drag out a perfectly fine performance out of bad dialogue or story, it is impossible to convince a bad actor they are bad (I've acted before, I thought I was adequate...I'm horrible). As a friend pointed out, we're at a saturation point now where everyone believes they can act and they do terrible projects that get attention for being bad. So others emulate it. Which becomes...how bad can bad get? Incidentally, you don't set out to make a bad movie, the Gods gather together and see how bad the acting/story is...John Waters proves this theory. Or whatever.
Hilariously enough, what if you attempted to make a John Waters movie and it becomes an Oscar level story/performance. Aim for the opposite, I say.

Any way, now you have a whole slew of "bad for bad's sake" films out there. My suggestion, just stick with what you want to make regardless of what critics think. And don't get too academic about it. Studies and science and fucking Ansel Adams destroyed the frontier. You are suppose to get to the edge. Be bold and forget the stupid "zone system" or the Method acting. Or the "rules of _____" not if it's on your dime. And that is what is lacking in cinema. Bravery. They can't afford it (though they make plenty of movies about it). Being bold means taking bigger chances. "Ghostbusters" with women sucked MASSIVE balls, but give them and director Paul Feig credit for trying. The new "Charlie's Angels" that will be more self-serious will also suck beyond balls. Guess what...directed by Elizabeth Banks...that's bold! There is a caveat it to these two though...they relied on a previous reputation to propel it. Not THAT brave, but brave to try.

In other words, steel yourself from the "critics" They're mostly dumb and haven't done anything.