Poor response to good cinema

Last couple of weeks witnessed the release of good films like Mumbai Meri Jaan, A Wednesday, Rock On, Tahaan and The Last Lear. Of these, only Rock On got a good response from the viewers. Even as MMJ and A Wednesday got 'some' response Tahaan was virtually rejected at the box office while the collection of The Last Lear is predicted as 'Thanda'. And all this in spite of a fabulous support and endorsement by the critics in both print and the electronic media. It throws two questions - A. Does the media critics opinion matter to the viewers and B. How effective is the word-of-mouth publicity factor. I am no expert in understanding the 'trade' but as a film writer (read Tahaan), whose primary task is to tell a story and entertain the audience, feel confused at the viewer's behavorial pattern. Do they actually like a good story or they like it only when it's backed by a star. Otherwise, how come good films like Chak De India and Taare Zameen Par became such a hit against the might of hardcore commercial flicks like Patner and Welcome respectively. Both CDI and TZP had Shahrukh and Aamir Khan. So the audience rallied behind the stars and finding them to be good (films) more and more people got drawn in. Same thing happened to Jodha Akbar. If this analysis of mine is right then what made Rock On click. It has no stars. It has rather has poor singers but it certainly succeeded in stricking a cord with the viewers. Without taking any credit away from Rock On, I am at pains to figure how was the film was 'better' than Mumbai Meri Jaan, A Wednesday or Tahaan. Viewers must have found higher entertainment value in Rock On compared to the other films and thats precisely what I am trying to understand - what's quote/unquote entertainment for the audience? Does it only mean two hours of escape to a world of fantasy? I welcome my other blogger friends to help the film fraternity understand viewers better.