IMDB is esteemed because it's invaluable as a resource for crew members and actors. There is more information there about the production specifics of films than you'll find anywhere else. You can find out what cameras they used, who operated them, what else those camera operators have worked on, and how to contact them. It's indispensable.
As for review scores, you'll find that the industry as a business arm doesn't really care about them so much; they care far more about box office receipt and marketability. Franchise power, brand parity, etc. A lot of people in the industry are renowned for their ability to bolster films that get mediocre reviews - Harvey Weinstein, for example, is known for getting films like The Imitation Game nominated for awards despite moderate critical reception. It's not like the gaming industry where review scores are held in such high esteem (and I'd wager that's because a movie ticket is a much smaller investment so people are less picky about what they see and don't research movies too heavily before hand).
Individuals might care about review scores, but when you get to that level then there isn't much of a consensus on "best review aggregate" site - everybody's got their favorite and that's that.
Also, it's sort of silly to slag critics for expressing their opinions. There's no objective quality of a film, only subjective valuations based on personal emotional reactions, and that's what critics seek to convey: their reaction and why they had it. Sure, there are some critics out there with some toxic attitudes, but criticism as a popular industry is about finding critics whose sensibilities match yours, using their judgments to determine what you want to see, and making your own opinion independently. The divide is because film critics, by nature of seeing hundreds of films a year, have seen more films and have a far broader cinematic repertoire to draw from in their criticism. Normal moviegoers don't see anywhere near even fifty movies a year; naturally their opinions are going to differ strongly on average. It's just baffling me to expect critics to do anything but express their opinion, which is going to be drastically different because of the inherent gap in film literacy between critics and average consumers. On top of that there's the fact that film criticism is actually an academic field and not just a recommendation, but that's a larger argument about the value of criticism that isn't worth getting into.