Too bad Rotten Tomatoes scores actually suck at judging a film, which really shouldn't come as a surprise when you consider that their "fresh" or "rotten" system forces every nuanced review into either a "good" or "bad" category with nothing in between. In other words, while the site creates the illusion of a sliding scale, it's based on a two-option limit that crams three-star movies into the same slot as zero-star movies. So unless a film is either universally hated or praised, the numbers we've become so reliant on are complete horse dick when representing anything in the middle.
Thank goodness we have the 10-star rating system of IMDb -- a site that features the ever-fluctuating top-rated 250 films of all time, based on the totally reliable process of only counting the ratings of regular site voters (who are all basically men between the ages of 18 and 29). Yep, IMDb kind of blows too! And yet, neither are as bad as that chump-fest Fandango, which has somehow never rated a film below three stars.
Hmm. It's almost as if the review site that also sells movie tickets doesn't want people to not see the movies. So yeah. Movie reviews are bullshit. Critics are bullshit. And essentially that means I'm bullshit, since I'm often feeding into that system.
Oh well. I guess if we want to know if a film is actually good, it's up to the fans to-