I always need to take Rotten Tomatoes with a grain of salt. The scores, of course, are in the aggregate. I would rather just take a Roger Ebert review than a Rotten Tomatoes score.
The oddest thing though is wondering who the critics are who see a good movie and won't even say "Meh, check it out if it's your thing." and the critics who will give a passing grade to a shit movie and say, "Meh, if it's you're thing, you might like it."
News of the World had an 86% positive critic rating on Rotten Tomatoes. That means that 14% of critics not only didn't like it, but, they were incapable of recommending it to people to whom it might appeal. I'm sorry to harp about a movie that I came out of the theatre loving; but, if critics were actually doing their jobs, that movie would be 100%. I can imagine that movie not working for me personally, even though it clearly did; but, even if it didn't connect with you personally, any good critic should be able to see that it was a well made movie that's worth a gander.
One of my professors recommended that I become a critic. I might try to do that. But, the only negative reviews by Rotten Tomatoes standards that I'd give would be for movies that were not only bad to me; but, also movies that would probably fail to entertain the target audience.
For instance, I'm not a fan of romantic comedies. Annie Hall is one of my favourite movies, although that's more of a dramedy. It Happened One Night and Roman Holiday are both stellar. I can confidently say that Hitch and Failure to Launch are going to fall short for fans of the genre. Love Actually would get a positive review from me, not because I personally liked it; but, because it's good for what it was trying to do.