As a related aside, I have come to feel that Rotten Tomatoes is a bane on culture. On one hand, their ratings do provide something: they give a kind of status quo take on how good a film is and probably correlate pretty well with the Academy and your garden variety middle class Americans. But I dislike the whole idea of "cultural gatekeepers" who decide what is and is not quality, which often has a political aspect to it.
At the very least, I have found that there isn't a strong correlation between RT ratings and my enjoyment of a film. Or rather, the correlation is something like half the time, maybe a bit more, maybe a bit less. But sometimes they are just way off. For instance, one of my top 5 favorite films is rated at 22%, and this is a film that I find deeply meaningful.
A more well-known example of "RT dissonance" is their rating for Dark Phoenix. While it was far from a perfect film, it was hardly the disaster that their 23% rating implies. Certainly it was far better than X-Men: The Last Stand (57%). What I think happens is that word-of-mouth gets out, and people--even professional reviewers--are influenced by what they hear. All of a sudden is cool to bag on Dark Phoenix.
Basically I think it comes down to this: RT ratings represent the cultural status quo. If your tastes align closely with the status quo, then they'll work for you. If you diverge from the status quo, well, the more you diverge, the less the ratings will align with your tastes.