I find IMDB is better than Tomatoes in general. Critics can hate a movie for the stupidest of reasons, and they're paid to watch movies all the time. They've seen everything. A good movie won't have as good an impact on them anymore. They also quite often get bored and rate a movie lower than it deserves in order to be funny
I'd rather have a critic hate a movie for some weird reason than a thousand people hate a movie because they didn't get it. It's because a critic has seen everything that I can appreciate his point of view. And yeah, I may disagree with a specific review (I was unable to forgive Ebert for his trashing of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, but he's dead now, so it's really silly to hold that against the man), but that's where the aggregate score of Rotten Tomatoes is useful. Someone may have a stupid reason for liking or disliking a movie, but there are 70-200 other critics who affect the final score, and not all of them have the dumbest of reasons.
So yeah, there may be a critic who bases his review on how witty he can make it sound, but they get drowned out. That 98% movie might have been unanimous except for that one guy who wants to stand out, but I'm not listening to just his review. I do actually read it, though. I always read the dissenting reviews of a product that gets great reviews. Maybe the dissenting review is being unreasonable, but maybe it's a matter of the emperor's new clothes. Reading those reviews gives me an idea of which.
I have noticed a higher amount on sequels that I wouldn't expect. Mission Impossible is sitting at 93% right now. I was bored of the original and never watched the sequels. I don't see myself watching this, and I'm intrigued by the fact that 186 reviewers marked it high. But I can't judge that movie since I've not watched it. On the other hand, Furious 7 has 81%, and I cannot figure out what these critics were watching. The only thing I can think of is that many people don't want to shit over the final movie of that actor who died. Here, IMDB failed us as well, giving a score of 75%.
But looking at IMDB stats, I am reminded of another aggregate review site: Metacritic. I generally don't use Metacritic, but it is something I've looked at before. It has much harsher criteria. For example, it rated Furious 7 at 67, which is still way too high, but it presents a more realistic approach. I think the reason why Metacritic seems to be lower than RT is that RT uses a binary system of thumbs up/thumbs down, while Metacritic uses a more robust scoring system that allows for gradation. Because of that, I lower the bar when looking at Metacritic. While I start to question a movie's value when it rates at lower than 70% on RT, I do not question it on Metacritic.
Just for fun, I pulled some scores of movies I've seen.
Memento
MC: 80. IMDB: 85. RT: 92
Guardians of the Galaxy
MC: 76. IMDB: 81. RT: 91
Fury Road
MC: 89. IMDB: 84. RT: 98
Interestingly enough, this is a rare moment where the Metacritic score is actually higher than IMDB.
At least all three of the scores of these movies are fairly close. It's hard to say if IMDB scores are unfairly bumped by trolls or fanboys.
Heh, let's look up Hudson Hawk. RT has 24%. IMDB has 57. Metacritic has 17. As much as I love the movie, it's not great, and IMDB's score is obviously based on nostalgia or love of cult classics and not on quality. I have to agree with RT and Metacritic here. Of course, I'd still watch the hell out of the movie. I even have it on DVD. I have no regrets in watching it in the theatre, but yeah, it's bad. And that's okay.