Rotten Tomatoes is owned by a Time Warner and Comcast, they're ratings now end up wildly biased. That's why there are so many decent movies that end up being '93%' etc.
"since January 2010 has been owned by Flixster, which was, in turn, acquired in 2011 by Warner Bros. In February 2016, Rotten Tomatoes and its parent site Flixster were sold to Comcast's Fandango. Warner Bros. retained a minority stake in the merged entities"
Rotten Tomatoes now uses 'Top Critics' to compile their overall score instead of 'All Critics'. This distinction didn't originally exist.
As the Wikipedians say, [citation needed]. Yes, Rotten Tomatoes is owned by Fandango, but they appear to be using essentially the same methodology that they always have: look at a bunch of reviews of a given movie, decide that review is "fresh" or "rotten" (which is done objectively based on the reviewers' own star/numerical ratings as much as possible, from what I can see), and tell you how many reviews they've aggregated were "fresh." What bias are you asserting? Are you saying they give Warner Brothers and Universal movies better ratings than competitors? Can you cite plausible examples? Through what devious mechanism are they subverting their aggregation system?
MetaCritic is owned by CBS
Looks like this controversial for some reason.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotten_Tomatoes
"since January 2010 has been owned by Flixster, which was, in turn, acquired in 2011 by Warner Bros. In February 2016, Rotten Tomatoes and its parent site Flixster were sold to Comcast's Fandango. Warner Bros. retained a minority stake in the merged entities"
Rotten Tomatoes now uses 'Top Critics' to compile their overall score instead of 'All Critics'. This distinction didn't originally exist.