Your Golem example goes to what I posted earlier about a general misunderstanding of how the Rotten Tomatoes score works. The fact that the film has a 100% doesn't mean it's "the greatest" or that it's any better than any other film with a 90%, 70%, or even 50% score. It just means that the 32 Top Critics that reviewed it had a favorable reaction to it. But that information is more or less worthless unless you look at the reviews that are linked below. If you read the reviews and decide this is a journey you'd be down for, you might end up with a favorable reaction as well.
Bottom line is that we need to look past the RT score and even the individual ratings, and read what a critic has to say about a film. That's what we can use to decide whether the film is "for us". Scores and ratings are just numbers, useful to quantify and rank and compare, but not much more.
Given the multitude of ways that anybody can find the Best or Greatest in anything, even the Best pot pie or the best generic cheerios, often people who count stuff go to an operational definition and pick something like that....how many professional critics say "great"? Simply, 27 is better than 2 and they are professionals, so there.
My view says that great movies is such an inherently subjective term as to make ratings very dubious. I, for one, gave Citizen Kane a weak 7 (on a 0 - 10 scale). Forest Gump was nauseating and 12 Angry Men was a waste of my time. But....I, after all, am not a professional critic, just the guy who pays for tickets.
Given that Rotten Tomatoes is a subjective rating with no benchmarks, done by people who choose to rate, it is inherently biased as a measurement instrument. Nevertheless, it's probably more useful that most critics, who also bring their biases and, after all, are just one voice. I'd rather hear from a large number of un-vetted self-appointed critics, telling me that they enjoyed the movie.
Reply to Topic
(I remember it well)
Check out my podcast: 
See:
