The author might be mistaken. I think there&#x27;s a pretty chance this is simply a demographical difference between the sites&#x27; visitors, and I&#x27;m pretty disappointed this wasn&#x27;t brought up early on.<p>Rotten Tomatoes is a hipstometer (if you don&#x27;t believe me, look at the artsy film festival movies that rank highest there, or read some of the pedantic reviews). Fandango is what a lot of the RT fans would call a &quot;low brow&quot; venue. More Hollywood-ish (huge budget, unrealistic, etc.) movies (transformers, 2012, The Fast &amp; The Furious, etc.) rank well on fandango, but not on Rotten Tomatoes. The really great movies rank well on both (e.g., Captain Philips, Life of Pi, etc.).<p>It&#x27;s always been this way. I use a specific formula of Fandango, iTunes and Rotten Tomatoes scores to decide on a movie. If Fandango ranks it 4-5 stars and Rotten Tomatoes ranks it 50-70%, it&#x27;s usually really good. If the rank is lower on Fandango and higher on Rotten Tomatoes, it&#x27;s usually a bit too artsy and pretentious for me (I go watch a movie to be entertained, not to stoke my ego).