I'm surprised that people still misunderstand how RT works. 90% freshness doesn't mean it's being regarded as a 9/10 film, only that 9/10 critics liked it enough to give it a positive review, which can be anything between 6/10 and 10/10. If you want to know how good critics think it is, you need to look at the average score. For example, have a look at Unforgiven:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1041911-unforgiven/
We all know Unforgiven is a damn fine film, so the 95% seems justified.
Here's the RT score for its Japanese remake:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/yurusarezaru_mono/
Holy shit, it's has 100% freshness, that means its even better than the original, right? Well, not so fast. The original has a average score of 8.7/10, while the remake has a 6.5/10. Makes a difference, doesn't it? So the japanese movie was good enough that everyone gave it a favorable review, but at the same time the general impression was still lukewarm, while the original has some negative reviews, but in general people thought it was outstanding. I know the sample of scores for the remake is really low, but i just wanted to use this extreme example to make my point.