Oh my god. Toy Story 3 is one of the shining examples of what you just said up there. Except there were three negative reviews and part of the reason that people were outraged was because the first two films have a perfect 100% score there. One of the negative reviews comes from a guy named Armond White, who negative reviews any movie that is good and positive reviews any movie that is bad.
These people don't consider the mathematics. Older and/or more obscure films will tend to have fewer reviews. One review out of ten being negative will automatically bring down the percentages to 90% whereas it takes ten negative reviews to do the same when there are a hundred overall, and the odds are that there will be at least one or two people knocking the film.
Except that there are over 100 works that have 0 rotten reviews (Off the top of my head, Citizen Kane, the first two Toy Story movies, and Dr. Strangelove).
If it's a legitimately good movie, what's wrong with that?
A lot of films are infamous for the fact that their reviewer score and their viewer score are drastically different. Why don't people start to realize that allowing a few people to have a stranglehold on the success and failure of movies might not be a good idea?
Who, the critics? There's a reason why there's a trope for Critic-Proof, because certain films, especially blockbusters, guaranteed to be too much of a success for the critics to give a dent to. Nowadays their real power is in directing smarter moviegoers to lesser known films coming out that wouldn't have received as much publicity if it weren't for the fact that most critics agree that it is good, even great. That's quite a positive step, not a negative one.