I don't think it's "On" anyone. As you point out it's just the nature of the system. Paddington 2 should get a positive review from a critic, so in this they are correct.

Metacritic assigns scores to reviews, so maybe it would be more up your alley. It has far fewer (like 1/6 as many) reviewer scores, but Paddington 2 (88) does rate lower than Maltese Falcon (96) or Citizen Kane (100).

It has fewer reviewers rated because it takes more effort to assign each one a numerical grade than to just rate "fresh" and "rotten." Paddington 2's RT rating is based on 241 reviews, Metacritic's is based on 38. Citizen Kane's numbers of critics considered are 92 and 19.

But even if we toss RT as being too biased and unreliable and use Metacritic, my points still stand: Metacritic's score for the 2019 version of The Lion King (that viper says is better and I say is worse) is a 55 compared to an 88 for the 1994 version (in RT it is 52 and 92).