And my point about INHERENT VICE was not to denigrate the film (I find it overdone, but many folks tout P.T. Anderson as a genius BECAUSE he overdoes it--that's one school of thought about filmmaking in general that has emerged in film criticism/reception over the past fifty-odd years) but to merely show that a possibly similar pattern existed. Note that I didn't resort to the approach of selectively quoting people being negative to the point of hostility about a film they didn't like. All that proves is that there is a subgroup of people with roughly the same attention-evaluation threshold as you.
I've been loath to use "WOTC" on the type of films you cite, because there isn't enough of a sample size from review-ratings to make it particularly useful. You already admit in what you wrote that these are "lesser" movies, where a form of retrospective positive reinforcement is in play, a form of nostalgia that's entirely justifiable so long as it doesn't try to pass itself off as analysis. But after a having done a bit more work with the data after reading this, my guess is that older flawed films are given a bit of a break by those who take the time to review them instead of merely rating them, whereas the opposite is the case with more recent films.
So I'll devote my next several lunch breaks to doing some double entry for the films already entered, capturing both the generic ratings for those films as well as those ratings attached to written reviews. That may help to confirm some patterns that exist there based on the age/vintage of the film.