Alexrd said:
TPM set the precedent in blockbusters that you can make a profit despite a film's awfulness.
The film's awfulness is not a fact, though.
It's awfulness is not a fact, true, because this is all subjective. However, it is a commonly held opinion and a wide public census, thus making the point salient: as far as most people are concerned, TPM showed that a movie can be a major success while also being widely disliked.
As for RLM, I wouldn't compare it to SSW.com, simply because SSW is an activist site for preservation, which isn't what RLM is. But, yes, I would say that, although being an opinion piece in many ways, RLM has many journalistic qualities and is very well researched, for the simply reason that his observations and criticisms are backed up with examples from the film but most importantly actual research from the films histories and documentations. This makes his "opinions" all the more important, because he bases a lot of them upon facts and thus elevates them beyond the subjective sort of "well, that's like, your opinion, man" argument in many cases. This makes his "reviews" part research project, and thats what makes his pieces so effective; you can actually learn a lot from them.