What makes RLM's reviews so good is not their level of research, but their ability to clearly express moviemaking fundamentals to the layman - and why TPM fails in those fundamentals so thoroughly.
I consider myself one of those laymen - although I know something about the mechanics of film and video preservation, I know essentially nothing about the art of moviemaking. I and many others left the theater after seeing TPM in a bit of a daze, having been bombarded with incredible effects yet also knowing that what we just saw sucked but being unable to pinpoint why. For years after seeing the film, if asked to defend why I thought it sucked, I had difficulty elucidating a specific reason. Why? Because yes good movies connect with us and poor movies don't, but just like in any art there are time-tested ways of achieving this that artists know and use, and/or fail to use, and that most of us laymen are oblivious to. What makes effective moviemaking is just as oblivious to most of us as is what makes a great piece of classical music exhilarate us. Yes there are intangibles, but there is also craft.
RLM's review broke it down so clearly that as I watched it, I felt like a veil had been lifted. Not only as to what it was that made TPM so disturbingly weak despite the visual cornucopia, but also by educating me on the fundamental craft of moviemaking and how it so applies to nearly every movie since the dawn of film. It is education masquerading as humor, and in my opinion as a professional educator, succeeds brilliantly. I probably learned more about the elements of good moviemaking in that one review then I ever had learned before.