Liking a 'Rotten' Movie Doesn't Mean the Critic is Paid Off

Chris Stuckmann is one of my favourite YouTube critics, and I have always respected how he analyzes and delves into a movie. I haven't always agreed with his opinion on a movie, such as his love for Prisoners, which just didn't work for me. But I probably disagreed with Roger Ebert more than I agreed (especially when it comes to horror), yet I still value every one of his reviews, and he remains my all-time favourite critic and a huge inspiration for The Movie Breakdown and my approach to reviews.

I love both critics for the fact they never gave a damn about the Rotten Tomatoes score or the critical consensus, and Ebert had no problem recommending stuff like Paul Blart: Mall Cop or Speed 2. The fact a critic praises something that most others panned is a positive because it allows one to see the other side of a work. It provides a more balanced view of a movie rather than just piling on to why it fails. A good critic can articulate why something is worth watching even if it is flawed and everyone else is claiming you should avoid it.

One thing I never thought when Ebert or Stuckmann recommended a movie with a low Rotten Tomatoes score was that they were paid off by the studios or trying to appeal to the filmmaker. Yet that seems to be the default of so many listeners and readers now when a critic has an opinion different from their own.

No respected critic gets paid by the studios. They probably wish that happened, because they'd be more well-off. Everyone can use some extra cash to buy that cottage or more likely, pay off that electrical bill.

Stuckmann liked Argylle because he found things worth enjoying like the action sequences, the performances, and the fun energy. He was not paid off. For the record, I mostly agree with everything Stuckmann said in his review, and I have definitely never seen any sweet studio money in my life.