I don't know about critics being corrupt but I am tired of their "I'm better than you because I flunked out of film school" shtick. Their so called "criticism" is just meaningless...
Writing is meaningful to those who enjoy it, just as movies are, and not to those who don't.
Professional critics get paid to do what they do because they write well enough and know enough about film - not necessarily just those movies or genres that are their particular hobbyhorses - to entertain an audience of sufficient size that their salaries are worthwhile to their employers.
So some people get angry that writers who have earned some
following actually get public attention for expressing their opinions? So what?
Of course, if one is a fan who has no particular abilities for which someone will pay but does have a craving for attention one can set up a webcam or something and post lengthy, lame "reviews" to Youtube.
Ebert's review of TDKR looks just about right; he gave it three stars, not as high as TDK which he described as "near perfect."
Beyond which, if you imagine that Nolan's Batman movies will be as highly regarded or remembered thirty years from now as Chinatown
then you'll gladly plunk down your money for a bridge I own in New York. Go enjoy the movie; buy the merchandise.