Let me expand:
Can’t we like simple movies for their simplicity and complicated movies for their complexity? I enjoy movies that teach me something, or expose some great injustice, or just happen to be unique and fresh. But I also like movies that make no pretenses about delivering messages, moral lessons, and are recycled stories. Sometimes I see a movie just to be entertained (be it a “non-new” action, comedy, or horror flick).
PS – This question was inspired by Mark Palermo in The Coast and his seeming hatred for all moving pictures. I probably shouldn’t single out any particular critic, but I get annoyed so often by Mark’s reviews of movies that are technically sound yet not necessarily ‘original art’. It may be true that Guy Incognito made a film similar to Generic Action Flick #9 back in 1962, but I don’t care that much (aside from the potential for trivia). I want to know if the movie on screen X with the similar plot in Park Lane will entertain me, despite my complete ignorance of the essential reading for Film History 301 at NSCAD.
PPS – There are movies that I think are stinkers…typically they are trying to be “real”, but get the physics all wrong, have huge plot holes, suffer from serious continuity problems, feature bad acting or poor cinematography, or are based on old TV shows in a most annoying and crass way. I won’t be seeing “Love Boat: The Motion Picture” if it ever gets made, probably for all the listed reasons.