Not having seen the film, your opinion could be right on, and yes, I understood that the terms over-praised and serviceable were the real pejoratives, but the way you strung them together suggested that crowd-pleaser was the third negative term (though slightly less offensive than the other two). And it brought to mind the regular debate come this time of year about what “best film” means.

There always seems to be a backlash against a film that is merely enjoyable, as though making a film that people enjoy isn’t enough. If a movie doesn’t have something to say in a difficult, weighty way, it isn’t as good. It’s why comedians never get recognized for making people laugh, it is only when they make them cry (see Robin Williams in a beard or Tom Hanks doing his best Jimmy Stewart impression) that the Academy/critics groups will stoop to recognize them.

It just makes me question any year’s assesment of the “best” films. Shouldn’t it be “best dramatic film that isn’t too pleasurable?”