Well this is where personal taste comes in. A hardcore action fan may not see a problem with the ridiculous xXx movies, but would probably be totally turned off by The Matrix trilogy, with it's various sci-fi ideas. And yet regarding the later, there are those who feel it's a stunning example of film-making, and contains deep philosphical ideas. Others might say it's all pretentious rubbish. ... again, personal taste.

This is a moot point, because what you've just asked is the central idea of escapism, to suspend disbelief in a "very artificial medium".

Because the majority of them, or rather, the most well-known and recognised come across as stuffy, self-important individuals who merely wax lryically about the same films every year, and praise the same films as classics. (Example: Dracula, the Bela Lugosi version, is a cheaply made and sometimes tacky film - I refer to in terms of how it's made, not how good the film is itself - and yet it's recongised as a classic. Now, Friday the 13th has production values that can be dismissed as cheaply made and tacky, and yet it's universally derided by most 'serious' film fans).

Do you mean if the film is a comedy? But again, here's personal taste coming in, what makes someone laugh, does it have to be a comedy film? For instance, I think Vincent bitting off Joey Zasa's ear in Part III is hilarious - others, perhaps more sensitive types, would be horrified by such an action, (in real life no doubt! But I mean in the film itself). And yet, even though it made me laugh, yes Part III does address serious issues.

Lost In Translation is funny, but also, I feel, works as a subtle commentary on inter-personal relationships in marriage and loneliness.