Like, I'm gonna use the Supergirl movie as an example here because it's the movie that applies that I've seen most recently, but be aware this is just for illustrative purposes, the post is "about" a wider trend in moviegoer discourse
So like. I saw "Supergirl." It was good! Strong performances by the leads, a first act that introduces a cast of compelling and easy-to-root-for characters, establishes tone and stakes and a clear visual language. The jokes mostly evoked laughs, the sad moments jerked all the right tears, the big "shocker" moments in the ending felt earned, and the emotional beats largely landed the way the filmmakers intended. Having read the source material, it was a largely faithful, if not 1:1, adaptation. The changes they made, made sense to make the story work in the medium. The scenes containing Supergirl's plucky teen friend were stolen by the plucky teen actress who played her, and we should all watch that actress's career because it's clearly going places. Jason Momoa did the character of Lobo justice, although personally I still don't think he's the best to ever play him.
Despite the fact that the main character was introduced in a previous installment in a wider franchise and will appear in the next installment, the story was almost entirely self-contained. You don't have a meaningfully different experience watching it depending on whether or not you've seen "Superman," and other than the main character being alive and available to appear in Superman Two at the end of the movie, there are no apparent easter eggs or teases for future installments. It is interested in being a movie. It is not interested in being a commercial for future episodes of a semiannual TV show you have to go to a movie theater to watch.
I'm not just a delusionally brand-loyal DC fan, either, I have my criticisms. The final battle went on a little long and was a bit reliant on CGI, and I wish they'd done the Salem The Cat thing with Krypto and had him be played by a real living dog in scenes that don't require him to be doing Superman shit that only a CGI dog can do. Krypto and Kara spend many scenes of the movie without powers, there's no reason he should be a CGI dog in those scenes. I had similar complaints about Superman, but they didn't outweigh my appreciation of either movie.
The only "woke" things about it were that the stars were women and one of them was a woman of color. I actually thought it could've stood to be Woker, but I think that about many movies. Make someone textually bisexual for no reason, I beg
I say all this mostly to demonstrate that I've put actual thought into my "the movie is good" take. I'm not just saying "must a movie be good? It was Fun and that's what matters," I actually think a movie needs to be more than Fun to be good. I think this one was Good. I can name several better movies, and a LOT of worse ones, in the genre, off the top of my head, but my honest and genuine opinion is that it was a good movie.
So I find it kinda insufferable going into the tags and seeing a million people basically making the far-right talking point of "the movie was bad and people only liked it because they felt they had to because it's a Woman Movie, but at least Milly Alcock is hot and I was entertained by the bright colors and moving images." If you think the movie is genuinely bad, that's fine, I disagree but I respect everyone's right to be wrong about one thing in life. But you don't need to do this whole cowardly "yeah it's bad but I liked ittt, can't women have entertaining slop too?" shtick for the benefit of, like, Nazis on twitter and the people who continue to inexplicably treat them as tastemakers
