Good intentions VS Technical accomplishments

Recently I saw the film Lilya 4-ever and even though I like its well-intended message I couldn't shake the feeling that it's not very well made from an artistic point of view. Manipulative? Definitely. Though I can't help but love that movie.

Does a movie's warm-hearted motives automatically absolve it from greater criticism than what it genuinely deserve? Whereas a movie that is controversial or deals with social taboos (even though it is artistically/aesthetically accomplished) makes it more susceptible to criticism? Can a movie be forgiven for its flaws in cinematography, acting or storyline if it has a good heart?

I feel that movie fans should be more open-minded when it comes to rating movies based on how profoundly affected they are by the movie rather than focus on the minor issues like acting. I know that trusting your gut instinct is subjective but isn't movie criticism itself a highly subjective thing?

One person's manipulative schmaltz is another person's profound sentiment.

I really enjoyed Simon Birch. Subtlety is nice but it isn't the only game in town.

__________________
#31 on SC's Top 100 Mofos list!!

I think the problem is that many people believe that movie is as good as the story or message is.But I believe that movie is as good as the story and message is presented.
Personally,I also liked Lilja 4-ever and I don't think that it's poorly made.It's more realistic than artistic and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

The movie was intended to have that look and feel to it, that was a key aspect to the relationship between subject and form.

__________________
"Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."