Just because its arthouse, doesnt make it good

People on Imdb seem to have a superiority complex where they will either only like Blockbuster movies and say every arthouse movie is boring and pretentious, or they will bash Blockbusters and circlejerk around arthouse movies, saying they like it because only they understand it because they are illuminated and better than everybody else, and the´ll strawman the *beep* out of people who dislike certain arthouse movie saying they only like Transformers without any evidence.
The truth is that movies are not good because they are either blockbusters or arthouse movies, they are good because they are well executed and made by people with a passion.
A blockbuster movie can be good (ie: Lord of the rings, Mad Max, Jurassic Park) or it can be bad (Transformers). Same with arthouse, there are good ones (The dance with reality, Anomalisa, There will be blood, 2001, Pulp fiction) and bad ones (A field in england, Francofonia).
The problem with this movie, and with many more arthouse movies that desperately try to win a Palme D'Or is that, just like Michael Bay's movies, they are made not to because of the pasion of the director, but to win either money or in this case, prizes. And i cannot conect with the movie for this reason, as it has no purpouse.
Hopefully you guys will get where i'm coming from