Well, while critics overreact a lot, it's been really disappointing seeing a bunch of live action movies insert pointless crap. Transformers and Spiderman or Ironman, I can understand because you can't really do those movies without CG. But when you have Bruce Willis in Die Hard (the last one) where nothing is supernatural, why throw in a CG car rolling down the street or a helicopter spinning out of control if you can have a real one?
Cheap little things like that, with fake shrapnel flying out of an explosion and zooming towards the screen. It gets tiring. I think the reason so many early action movies were awesome was because people admired the fact that directors/stunt people/whatever staff took the time to choreograph real shit happening, as opposed to throwing in a random flipping car that in no way matches the lighting or size perspective of the rest of the scene. It's been in movies such as Air Force One, Live Free or Die Hard, this Indiana Jones.
Hell even in Ironman they constructed a real suit for Downey Jr to wear during up close scenes, and that little mask/neck thing that flips up in the movie actually functions and isn't a tired CGI pizazz thing.
But I do hate when people argue over the decisions a character makes, or nitpicks all the details of a scene. "Uhm, there's no way a piece of metal can fall out of a sky and then hover in mid air before its thrusters kick in." Yeah who cares, it's freakin Starscream and it's a freakin sci fi movie. The only movies that I think do deserve some kind of nitpicking are those claiming to tell the true story of some political event, or a film claiming to be historically accurate. But people sure missed it with 300.