If Allegory, does it matter that acts to survive don't make sense?

I took the Movie personally as a dying man’s final hallucination before death, with a sense of allegory and mediation on death and the pointlessness and waste of life. The more mainstream view is of a straight up allegory. I have even seen the view that Liam Nelson is deliberately getting them killed because of his depressed state or even that each survivor is an aspect of his personality and they all die one by one as his dying hallucination reaches its end and that he’s the one with the drip in and dying, not his wife. But no matter the interpretation, its definitely an allegory.

I am not so sure that the Movie was that successful in that regard. But either way, since its clear that the film is at the very least an allegory, then it surely doesn’t matter that the wolves were other worldly in their appearance and actions, and the acts the survivors did to try and survive were stupid?

It was never meant to be realistic, it was never meant to be a 'survival' film. It was not about the wolves, or the plane crash. Its not a film set in the real world, its a film with deliberate plot contrivances in order to discuss man’s relationship with death.

That being the case, I think its entirely unfair to criticise the film for the characters unrealistic descriptions per se. I think too much discussion on this forum has focused on this and its a massive waste of time, energy and effort to do so.

I think it would be much more fruitful to ignore what are in essence minor details and focus on its allegorical and intellectual themes. I think this is where the film falls down, its not a very effective allegory, like say the vastly superior Life of Pi. The film was too badly constructed too get its message out well enough.

And also ultimately the film wasn’t particularly enjoyable. But nor is Citizen Kane and that never stopped that awful film being liked for its so called intellectual 'themes'. But I digress...

So yeah, I am basically saying, its ok to criticise this film. But do it for the right reasons, criticise the inherent weakness of its admirable but poorly executed message, or because its very dull, not because of the deliberate counter intuitive 'survival' decisions of the cast.