Aimless and formulaic - why the love?

I agree. Too many New Zealand filmmakers have the conceit to think that their country's beautiful scenery is enough to sell a movie and make it great. This movie proves once again that it isn't enough.

I wouldn't call it a terrible movie, Sam Neill was entertaining, but I don't understand the hype about it either. Most of the attempts at humor seemed forced and fall flat (the only scene I found funny was the police sketch of Hec and the kid), and the moments that were supposed to be "touching" didn't ring true either.

You're not taking crazy pills. I wanted and expected to love it, but found it just mildly pleasant and flawed enough I doubt I'll view it again.

Unlike you, I enjoyed the performance of the kid who played Ricky. Where the movie most let me down were the unnerving tonal shifts. My suspension of disbelief couldn't keep up when I was tasked with accepting the ridiculousness of Ricky and Hec repeatedly escaping hunters and authorities under laughable circumstances, but I was also expected to accept the same improbable escape wasn't granted for Hec's dog. That dog euthanasia scene left me horrified far longer than I think the film intended. It really made it difficult to engage in and like the remainder of the movie.

I also suspect much of the film's renowned humor depends on cultural references I missed. And I have to believe New Zealand reacts to the idea of false allegations of child abuse differently than people do where I live. In my world, a false accusation of molestation is villain-level behavior.

Between the gorgeous locations and the charm of the Bella, Ricky and Hec characters, I enjoyed the film enough to give it a 6.5 out of 10, but I'd been expecting at least a 9. Oh well.

Speaking as one of the many who think that this film is a work of comic genius, I feel that your problem with it might be because you come at it with a set of pre-conceived ideas. And that you are judging the work against those set of ideas and , because it doesn't conform to them, you are then dismissing it.

Every work of art (and a good film is as much a work of art as is a painting or a poem) has to be understood on its own terms. So in making a judgement we need to start by asking ourselves "what was the author/poet/painter/director trying to do?"
If your judgement is that in this case he was merely wanting to make a light comedy to entertain us, then if you felt that you were not entertained, then he has failed so far as you are concerned. And that is a perfectly valid judgement.

But I would suggest that Taika Waititi was trying to do a lot more than merely entertain us with a few laughs. I suggest that he was doing several other things as well. To start with he was making some fairly sharp comments about the way in which welfare services (like many bureaucracies) lose sight of their real purpose and invent fake missions for themselves that don't really help those that need helping. He was also pointing out that redemption (which can be a two-way street) happens between people and that those people are more important than institutions. He was showing just how out of touch government, even if well-intentioned, can be from the people that it is meant to serve. He was pointing out that different generations have different knowledge and expertise and that both young and old can profitably learn from each other. And the crowning glory is that he was doing all these things through the medium of humour.

If you relook at the film with a wider angle of view, does it alter your judgement?

Agree 100 percent.

Speaking as one of the many who think that this film is a work of comic genius, I feel that your problem with it might be because you come at it with a set of pre-conceived ideas. And that you are judging the work against those set of ideas and , because it doesn't conform to them, you are then dismissing it.

Every work of art (and a good film is as much a work of art as is a painting or a poem) has to be understood on its own terms. So in making a judgement we need to start by asking ourselves "what was the author/poet/painter/director trying to do?"
If your judgement is that in this case he was merely wanting to make a light comedy to entertain us, then if you felt that you were not entertained, then he has failed so far as you are concerned. And that is a perfectly valid judgement.

But I would suggest that Taika Waititi was trying to do a lot more than merely entertain us with a few laughs. I suggest that he was doing several other things as well. To start with he was making some fairly sharp comments about the way in which welfare services (like many bureaucracies) lose sight of their real purpose and invent fake missions for themselves that don't really help those that need helping. He was also pointing out that redemption (which can be a two-way street) happens between people and that those people are more important than institutions. He was showing just how out of touch government, even if well-intentioned, can be from the people that it is meant to serve. He was pointing out that different generations have different knowledge and expertise and that both young and old can profitably learn from each other. And the crowning glory is that he was doing all these things through the medium of humour.

If you relook at the film with a wider angle of view, does it alter your judgement?

I loved both What We Do in the Shadows and Boy at the time but this one fell totally flat for me, it's like you said formulaic and aimless. A bunch of laughs and smiles and that was it.
Still had a good time in the theater that I don't regret spending, but nowhere near his two previous movies that I loved very dearly.

I disliked it so much I had to write a snarky review on IMDB. That so many people loved it is either a sign that the world is mostly insane, or that I am for just not getting at all what's so good about this movie.

boring and stupid, this is like a badly parodied wes anderson movie