Actually, effect movies have always gotten the pan from critics, with very few exceptions. All the old Harryhause movies were considered genre schlock films, and kids went to drive ins in the 50's to make out to them, and laugh at them.

The effects in The Wizard of Oz  were described and unbelievable, and films with models as opposd to cgi were described as unrealistic looking, like movies made with toys,

With this history in mind, is it any wonder that cgi also gets a huge thumbs down from a lot of people?

But I look at something like the Balrog from Lord of the Rings, or Gollum, and then look at, say, Clash of the Titans, or any of the old Sindbad movies, and there's a WORLD of improvement in the realism and believability of effects now.

Beowlk was IMHO not supposed to duplicate reality, but to proved an alternate "mythic" reality in which to tell it's story, and I think it did that brilliantly.

It's another art form, like the Tim Burton animated films like Nightmare before Christmas, and Corpse Bride. We are seeing new stylized attempts at telling stories.

Do you really think critics would have liked Golden Compass better if they'd used real trained polar bears, with prosthetics applied? Most likely not, but at the end of the day, the story is the real bottom line.. a great story can entertain without killer effects, but a poor storyline can't be saved by any amount of effects wizardry.

Way too many people take way too many things way too seriously.