a great film ≠ entertainment
Sometimes they overlap, sometimes not.
What does entertained mean anyway? Like going to the circus when you were a kid entertained?
Being engaged really.
I couldn't really engage because it repeatedly pointed out that their life, their village, their church, their routine was mind-numbling boring and tedious.
The funny bits weren't that funny. The shocking bits weren't that shocking. Missus predicted that the cute donkey had had it's chips when it was first onscreen, so even the surprise wasn't one.
Saying that, the photography, acting, characters and everything was pretty good, but kept just reminding me of Craggy Island. I kept expecting to see Dougal roller blading by smoking some cigarettes.
Lost in Translation was the same. The conceit was that Murray was living a boring, tedious, washed out dull life and I found the film to be exactly that.
In both cases if the aim was to comment on something being massively dull and portraying how dull it was with some nice shots then mission accomplished. I prefer a story that makes me have to engage and think.
In both those examples, there was nothing to think about, you were just dragged along into a story that started nowhere, carried on doing nothing and then finished having gone nowhere.