I agree and to it I would add that the movie went for a different sort of message than many critics probably expected from it. It's not hard to imagine someone who watches movies for a living having an affinity for the genuinely unexpected, particular where blockbusters are concerned. The central message of gleaning what you can from failure to fight a better fight another day probably made it more appealing to critics in general just by being there. But that sort of message isn't going to have the same sort of broad attraction with general audiences and certainly not with many lifelong Star Wars fans when it engulfs one of the original heroes of the franchise.
See, the thing is--I like movies that subvert expectations too. Bad guys winning is a particular favorite of mine. The problem is it needs to be done well and from an organic stand point with the characters. Luke, the most hopeful of all the characters in the original film, becoming cynical because that hope was used against him in a terrible way? Fantastic story right there. Simply saying "and that happened"--awful story telling. Bad, bad story telling. But there is clearly a good movie in there.
In fact, I suspect if you didn't have established characters this would be a good movie. Think of how it would change. The gumpy master wouldn't have been the literal symbol of hope and so him being a cynical bitch would have been refreshing, almost just like how Yoda was a goofy asshole for a while. Snoke getting offed through a small trick after showing immense power? It's fine now because we don't give a fuck where that guy was through the other 8 films that someone of his power should have been known--kind of like the Emperor. Rey being ridiculously powerful and knowing shit without practicing? It's fine because we don't know how this shit works and can assume the force teaches people, and Rey is "the one". Finn having a ridiculous side story that does nothing? Finn wouldn't be in this because Rian Johnson wouldn't have to include a useless element contractually to satisfy the broader story.
The only flaws you'd be left with really are the mildly cringey girl power shit, and the vice admiral being a retard that everyone seems to be mass delusional about being a good commander. But those are minor flaws. Nearly every major flaw the fans had with this film came from it being shoe-horned into a larger story when its pretty clear Johnson's desire was to subvert expectations like Empire Strikes Back did in its day. But that doesn't work with this film, because two big things are different. 1.) Many characters have multiple films of established motivations and back story. The universe is also a known quantity, with the audience expecting to know bigger players. In Empire both these things aren't true, and so adding in "bigger bad" guy is fine, and so is having characters show more of themselves. 2.) There is zero time between film 1 and 2. Zero time. In Empire Strikes back there are multiple indications the Rebel Alliance and our main characters have seen some shit since we last saw them, and stuck together. Small differences, or skills learned can be attributed to that. (A major thing would still feel jarring, but any growth along a previously established path feels fine.)
Rian Johnson's problem is he made a decent movie (Minus Finn's useless story and aforementioned cringe ideological stuff) for the sequel to TFA. If all we knew about this universe was TFA, then almost all of Johnson's subversion's work. But in a universe with 8 films, this story was told really, really poorly.
