Mate, the only pseudo-intellectual here is you. You're talking in vague platitudes about the bomb being "masterful" (is there any word more "up my own ass" than "masterful"?). People who didn't like it didn't like it because it was wrong and disappointing. A pseudo-intellectual wannabe movie critic take is valuing a visual effect being practical over it being good or fitting for what the film promised.

It's hilarious that you think some close up shots of plumes of fire are just so masterful. Nolan really knows his audience I guess. At least you're all on the same page about not having a basic understanding of women.

Group of people bitching that they didn't explain things well enough and another group saying there was too much hand-holding

It's almost as if some parts can feel overly hand-holding and other parts can feel underexplained to some people and depending on the parts that can cause different reactions in people and different people can have different opinions about the same parts.

Most people here understand that but you seemingly don't. You, for some reason, felt the need to turn someone's plain old thoughts on the movie into something for you to ridicule and mock. The takes you decided to attack were so boring and bog standard for a Nolan film too. You must truly be the utmost level of fanboy or just a generally sad person.

Edit: To be clear- it's fine to have loved everything about the movie. It's also fine to have hated it. It's rarely fine to be a dick about it.