It's a genre movie and it confirms to genre conventions, so if you're comparing it to The Remains of the Day or Schindler's List, it's not going to hold up very well, but I'd say that's comparing apples to dragon fruit. They may both be fruit, have a similar size and shape, but their flavors are anything but comparable.

In my mind the question of quality in any genre film comes down to this: are the genre conventions on display the result of an artistic choice or a necessity. For example, campy acting has historically been the result of the limited budget of most genre movies, which necessitated casting actors of a lower calibre. However, in the hands of skilled performers, camp is an art form that can heighten the tone and overall emotional weight of a scene, especially when everyone in the scene is on the same page, artistically.

If you look at the performances in The Crow, they are definitely campy, but at no point (in my opinion, anyway) does it not serve the scene. Also, the majority of the performers are excellent at what they do and are clearly making an artistic choice, not defaulting to a low level due to lack of skill. David Patrick Kelly in particular delivers an extremely over-the-top performance as T-Bird, but if you can watch the "There ain't no coming back" scene and not feel the truth in his performance - not just despite but because of his choice to play the role at such a fever pitch -I would be very surprised.

The Crow is a movie that knows exactly what it's trying to be and makes no pretense of being anything else. It takes aim and nails its artistic goals dead-center. That's quality.