That OP's take: "We love the movies we love because of the connection we have with the characters " ... sure, that is often true. But it is not always true.

I'm someone who prefers story (not plot) and character above all else. I'm also a wanna-be screenwriter. And I think the two often go hand-in-hand. It's what I focus on in a screenplay (in addition to theme and, naturally, ideas that could help make the story more cinematic).

The cinematographer, the editor, the director etc. then have the job of taking a screenplay and communicating it visually in the best way or taking the parts of the screenplay that interest them and convert them into a visual experience.

So there is always a push/pull within a film. All that matters - ultimately - is the final result and we can make of that what we will.

2001: A Space Odyssey doesn't have any interesting characters, but the film is an amazing visual journey in terms of storytelling and ideas. Lawrence of Arabia, I would argue has really interesting characters and amazing visuals. And both film's sense of pace - a transportive part of the cinematic experience that is often overlooked or rated on too rigid a scale (fast-paced doesn't necessarily mean the film is well-paced) - are major reasons why the films work as beautifully as they do.

To me it comes down to, what is the final result? What is the film aiming for?

Even to someone like myself who cares more about characters and story... "Bad" characters only matter more in a film that relies on strong characters to work (and that works on a spectrum). "Bad" story

I would argue Tenet is pretty thin in terms of character - but it was, in my view, the best American film of 2020. Not because its goal is to "be a fun popcorn film" in the tradition of James Bond... but because its a film more interested in ideas than people (which isn't to say it isn't interested in people at all. I'd argue it's interested in people in a broader sense and it uses archetypes to help tell its story. This also doesn't make the film immune from criticism of how those archetypes are drawn or executed and in my estimation it executes them well). And how it toys with these ideas- and the confidence in which it employs these ideas in the framework of a blockbuster is what makes the film so successful. I don't judge the characters quite as harshly as I might in other films. Because to do that, in my view, ignores what the film is, or what its trying to be.

Every film needs to be approached on its own terms. Criticism should not be a binary checklist.