No, let's talk this out, i find this an interesting coversation.
The movie is two hours and 30 minutes long. Let's be generous and say that and hour + 45 minutes of the movie is great. Excellent. And another 45 is used in, what is my opinion, poor transitioning that hurts the film. Then can not the film be great. Does the film not have greatness in it. But it's not perfect. And because of that transitioning as a whole the film is okay, because the transitioning is not close to the level of greatness in the other parts of the film.
But that does not mean the film isn't great. You're basicllly saying that for me to define a film as great, I have to state it is perfect. I'm not stating it's perfect. Did I say it was perfect. I said, that the film was great. Great, great. But as a whole it's just okay. But I belive that the individual greatness of many of the scenes in that film, and I didn't even mention the basement scene, overcome and outdo the overall problems.
You are all correct, those two statements seem contradictiory. How can a film be both great, and just okay? But I am able to see the film through both of those lenses. I can see the film as just okay. I can see the flaws within the film that prevent it from greatness. But I can also see the greatness within the film. I can juggle both of those disparate concepts within my mind. Can you not juggle that. Can no one here see the conceptual framework where the movie is both great and just okay? Or am I the only one?