Correct, it's easy to come up with edge cases that invalidate either absolute
You don't have to go to edge cases to qualify differently a movie with, say, a "self-expression" focus or "commercial ad" focus. Different goals, different judgments, along a continuum between the extremes. The same applies to each of the four points, as any angle (or component) or criticism could be abused - arbitrarily, subjectively. They're just aspects to weight, people weight them differently. But discarding one as legit matter of evaluation is precisely quite an absolute.
Then of course, the question of "is that-thing a good that-thing" is philosophically complex, and often obscures the underlying "good in
which sense". A relatively easy question for easy objects (a good heater is good at heating) and impossibly complex for complex objects (what is a good book, what is a good mind, what is a good world). The "purpose" approach is limited, and implies subjective, implicit moral conceptions in itself (about an object's finality). In short, when you ask "is being-good-at-it a good thing" you broaden the perspective but don't necessarily lose the relevance, you can also increase it by including aspects that were deliberately left out. Again, cue to edge examples (is a good serial killer a good human), but they serve to point at coordinates on an axis to interpolate : the point is the axis itself.
Technical framing is often suspicious, in how objective it tries to present itself, and in what it smuggles out of the discussion.
Anyway, the closest thing to my own approach stays Hume's "Of the standard of taste" and its own balance of relativism and universalism. All aspects have to be considered, some requiring to adjust our referential, some not. I may just have a slightly more matryoshka doll version of it.