0
As far as technique goes, I don't like having to do too much work to notice things. I know the big lines of technical stuff, so I know when the movie is using these, and it's important that they use those technical aspects to reinforce the point they're trying to make. Now, it's all fine and dandy if you want to use cinematic language to convey things subliminally or more subtly, but there's an issue when that cinematic language becomes too incestuous. That's something you notice when listening to film analysis from people who went to film school. Every shot, every cut, the presence of plants, mirrors, hair styling, clothing colors, etc, everything means something. It's good to use these, because you have to. It's a visual medium. But it becomes incestuous when you get these directors that went to film school, learned about cinematic language in film school, learned symbolism there and then put that symbolism in their movies, and end up making films that can only be fully understoof by film school crowds.
It's a lot like modern art, where a layperson will find infinitely less meaning in a piece because it just becomes too autoreferential for any outgroup to get anything out of it, unlike the almost universally appreciable classic pieces. I think a lot of arthouse directors fall into that category. Burying anything meaningful into so many layers that the movie loses all surface level enjoyability.
All in all though, directing is almost all I care about in movies now. If a movie doesn't have a distinct vision and personality, I lose interest quick. Mere quality is no longer enough to make a film worthwile. Either that or pop culture appeal.