For the most part, I don't feel guilty in being displeased by things many respectable people like, because I'm confident enough in my judgment to recognize that a revered work like, say, Network, is in fact a leaden, indigestible hunk of social commentary populated by straw men (and women) and noble martyrs.Correct. But incomplete. The problem is that the film doesn't really know what approach it wants to take with respect to its subject matter.
The problem isn't necessarily with the story itself, but there are different ways of telling it. One is to be satirical: to tell the story straight but in such a way that internal tensions are exposed, which in turn shows just how ridiculous the premise to be refuted is. Or one could go the route of agitprop, which basically consists of hammering home the problems through volume. Had the creative crew decided upon an approach to the story it could have been a great movie. Unfortunately, it's not a great movie. It's actually quite a bad movie, largely because the filmmakers wanted to do both of these things. So you have the understated, satirical messages--such as the relationship between Bill Holden and Faye Dunaway, which are often clunky and overdone--alongside the ridiculous and over the top, "hey, man, ARE YOU LISTENING? THIS SHIT IS REALLY HAPPENING, MAN!" monologues. Nathan Rabin makes a different case here. It's basically like taking a Lars von Trier movie and adding a bunch of farcical comedy with funny wigs and spit takes. That's what Network is like.
