>>9896992>>I dunno... that seems kinda like saying a hideously ugly building, just because it is structurally sound is a "good building".
If you want to get technical about it, that's the exact definition of the word "good" in aesthetic theory. Labeling a work of art "good" tends to imply that it is structurally sound--that it has a thematically coherent narrative structure. In film, as in animation, aesthetics typically requires that the work's imagery, cinematography, direction, and score, all hang together to complement its narrative. Such a work may then be called "good".
You may, however, think it's ugly, or disagree with the ultimate message of a work (e.g. a film declares Communism to be good, but you disagree with that statement). These opinions are all perfectly valid.
However, they have no bearing, in the strict sense, on whether or not the work may be called "good". (PS. you're free to disagree with the definition of "good" I have just laid out.)