I think a lot of the disagreements over this movie have to do with situations in which a subtle shift in one’s interpretation lead to dramatically different readings of the movie at large. For example, when Finn is making his sacrificial run at the laser weapon and Rose saves him, there are two main ways to interpret the scene:

Finn had a shot at destroying the weapon, but Rose valued Finn’s life over the destruction of the weapon. Because of this, Rose’s actions were misguided and would have doomed the Resistance were it not for Luke’s intervention.
Finn had no chance of destroying the weapon, and his sacrifice, while a culmination of his character arc in the film, would have ultimately been a senseless waste. Rose acted rightly.

The trouble with these two interpretations is that they’re both equally valid in terms of what we see on screen. If Poe had said something along the lines of ‘Retreat, nothing can stop it now!’, then it would have been clear that Finn was acting out of pure unthinking hatred for the First Order. But he instead implied that it would take a suicide run to destroy the weapon, making Finn’s action heroic from the first interpretation.

This is just one example. This and others (such as Holdo’s leadership, Luke’s murderous moment, etc) rest on the shakiest ground for the audience to interpret in the way the filmmakers intend.