You seem to have a problem with adjectives, period. I believe you are saying that the movie is an object unto itself alone and cannot be anything more than what it is. It is we the audience who perceive it to be something that is not fundamental to the thing itself, something that we append to the experience of watching it. But by that definition the movie is no more than a series of reels or digital information. Thus, there can be no such thing as a melancholy movie, a happy movie, a sad movie, a funny movie, a disgusting movie, or any other descriptor-of-choice movie. In reality most of us know a comedy when we see one because such movies are structured to make us laugh. As long as an individual or a group of people largely agree on what is comic in the movie, we can call it a funny movie. Same thing as a disgusting movie--as long as an individual or group of people can agree on the elements that make the movie repellent, we can label it disgusting. A coherent defence of the adjective we are using allows us to explain why a movie is funny or disgusting. When these opinions are shared by others, we have a kind of consensus. Same thing with "pretentious"--as long as there is some coherent elaboration of the criteria which the commentator(s) is (are) using to defend their consideration, a movie can be defensibly labelled as "pretentious." In short, a critic can call any movie what he or she wants as long as he or she can back it up with a reasonable defence.
As for demanding a list of words, well, you could do that with any descriptor just about. You could as easily say, give me a list of silly words, or annoying words, or elegant word, or petulant words. Like pretentious, silly, annoying. elegant, and petulant require elaboration to explain. To sum it, the fact that no movie is inherently anything but itself does not mean that the action it contains cannot be described as pretentious, silly, annoying, elegant, petulant, or anything else as long as one has a persuasive argument to back up the claim.
