There was some threshold that was crossed probably close to a decade ago for me where CG effects stopped being interesting in any way, but watching older movies with their incredible special effects and stuntmen really does look impressive to me. There is no CG in the world that compares to the immersion in Apocalypse Now, for example.
I do think there are many ways to use CG to subtly support the impact of a scene driven by characters, but when the scene itself is driven by the CG (in ways that are unrealistic for actors or stuntmen to perform) it just feels like a lazy way to progress a storyline.
Yes, there's some CG for the flame effects and such, but the bulk of it is just practical effects - and when you watch it, the movie stands out because of them. Everything they're doing can be done - as proven by the fact that they did it. Is it insane madness in the desert? Yes, but they filmed insane madness in the desert.
I started getting annoyed at CG heavily around the Star Wars Prequel days - when you've got movies in which the plot serves the tech demo, not the other way around. That's not a style of storytelling I enjoy, and more and more it seems to be the style used.
(side note: the one they just released, Everything Everywhere All The Time, might be one of the best movies I've seen in the last decade)
There's always older films to watch. I'm at a point where I'd far rather put the time into something older, with solid actors, than watch the latest and greatest mostly-CG special effects laden [whatever]. That most of those movies are unwatchable unless you're "deep into the fandom" doesn't encourage me to invest in them either. And if it's not those, it's the "How can we prequel all the popular things," even when it makes no sense at all. To yell at a cloud briefly, Han Solo doesn't need a prequel. He's a standard drifter archetype, and to nail his past down doesn't do the character any service at all.