Interesting that a podcast I listen to recently had an episode called "Sense and Plausibility". It's all about the "phenomena" of forgiving plausibility/logic holes if you're enjoying the movie. One of the more famous examples they discuss is the Rex pen in Jurassic Park and its shape-shifting cliff wall.
That specific example isn't something I noticed until maybe a decade after I saw JP the first time, and it may have been through reading about it on a forum.
The conversation started because one of the hosts decided to sit through all the Pirates of the Caribbean movies (bless him)...and he ended up really enjoying them, despite how nonsensical the story/plot was. He argued that, in these cases (he felt this sort of thinking doesn't apply to *all* movies), the plot/story is little more than service to get from one exciting setpiece to another, and that's not inherently a bad thing, if that's what the film's goal is.
Anyway, I think there is something to that, in some way. There have been plenty of times where I was completely enthralled by a movie but thinking about it later, I pick up on a lot of things that don't make logical sense. Should I consider those to be serious flaws if they really didn't seem to impact my overall enjoyment of that movie the first time?
I don't really have a concrete stance on it, but some food for thought.