Why can't a work of great kineticism as a means of storytelling (calling back to silent film, and in turn, animation), incredible editing, incredible stunt work, with an incredible score be a classic movie? You're dismissing entire genres and styles film making. Fury Road doesn't need the layers, intellect, and plot in the same way those other movies do because it's speaking a different language, and has different goals.
It doesn't need those things, but the lack of them for me personally, makes it a less enjoyable and memorable film. It just didn't have that emotional resonance or diversity for me, and really the main response I got from it was one of continuous catharsis, as well as the odd bit of humour here and there. Outside of it's focus, which it did really well, it just sort of fell flat.
It's sort of like having an amazing roast chicken, but one without the gravy, the roasted pots, stuffing and extras. A roast chicken on it's own can be marvellous, noteworthy and delicious, but for it to be a truly complete and memorable meal, it needs the other bits and bobs. I appreciate that not everyone would agree.
Also, I do not see the parallel of my point with silent film and animation. A silent movie can still have far more depth and narrative poignancy than a movie with sound, or compared to Fury Road for example. The medium (film or animation) or lack of sound, doesn't in itself automatically limit a movie to lacking any of the things mentioned in my previous posts.