I think this criticism undoes itself. The thesis is that CGI visual effects are not convincing, not "weighty", implausible, unconvincing. But there's no mention of CGI being pervasively used outside of blockbusters! I'm not enough of a film buff to say for certain, but I'd guess it's a majority of non-indie releases. It goes unnoticed because it's seamless and convincing. It's enormously helpful to avoid an expensive location shoot or reshoot, fix an error, add setting, integrate actors and stunt doubles, all kinds of things. This article doesn't even know to complain about it because it's so dang good.

For an example off the top of my head, I know Wolf of Wall Street had a lot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP2sJqoZD7g You can search youtube for the title of any movie and "cgi" or "visual effects" to turn up tons of examples. David Fincher's movies have some great examples.

And to hop on my bar stool and opine, I think CGI is going to lead to a revolution in filmmaking over the next decade or two as it continues to get better and cheaper. There's ubiquitous criticisms that movies the last couple decades have been so expensive that studios only put money into blockbusters, or meddle in the creators' vision, or only fund simple action movies that are easily translated, etc. When low-budget indie films get access to this stuff they're going to to have the ability to make all kinds of movies rather than just contemporary character studies with limited sets and props. (Digital distribution will help, too.) CGI will be a landmark revitalizing force for movies, much bigger and stranger and better than the New Hollywood movement in the 70s.