Good UX is not about reducing complexity, nor is it about hiding complexity. It's about surfacing the exact utility a user needs in the exact context they are best suited to understand each of its inputs entirely (with the least friction in generating those inputs for the user). It's very hard to do. So much so that describing 'what is wrong' with a UX would be almost as burdensome as just designing a better UX. So I'm not going to tell you what is wrong with it; you KNOW what is wrong with it. It
could be better. That you can't specify as to how just means that you aren't currently undertaking the complicated process of redesigning it. It doesn't mean you don't know good UX from bad UX.
Now, all of that aside, I do like Handbrake and I do think it offers a ton of functionality with so little friction that it's one of my very favorite and most-used apps. No login, no project setup, no x, no y, no z. Just a thin wrapper around a badass command line utility, with tons of options for users to override, and sensible defaults. There's a lot to love about Handbrake!
But "my grandma can use it", or "a plumber can use it", or "a person who doesn't understand the technicals and just needs to do one stupid thing that the app can definitely do, can use it" are signs of good UX. You wouldn't say any of those things about Handbrake.