Where is the art of film heading ?

Rating: 3/10 (9 March 2015)

I was excited when I first started to watch the film, I didn't read any reviews about it before I watched it. Al I knew was from the trailers and I knew that it received good critics. I was excited because I realized the first few minutes are part of long take and I watched carefully to see for how long it will go on. I decided that the first take ends somewhere around minute 53 when Edward Norton looks up at the sky when he is on the roof. I said to myself that is a breakthrough and a really hard thing to do, to make one single take as long as 53 minutes. Afterwards, the next long take it looks like is around 27 minutes long and I stopped paying attention when special effects appeared on screen as Keaton was walking down the street.
Anyway, after the movie finished, I went home and do some research to see that was actually a long take of 53 minutes. The lines of the female critic in the bar scene which talks about people forgetting about the real art also strengthened the thought that it was for real a long take with the purpose of kicking the ass of the Hollywood's money maker machines with bad acting, bad plots, as much cuts as possible and as much computer usage as possible.
Unfortunately, this was not the case at all. The plot and the movie itself would make more sense if that was for real a long take. I did enjoyed the acting and the lighting, nothing to complain about those, and I like the 'out of the box' type of story. The theater female critic in the bar scene is talking about the spoiled kids who get awards for cartoons and pornography, 'unversed and unprepared to even attempt art'. I think that it is a good line for the film itself at some degree.
While researching about the long take on internet I ran into an interview of the director saying that he wanted for the movie to look like a continuous shot because it will have a different feeling. My question and my big disappointment is why did he not actually did that naturally? Why he had to use tricks to make it look like a continuous shot when the art of film, in my opinion at least, is to make hard things look easy and not vice versa..? I understand that looking like a continuous shot was not the easiest thing to do, but anyway, I don't count that as part of the art of film, but rather as a lame approach especially from a prestigious director.
I don't have anything against doing this type of trickery in movies, but not in a movie where art of theater is part of the plot. I don't expect to actually see a long take of 53 minutes, but I think they should have attempted some real hard to make long takes and to not leave this in the 'hands' of a computer. Computers are for the things that are impossible to make in reality. When I see in movies long takes I get the feeling of artistry and it makes me watch the film somehow different, with more respect.
But, this is just my opinion and I understand if people do not share the same thoughts. The film is good in many ways, but being part of the so called continuous shot, I think it fades away, at least in my eyes, and I hope the films that we see in the future will promote art of film and not offend it.