It was very entertaining and funny and I had a good time watching it, but here's an expert from a review I wrote on part of what kept me from loving it as much as seemingly everyone else is:

With all the meta-humor on Barbie as a product (and the feminist quandaries therein) - present in this film, throughout my viewing my mind kept wandering back to David Foster Wallace's essay about modern media and the use of irony: "E Unibus Pluram: Television and US Fiction". A quote from it that feels pretty relevant is as follows:

"And herein lies the oppressiveness of instiutionalized irony, the too-successful rebel: the ability to interdict the question without attending to its subject is, when exercised, tyranny. It is the new junta, using the very tool that exposed its enemy to insulate itself."

And that's the gnawing feeling at the back of my mind that keeps me from liking this movie more. This film and its narrative are fully about using irony to analyze Barbie as a brand and product. The plot hinges on this, the themes ruminate on what it all means, but, like DFW wrote, part of me thinks this more head-on ironic approach to the film's own "product-hood" is what gives me dissonance. Because with the film's every joke and meta-comment on Barbie, I can't help but remember they're ultimately making or allowing that joke to be made because they think it will sell more Barbie. It is disarming us of our worries over Barbie as a brand in order the further the brand. It converts Barbie into feminist meta-commentary not to answering the question of "is Barbie helpful or harmful to womanhood", but to sell more Barbie. And so that's my big issue, one that was more-or-less inescapable and unsolvable to Gerwig & co. from before production even started: no amount of irony stops a commercial from being a commercial.