Andrew - I would respectfully submit that unless you have done high-framerate tests yourself and evaluated it on its own merits... then you are basically saying, "well, a buddy of mine saw that movie and he said it sucked, and I believe him." It's just not a really strong argument. ; )
At CPG, we have been doing a ton of high-framerate testing and shooting and reviewing using a lot of different cameras with different lensing and lighting options. And then reviewing it with a lot of different projection and viewing methodologies. In addition, we've been doing a lot of cutting together of high framerates with "standard" framerates to see how things look. Projecting at 24fps and skip printing the 48... projecting at 48fps and double-printing the 24, etc, etc. We're doing what creative and technical professionals do with new technology: test, observe, adjust, test, observe, report, adjust, etc., etc., etc.
What we've found so far - and there is a still an awful lot of testing and observing to do - is that it is a new tool. And like any new tool, it has its place. And it is incredibly subjective. I've had one very well-respected Director look at high framerate material and viscerally recoil while another well-respected Director look at the exact same material in the same room with the same projection and think it is beautiful and intimate in a way he has never seen before.
My *personal* opinion is that when done correctly, it is gorgeous. It brings an intimacy and beauty to shots that is difficult to quantify. Can it look like crap? Of course... so can anything. But it's a new tool and needs to be judged on its own merits as opposed to strictly a comparison to others. Because it is *not* a "film" look and it is *not* a "video" look. It is its own thing.