While it may serve as a rudimentary reminder of very real existing social problems, there seems to be a lack of any coheisve, meaningful plot; nor development of any of the characters. I seemed to be forced to sit through a movie that was more focused on the one-sided ridicule of "the patriarchy" than the development of its own story, and letting the viewers draw their own conclusions. While certainly movies can serve as a vessel to outline existing societal issues (catcalling, objectification of women, male dominated sectors leading to consciuous/subsconscious oppresion of women), I feel like it certainly makes your pespective more convincing if its done so with finesse, class and substance. All three were missing from this movie.
This movie was all about the shaming and mocking of certain groups of men, the insecure, the weird (alan? apparently no one cares about him cause hes different), the obsessed with power and domination and horses ("the patriarchy"), the douche and the corporate douche. While I dont agree with certain behaviors from some of these groups, the mocking of these groups of men almost felt propoganda-like and comedic, and it felt like it lost the very point it was trying to make due to its poor delivery and outragenousness.
The subversion of power from male dominated to female dominated was also very key. Whilst I agree women should have equality of oppurtunity in every way, this movie was all about fighting fire with fire. "we were once oppressed so now let us be the oppressors". Lets emotionally manipulate these unsuspecting men and pretend to be impressed whilst we hatch a plan to turn them against each other. Very distasteful and not the type of change we need in the world today. I understand gender issues are real in society today but an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Don't let good men around the world feel shamed/like they have to pay for the sins of others/previous generations of men. I walked out of this movie feeling ashamed to be male honestly. And this leads me to my next point.
Ken stands to be the blanket term for all men. Everyone is Ken. And without any other meaningful male lead to show us otherwise, the portrayal of Ken just shows the poor portrayal of all men. Sure, he had a lesson to learn about finding himself and his own identity; but where is the making of this man? Where are his strong and good traits? Every good antagonist is relatable, has strong traits (Captain Vidal from Pan's Labyrinth, Walter White from Breaking Bad, King Commodus from Gladiator, even Thanos). All had glaringly questionable perspectives, but they were built to be real, all rounded characters, which makes the "problems" with their perspectives feel even more real and threatening.
But Ken was being portrayed as a shell of a man, an stand-in hollow figure.
Also the daughter-mother relationship (as was covered in another good comment here), was just so poor. Without showing us the reasons for thee daughter's hate, it was so difficult to like this character. She just felt like a whiny, ungrateful, too cool to enjoy life character that had a sudden change of heart because it was convienient for the plot.
Even the basic, important elements of the structure of the fictional world were so sparesly elaborated e.g. the corporate guys, the Barbie drawing to Barbie world parallel, the overarching message of the movie.
Top tier casting and art style unfortunately ruined by distasteful ramming of social commentary down my throat, and poor storytelling, plot and character development.
Still cute to see a barbie movie tho hehe.