The point is, you seem confused as to whether you're an advocate of simplicity or I am. I'll clarify my stance for you. I am an advocate of a particular kind of simplicity - a kind which complexifies and illumines a work as a whole. By contrast, an average film complexifies only unimportant elements - complex fights, gadgets, wardrobes, dialogue, yet simplified camera work, symbolism, narrative and its relation to visual symbolism, and so forth.
I've already touched on the "confined reality" portion of your comment, I will now address the "understandable" part. First of all, a good film should be understandable unless its purpose is to convey a certain incomprehensibility within its subject matter. How easily understood it should be is a matter of director's intent. Second, I'm not sure how understandable you can claim these films really are when compared to the extreme what-you-see-is-what-you-get presentation of "simple movies for the masses" you so admire.
Let's take two examples. Let's compare Idiocracy, which I've criticized, and Luis Bunuel's Discreet Charms of the Bourgeoisie, or, if you prefer, his more comprehensible film, Simon of the Desert. When you take these films next to something like Idiocracy, no matter how decipherable in reality, they at once appear opaque. Even a film like Jacques Tati's, "Playtime," a straightforward visual satire on technology and modern progress, looks like the Voynich Manuscript. It seems ridiculous to pretend this is incorrect. Also, again, you're contradicting yourself. Is my sin being too fringe and intellectual or too simplified and understandable? You seem divided.