I don't hate it, but to make it work you have to invest serious amounts of money and uses alot of computer power to render shades, textures and lighting successfully.
If filmmakers don't have the money and still use CGI, it looks far worse than if they'd used foam rubber, prosthetics and modelling, because you can light and interact with physical things easily.
A lot of modern cheap scifi/horrors have no appeal because of the CGI, whereas in the 50's -80's, it was all stop-motion animation and solid, physical stuff the actors could see and interact with, and they had quite a fanbase, because a lot of care was put in for little money, and the final product looked good enough to suspend some disbelief. When things aren't rendered well, they look like 2-D patterns interacting with 3-d naturally lit and textured actors and sets. Another thing with CGI is eyelines - Even in Phantom Menace, when Obi wan and Qui gon land on Nabbo and meet Ja Jar, look at where Ewan Mcgregor's eyes are looking -about 3 inches above Jar Jar's head.
Had that been an actor in a latex mask, the eyeline would be correct, because Ewan would see him. Liam Neeson threatened to never work in films again after the Phantom Menace.
That's why I like The Expendables. Very little CGI was used.