Is film inherently shallow?

So, I watched both Ant-Man (fun) and It Follows (pretty, but dumb) yesterday, and it took me back to a familiar internal argument I've been having for years.

Video games, novels, comics, and serial television all have the ability to take their time and tell full stories. Films do not.

Marvel has done a good job of designing and repeatedly executing on a formula for giving the sense of a 'full story' in their films, even if they're mostly just fun spectacles.

In the case of It Follows, I was pretty damn let down. I really enjoy the horror genre, and while this technically falls into the genre, and despite being beautifully shot and using sound and music really well, it was dumb. The characters and story were both excruciatingly shallow, even with a cool concept in play, and the ending was one of those that implies the filmmaker just gave up.

Man, I was really hyped for that one, too.

Games tell stories through immersion, player agency, and have a nearly infinite number of ways to approach the conveyance of story and the conveyance of the player through the story. It can be used really well.

Novels. Duh. This is probably still my favorite medium for storytelling.

Comics have come a long way, and they actually seem to somewhat be the model for modern serial television.

And on that note, serial television is at a high point right now, and I'm really enjoying it. This has really stolen a lot of film's thunder for me, since it's a much deeper experience, whereas film has become, for me, more about the spectacle than anything. Film is dumber than ever, but prettier than ever, and both films yesterday really hit that home. Funny enough, Ant-Man had more character development and actual story than It Follows, which is hilarious.

The problem is that film, by it's limited running time, and higher costs, is severely limited in both the kinds of stories it can tell, and how it can tell them.

What say you?