it looks like it is essentially from the technological-progress-is-bad-because-hubris end of science fiction

I didn't get that vibe: it looked like the terrorists blowing up AI labs were being depicted as being bad (or at least not-good) guys, whereas some of the main characters seemed genuinely conflicted and torn about whether to try to upload their friend in an attempt to save him, and whether to even keep him running after he'd uploaded. If they had been going for the hubris angle, I would have expected a lot more of a gung-ho attitude towards building potential superintelligences.

And maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I get the feeling that this has a lot more of a shades-of-gray morality than is normal for Hollywood: e.g. it's not entirely clear whether the terrorists really are bad guys, nor whether the main character should have been uploaded, etc.

And this seems to ignore the implicit issue that uploads are one of the safer results, not only because they would be near us in mindspace, but because the incredible kludge that is the human brain makes recursive self-improvement less likely.

Well, there's only as much that you can pack into a two-hour movie while still keeping it broadly accessible. If it manages to communicate even a couple of major concepts even semi-accurately, while potentially getting a lot of people interested in the field in general, that's still a big win. A movie doesn't need to communicate every subtlety of a topic if it regardless gets people to read up on the topic on their own. (Supposedly science fiction has historically inspired a lot of people to pursue scientific careers, particularly related to e.g. space exploration, though I don't know how accurate this common-within-the-scifi-community belief is.)