Looks like a lot of people are agreeing on one thing without actually agreeing on one particular point of view.
In a word: balance.
Much of that is dependent upon pacing of game just as it is with non interactive media like television or film.
Properly written, a game's plot should be such that there is a fine level of detail given to pacing when integrating cut scenes with game play sections. Whether they do this successfully or not, Valve gives considerable amount of consideration to this in the Half Life 2 series.
Even cut scenes in games are not completely static in all cases. Some designers have attempted to add some level of interactivity during these plot development driven scenes by allowing the player to retain control of their character, even as the dialog and character interaction is continuing. Half Life 2 and Assassin's Creed are two that come to mind.
When the game pacing is balanced properly, the player shouldn't feel as though he's plodding through narrative during a cut scene. If the game has been written well, the player should be paying attention, not so he doesn't miss something vital to completing the next section of the game, but because the whole point of having this additional depth is to provide a more immersive experience that genuinely places the player into the role of the character. That's the one thing non-interactive media can't provide.
Do it wrong and you're either stuck with cut scenes you'll only sit through so you know what's supposed to happen next, or a cut scene that you'll quickly skip because it adds nothing to the game.
You can't always have a game that runs at a constant frenetic pace. Everyone would be playing games like UTIII if that's what all gamers wanted. Variation in pacing is a very effective design technique, and it is often one of the factors that makes a stand out gaming experience a memorable one.







