I agree that an enormous amount of the time it's employed very cheaply and tastelessly. As far as Alien, though, it all depends! We'll never know the world where Alien was made with great CGI instead of practical effects. I reckon that if it got the Gravity treatment and had the benefit of being released years later, it likely would be even more of a masterpiece than it is already. Certainly I think Gravity would have been a less impressive movie if Cuaron had held himself to the same constraints as Nolan. That said, Interstellar is one of my favorite movies of all time, and more power to Nolan for being able to achieve what he does without CGI. It's truly hard to fathom.

But I don't quite agree that CGI should be considered a last resort. Computers have changed the entire way we interface with the world. In many cases, I think the relationship between the practical effects of prior generations and the CGI effects of today isn't unlike the relationship between the internet and encylopedias. In the best cases CGI can produce things that could simply never be captured on camera, no matter how inventive the director or cinematographer. But in the worst cases, it's churning out garbage like The Flash and Ant-Man.

I don't think that we shouldn't get CGI stories just because they can't realistically be filmed. (Not that that's what you're saying.) To me, CGI just seems like a way of getting with the times, and that there's a certain obstinance in Nolan refusing to explore the possibility. I think of this transition as similar to how we progressed from silent films to talkies. This could make for a fun debate lol.

Curious to see which car chases made your list!