He seems quite insufferable.

Agreed, the movie was terrible. I actually had high hopes for it going in. It was pretty sad.

The Human Centipede (2009) is in almost every way a superior movie to this. Both have exactly the same premise...

On Imdb, I used to use my 1 star ratings very, very sparingly. I think this was the only film I gave a 1 to.

It's not the worst thing I've ever watched. It's not even close to that. This was fine, a perfectly serviceable 5/10. I like that it was something different, and I was genuinely freaked out by a lot of it, which is a very rare reaction to get from me. If it weren't for people like Kevin Smith who are willing to do stupid shit, all we would get is an endless succession of Paranormal Activities and Saws. No thanks!

Eh, I didn't think it was that bad. I thought it was watchable, I kind of liked it. It did remind me a lot of Human Centipede.
It was horrifying, ridiculous, and kind of funny all at the same time. It is funny to think that he pretty much mapped out the whole movie in an off the cuff podcast conversation though.

Speaking of which, the podcast characters were pretty irritating and annoying. I guess that was part of the point though, that the Justin Long character sort of had it coming to him. His friend wasn't much better though.

Then again, I suppose it says something that Johnny Depp didn't want his name attached to it . Overall, I thought it hung together better than Yoga Hosers, which fell apart at the end. The Bratzis were just too stupid of a villain. Come to think of it, why do both movies have "Nazi" references in them? Brazis and the NotSee Party?

DUMBASSES...IT WAS AWESOME.OBVIOUSLY A LINEOF NON SMITH FANS HERE.TUSK IS KEVIN SMITHS MOST TECHNICALLY ADEPT FILM THUS FAR AND STORYWISE IT FALLS TIGHT INTO HIS CANNON.EXCELLENT LITTLE BIT OF FUN.MICHAEL PARKS CHEWING THROUGH THE SCENERY AND THE OTHER ACTORS IS A SPECIAL TREAT.MISTER DEPP IS A SHITTY PERSON BUT TURNS IN A COOL LITTLE TURN HERE.

"I understand that it may not suit many people's tastes, but calling it a bad movie simply because 'it’s not what I want' is quite reductive. I often find myself not appreciating many horror films, but that's a rather personal thing. Sometimes, I’ve come across some 'clauses' from the much 'hated' critics. Among all their dogmas, I’ve read this: 'You don’t criticize a movie for its story!!'. Yet, they criticize it because 'the story is not believable, the story is not convincing.' Typical inconsistency of critics, and, if you will, also of us humans.Personally, I didn’t have the courage to watch this film since I came across the plot and some images about two years ago. It’s always had a morbid allure for me, until a few weeks ago when I took the bull by the horns, and now it’s at the top of my list."

@Morpheus1977 said:

"I understand that it may not suit many people's tastes, but calling it a bad movie simply because 'it’s not what I want' is quite reductive.

Nobody above said that it wasn't what they wanted. The OP even listed the criteria that rendered it a bad film and it was nothing to do with the form he wanted the film to be. He listed bad acting, directing, writing and photography. All of which I would agree with.

I'm careful with my ratings. If I didn't like a film but I can see that it was skillfully made I will give it due credit. As I stated above, I had never given a 1 star rating to anything. Because I believe in being realistic and fair. This was my only 1 star film.

And yes, you are correct about subjectivity. But subjectivity has it's limits. There are some things that are just bad.

I'm sorry if my response may have seemed like a critique of your opinion, but that wasn't my intention. I don't think the acting, directing, and cinematography were bad, but they are suited for a small, quirky, niche horror film. In fact, I find it unintentionally more 'artistic' and much deeper than it might seem. Moreover, I see it as very much in line with Kevin Smith's style. It's just an opinion, though.