I guess the cleverest thing about making a movie that's intentionally bad is that it's insulated from criticism. If you say the acting or the dialogue or the story sucks, you just "aren't getting it."

But oh, I get it all right.

Grindhouse isn't just one bad movie, it's two. So I guess you get your money's worth, sort of.

So there's the thing...both movies have bad acting, bad dialogue, stupid and implausible situations, and just bad stories (they're even incomplete...there's a "missing reel" for each film). Yes, yes, I get it...they're supposed to be bad. But why the hell would I want to watch an intentionally bad movie, as opposed to say, a good movie.

I couldn't help comparing this stuff to the last two things I saw by these directors, Sin City and Kill Bill. Both movies were over-the-top, violent, exploitative...but guess what? They had interesting characters, lucid storylines, internal logic...all the stuff that makes movies good. The Grindhouse movies didn't, intentionally.

There are movies so bad that they're good. But setting out trying to make a movie like that, I think, is lame.