1) It tries too hard to be "artsy." - I have no problem with artsy "intelligent" movies. I thought Synecdoche, New York's Writer/Director Charlie Kaufman's screenplays for Adaptation and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind were very good. But from the very beginning of Synecdoche, New York you're met with metaphor upon metaphor, and it feels like Kaufman cared more about making an "intelligent" movie than actually writing a good story.

2) The characters. - I get that it's supposed to be a dark and depressing film, but at least write a character into the film that the audience can care about. The cast of the movie is good, but there's never a moment where you feel like caring for any of the characters. In fact, most of the movie you're left feeling that you could care less if any of them die, even the star Phillip Seymour Hoffman.

3) The ending. - It's one thing to have an unusual, or unconventional ending to a film, and it's quite another to have an ending as bad as this film. The star of the film fades quietly into white, whispering how he now knows his never-completed (17 plus years in the making) New York play can finally end. This isn't Citizen Kane, or Pan's Labyrinth, it's just an end to a horrible movie (which, in that regard, at least it ends).

4) It ‘s like a play, but a horrible one. - Maybe it shouldn't be so strange that the film winds up feeling like a play, especially since the main character is a theater director. But part of the problem is that this is a play acting like a movie, which is built upon a theater director's quest to make a true to life play that builds a world in itself. It's a noble concept, but somewhere between the burning house (which is literally always on fire), to the whored-out daughter, it somehow lost its way.

5) It could've been good. - There's nothing worse than seeing a movie and thinking it's a horrible movie, but that it could've wound up being good. If you could but care a little for the main character, or even if it spent more time during any period instead of jumping years ahead, it could've been great. In the end, its failure is that it tried to be too intelligent for its own good. I knew it was about to go downhill when the main character, Caden Cotard, walked by a wall that said "Caden eventually" scribbled next to a noose. I get the struggle, the doubt, and that it wasn't supposed to be a happy film, but give the audience something at least. Pan's Labyrinth wasn't a joyous film, but it still gave viewers something in the end.

6) It never finishes. - Parts of the film are never explained, or even alluded to again. What happens to Hoffman's 2nd daughter? Is the person living in the basement of the burning house still there (and what's the point in showing him at all if he's never mentioned again, other than to show the greed and lack of honesty of the realtor). You also never get a great idea as to why he's unable to finish the play. Obviously he's unable to come to grips with greatness, and he's on a quest for a perfect play, but what is it exactly that keeps him from finishing it? The film goes to great lengths to spend two hours showing you the insanity of the main character, while still giving away as few details as possible.

7) People will love it. - Maybe this shouldn't be used as a reason why it sucks, but since the movie was so bad it has to be said. The mere fact that it's an artsy intellectual film will mean that people will love it. I saw one review by someone who had the nerve to say that the movie was far from perfect and someone responded that the reviewer didn't "get it" because the film didn't have to have a good story. Really? That's like saying that music doesn't need to have sound (and if there was a song without sound, I'm sure people would commend how artistic and intellectual the idea was).