I basically disagree with everything here.

Whenever I see George Clooney in a movie, he’s either an action superhero or his wife has cancer.

I can name five movies off the top of my head where he isn't and his wife doesn't: "Good Night and Good Luck," "Michael Clayton," "Up in the Air," "The Descendents," and this one. Also, it's not really relevant to me...

seeing as he won’t play someone with either too little or too much emotion. Sadly, he played someone with exactly the wrong amount at any given time. Bad event? Nothing. Stupid shit that doesn’t affect anything? Still nothing. It’s all nothing! I would wish for a little more variability in his performance, but then you would get this movie.

The Coen Brothers specifically made his character a farce - the whole movie in many ways is a farce of The Odyssey (Ulysses -> Latin name for Odysseus), and he was meant to parody the idea of a strong, smart, cool-headed, fast-talking leader. To me Clooney does a great job of this here.

It can’t decide what it wants to be. Sometimes it wants go Bruce Willis on our collective ass, and sometimes it turns into god-damned Sound of Music. It’s all over the place.

What? I don't ever remember a time in the movie where it tried to do either of those things?

I can’t even tell what the story was supposed to be.

How is it that hard? It's three guys trying to get back home and find a treasure, and one of them wants to see his wife and family again. It gets a lot crazier than that, but that's the basic story.

It was some epic journey, but then it turns into.... The Klan?

What does that even mean? The Klan are an obstacle - the main and last obstacle to getting home, the goal of the "epic journey."

It attempts to be varied to keep our interest, but then loses all attempt at a story that makes more sense than the ramblings of that one guy behind the 7/11. It feels like some people without any original organs in their body set out to write “101 Terrible Southern Short Stories” and then combined them all to make a movie.

This is really all subjective. Not to mention that because to me the film to me may not have a straight-forward story, but it's very cohesive. It makes perfect sense in its own universe.

But the story must be excused, it’s based on The Odyssey! They even named some of the characters with some Greek sounding shit! Ahem. This movie is “based on” The Odyssey like the Care Bears are based on Stalin. There are some similarities, but they only serve to highlight the blinding differences.

For one thing, I'm sorry, but that's a really stupid analogy - it makes less sense than the movie you're talking about.

Secondly, there are a lot more things than a few names that are in common with the Odyssey, but I'm not going to list them all here. Besides, this is all moot anyway because the film is not meant to be a film of "The Odyssey." It's another epic journey in a different setting that is based on, tributes, and even parodies "The Odyssey" and the format of an epic in general, but it is its own story. Your criticism in this regard basically misses the point.

The characters all had the same southern drawl that would have embarrassed John Wayne, and about the same like-ability as HAL. Most of them were annoying and their performances were B movie-ish.

Most of the characters and performances are meant to be farcical and over-the-top, emphasizing the type of larger-than-life figures found in epic stories.

I disliked ‘em all except the guitar... Oh wait, I’m sorry. “Geeutar fella” who sold his soul to the devil. I knew him! Lemme check, Tommy Johnson. I actually knew that.

The hell was the point of that?....

I don’t even know what to say any more, the memory’s all gone. Just too bland and forgettable.

That's completely subjective, but a lot of people including myself find a lot of very bold and highly memorable characters, like the one-eyed bible salesman, "Baby Face" Nelson, and the blind recording studio owner just to name a few.

Oh, I’m sorry. (Not really) I forgot the soundtrack. Supposedly the greatest thing since Homo Sapiens figured out where the penis goes, it’s not. It’s good, but not as good as it was made out to be. If you buy the album, toss the rest and just keep “Man of Constant Sorrow.” Let me put it like this. The album, which I own (a gift), is a train wreck. Bouncing all over, and destroying everything in it’s path. “Constant Sorrow” is when the train leaves the tracks and gets that few blissful seconds of air time, but it only serves to remind that there’s some bad shit coming up soon. Also, the soundtrack on its own is bad. You need to see the movie in order to understand it, but the movie is bad enough to ruin the sound track.

So.... basically just that you don't like that type of music. If you like old southern music, particularly blues, it's great.

I wouldn’t reccomend it. Just watch Blues Brothers. That is action/comedy/musical done right.

...This is hardly like that movie, and I say that with that movie being one of my absolutely favorite movies of all time.

Also, I hate the Coen brothers.

Well there you go. I could argue all day about why I love (all but a few) Coen Brothers movies, but if you hate the Coen Brothers, why would you expect to like this?

In summary, I can respect someone not liking this movie (it's not my favorite of theirs and it has a few flaws to me, too), but I think you basically dismissed it because it's not the type of film you wanted it to be.