Bands We Were Supposed to Like

It seems every two years or so another band comes out of no where that the music media picks as the next big thing.  Thus they spend all their energy through glowing reviews and articles trying to convince us, the music loving public, that we should really be into this band. Now of course sometimes they're right, or at the very least partly right. Sometimes these groups that they hype up actually turn out to be decent if not pretty good.

Music is a subjective thing and it's harsh to completely attack a music journalist for his or her own personal views of a band. But so often it seems that legions of music journalists all pick the same band to trumpet and just as often it's simply unfolded like some sort of conspiracy. The band, for all its sparkling praise on music websites and in magazines, is really nothing special if not downright crap. (Kings Of Leon, I'm looking at you) Here are a few of those bands whose overblown hype has especially annoyed me over the years.

 5. Death Cab For Cutie
From 1997 through 2003, Death Cab quietly went about their business, releasing three albums to little fanfare. The group originally began as a solo project by vocalist/guitarist Ben Gibbard while he was still a member of the band Pinwheel. While it's true that the band's very first EP, Something About Airplanes was favourably received in the independent music scene, it's also fair to say they hardly made a blip on the radar. Over the next few years, the band changed drummers twice and released two more recordings: We Have The Facts And We're Voting Yes in 2000 and The Photo Album in 2001. The group would go on their first national tour across the U.S. in 2000 but they were hardly a big name at the time.

Things would begin to change towards the end of 2003 with the release of the album Transatlanticism. Teen drama The O.C. used a couple songs from the album and Six Feet Under, CSI: Miami and Californication soon followed. This got them noticed, the album started selling and soon they were signed to Atlantic records on November of 2004. Their followup to Transatlanticism and first release on a major record label, Plans, was highly anticipated and came out in 2005 and reached Gold status by 2006 - the same year I started hearing about them. They played on Saturday Night Live and began campaigning loudly for PETA. Their 2008 followup,  Narrow Stairs, while representing a strong departure from their earlier style, was eaten up by critics and many even touted it as the album of the year.

Death Cab For Cutie certainly aren't a bad band by any stretch but Gibbard's supposedly "earnest" vocal style really grates on me and their melodies come across as overly simple. Sometimes when a song reaches its "C" part it just sounds like a mash of "A" and "B". Again, it's difficult to pinpoint what exactly it is about their music that bothers me but I wouldn't complain nearly so much if they didn't have so much critical and commercial success.


4. Modest Mouse

 Formed way back in 1993, Modest Mouse underwent multiple personnel changes and released three records before their fourth, Good News for People Who Love Bad News, went platinum and put them on the map in 2004. This was particularly due to the success of the record's two singles "Float On" and "Ocean Breathes Salty". For the rest of that year, you really couldn't go anywhere without hearing these songs, particularly the catchy "Float On", a song whose repetitiveness still drives me crazy.

The success of Good News for People Who Love Bad News caused people to take a closer look at the band's previous work and their 2000 album The Moon & Antarctica, is today regarded with much critical acclaim even though I find it to be completely forgettable. Pitchfork.com seems to think it's the best alternative rock record of all time or something. Check out this embarrassing review. Whatever.

Late in 2004 the band played on Saturday Night Live (of course playing "Float On") and the album was nominated for the Best Alternative Rock Album award at the Grammys. Their 2007 followup, We  Were Dead Before the Ship Even Sank, reached number one on the US Billboard chart and the band did a tour with REM in 2008. I'll confess I'm not familiar with any of the songs from that record but I'm truly glad they seem to have faded from the spotlight in the past few years because I was sick of hearing what a great band they are.


3. Arctic Monkeys
Bands like The Ramones and The Sex Pistols made not being able to play your instruments cool. Arctic Monkeys looked to continue that proud tradition and, for awhile, were highly touted as a band to watch. They gained their popularity mostly through the Internet, actually through fan-based websites. This led to their debut album, 2006's Whatever People Say I Am, That's What I'm Not, becoming the fastest selling debut album by a British band in history. Seriously. Think about some of the bands the UK has produced and then read that statement over again.

It actually took them several years to release a record because they wouldn't play ball with any executive meddling, which is certainly something to be respected. By the time they finally signed with Domino in 2005, they'd become a highly coveted act in the music industry.

When the record hit the US it performed almost as well, becoming the second-fastest selling debut for an indie rock group in the country. Although critics in America were slightly more reserved in praising the band than their British counterparts, I'm sure not all the bullshit I heard about them came from overseas.

Their first single with Domino, "I Bet You Look Good on the Dancefloor" shot straight to number one on the British billboard chart when it was released in October of 2005. It's one of the most annoying rock songs I've ever heard, so of course critics ate it up. They were on the cover of NME a few months later and eventually the magazine declared Whatever People Say I Am, That's What I'm Not the fifth greatest British album of all time - I shit you not.

The best way I could describe their sound is "noise rock" with yammering vocals. Thankfully, their following albums, released in 2007 and 2009, didn't achieve nearly as much success and they've more or less fallen back into, I won't say obscurity but at least just moderate popularity. It had been quite awhile since a band with so little talent soared so high.


2. Interpol
Another band that Pitchfork lost their shit over (dubbing their debut album the best album of 2002), I first heard of Interpol from a friend who I lived with in the Roost at King's. While it's true that said friend is known for being...overly enthusiastic...about just about everything, I quickly found that he wasn't the only person full of glowing praise for this completely underwhelming band.

A major part of what is referred to the post-punk revival scene in New York City, Interpol formed in 1997, playing in the city, and from what I can figure, Paris. My friend explained it to me something like this: "They're a really awesome band and they could have signed and toured and become really big but they didn't wanna do any of that so they just play over in France." Right.

So anyway, after releasing some EP's and "keeping it real" in France or whatever, they finally signed with Matador Records in early 2002 and released a proper studio album, Turn on The Bright Lights, later that year. Critics seemed convinced that we were witnessing the next Joy Division (which I can assure you, was not the case) and orgasmed all over the place in their praise. The record didn't exactly explode but did manage to sell 300 000 copies by 2004. All the while, music publications did their best to tell us that we just weren't getting it because Interpol was definitely something special.

Their 2004 album, Antics, achieved Gold status in both the UK and US and all over again we got to hear about what an amazing band Interpol was but it was just the same shit. How much do Interpol bug me? Well, let me put it this way: if you consider yourself a fan I want to punch you in the face.


1. Kula Shaker
Well, we've reached the top of the heap when it comes to overblown hype for a lame band. Surely you must remember these guys. I sure as hell do. It's also true that I've barely given them a thought over the past ten-plus years. But as soon the idea for this list began forming in my amazing brain, Kula Shaker rushed straight to the forefront of my thoughts.

Like in so many of my other lists, let's go back to the nineties for a moment. After the grunge movement of the earlier part of the decade, I would say that the biggest movement in rock was definitely Britpop. Stemming from the shoegazing school of the late eighties and very early nineties, bands like Blur and Oasis became absolutely huge in England and North America and, just as it had happened with grunge, record labels, music publications and fans all scrambled to find bands of a similar style. The Camden Town area of London in particular became a sort of musical centre for many of these bands. As Melody Maker, a popular English weekly newspaper declared: "Camden is to 1995 what Seattle was to 1992..."

And it was Kula Shaker that would earn the label of the next big thing in Britpop, just as the genre's popularity was beginning its decline. While bands like The Verve and Radiohead - previously overlooked during the height of the genre - started gaining real success and acclaim around 1996 heading into 1997 (with the release of Urban Hymns and OK Computer), Kula Shaker absolutely exploded out of the gate with their album K. It quickly went double-platinum and became the fastest-selling debut since Oasis's Definitely Maybe.

Their style was Hendrix-esque psychedelic rock which I guess everyone was really in the mood for at the time. They would win the "Breakthrough British Act" award at the BRIT Awards in 1997 while music publications on both sides of the pond fell all over themselves with praise. Even some rather unwise remarks about the Swawstika in an interview with some members of the UK music press (made by frontman Crispian Mills) couldn't stop the band's momentum. If anything, it only gained them more publicity. The album continued to sell like crazy while the band played the Glastonbury Festival, the V Festival and T in the Park, all to critical acclaim.

All through 1998, fans and critics masturbated with glee over Kula Shaker and their apparent masterpiece, K.  They salivated over the news the new album would be released in the summer. But this didn't materialize and so the hype only grew. It wasn't until February of 1999 that the followup,  Peasants, Pigs & Astronauts, dropped. And guess what? It pretty much bombed. Shocker. In fact the band fell so far so quickly that, shortly after playing at V99 as a last-minute replacement for Placebo, the great Kula Shaker broke up.

They would eventually reform in 2004 but by that point, I, like much of the rest of the world, had forgotten all about them. They remain together to this day and I couldn't care less. I certainly don't miss their loopy guitar riffs, excessive use of sitar and bullshit lyrics written in Sanskrit. What I don't miss most of all (couldn't I have just said it is what I miss the least? Oh well) is hearing about how great they're supposed to be.

Fast Food Worse For You Than The KFC Double Down

Everyone’s been talking about this insane sandwich that KFC has put out. I argue you can’t have a sandwich, proper, without bread, but the concept of two pieces of chicken filled with sauce, cheese and bacon is certainly scintillating.

I haven’t had the chance to chomp down on one of these suckers yet, but I intend to. I decided to see if there was any fast food worse for you on the market and it turns out there are tons. What could be worse than this gluttonous monstrosity? Check it out.

Before we start, where does the double down stand? It weighs in at 540 calories, 32 grams of fat and 1,380 milligrams of sodium.

I suggest you discontinue reading this if you’re hungry.

5. The Baconator

The Baconator was released in 2007 and has since become a staple of the Wendy’s fast food franchise. In an attempt to lure in 18-34 year old males that hate anything healthy, including veggies, they created a hamburger that was composed of two four ounce patties, two slices of American cheese, six strips of bacon and mayonnaise and ketchup for condiments.

It became very popular very quickly and is now offered in several variations, including a single patty, the original double patty and now an even more heart-stopping triple patty burger. There was also a special, limited edition Spicy Baconator which had pepperjack cheese, jalapeno peppers and chipotle sauce.

So how does the Baconator stack up against the Double Down? It has a whopping 830 calories, 60g of fat and 2260mg of sodium – and that’s just the original double patty version.

4. Double Whopper

Since it was first introduced in 1957, the Whopper has been one of the most popular and best known sandwiches in the fast food market – and the title sandwich of Burger King (known as “Home of the Whopper”) and their Australian restaurant Hungry Jacks.

The basic Whopper comes with lettuce, tomato, pickles, onion, mayo, ketchup and one quarter pound patty. It has been presented in a plethora of variations. A few highlights include:

• The Pinata Whopper, with jalapeno peppers, nacho chips and hot sauce. They are inexplicably only sold in Sweden and Denmark.

• The Mustard Whopper, which is simply mustard instead of mayo… I can’t imagine why that demands a special title.

• The Alfresco Whopper, topped with avocado and aoli sauce instead of mayo and ketchup, as well as two slices of cheese and three slices of bacon (which sounds freakin’ delicious). This one is for the Hungry Jacks crowd.

• The Meat Beast Whopper, loaded with bacon, cheese and pepperoni and only available in the US, UK and Ireland.

The Double Whopper is one of the basic variations on the class, including two patties instead of the standard one. Where does it stand in the nutrition race? It comes in with a whopping (teehee) 990 calories, 64g of fat and 1520mg of sodium.

I would’ve compared the original Whopper to the Double Down, but it didn’t quite exceed it in the sodium department. Here’s the score, just for those wondering: 670 calories, 39g of fat and 1020mg of sodium.

3. BK Original Chicken Sandwich

I figured I should compare a chicken sandwich, considering the basis of this list is from KFC. I’m not trying to pick on BK, but this was the first one that came to mind.

Introduced in 1978, the Original Chicken Sandwich was brought in to try and entice the young adult market that was willing to pay a little more for a better product. As per usual, BK was trying to fend off McDonald’s – the fast food giant – and also keep the then relatively young Wendy’s at bay.

It’s a simple sandwich: a fried chicken patty, mayo, lettuce on a Kaiser bun. It has also had a bunch of variations, but it has been my opinion over the years that they are all awful so I won’t be mentioning them here.

What’s the damage this baby will have on your heart? The OCS is loaded with 660 calories, 40g of fat and 1440mg of sodium.

2. Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese

You know I had bring up McDonald’s in this list. Personally my favourite (standard) sandwich they offer is the Double Quarter Pounder, so I wanted to research this one. I’ll let you know where the Big Mac stands at the end, because I’m sure you’re all wondering.

In the 70s McDonald’s started looking at some new menu items, again to bring in a new market share of young adults. During research they saw that there was a gap in men that wanted more meat in their meat to bun ratio, so the Quarter Pounder with Cheese was born. Its toppings are two four ounce patties, two slices of cheese, pickles, onions, ketchup and mustard.

As is always the case with men, adding a new patty is always a good idea, so a Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese – as well as a Double Big Mac – were permanently added to the menu at a later date. Interesting note: McDonald’s has a sandwich known as “The Pounder” that is not on any menu, but can be asked for in several countries, which includes four patties, five pieces of cheese and the standard veggies and condiments. In Australia, you have to ask for a Double Quarter Pounder with two extra patties, but you can get the sandwich.

Wanna know what’s in the Double QP with cheese? It has 740 calories, 42g of fat and 1380mg of sodium.

For the Big Mac kids: 576 calories, 32.5g of fat and 742mg of sodium.

1. Wendy’s BLT Chicken Salad with Honey Dijon Dressing

The next time you're at Wendy's and you think, “Oh, I should just be healthy and have a salad,” you will think twice.

Although Wendy’s is just as much a burger joint as their major competitors Burger King, McDonald’s or A&W, they have attempted over the past few years a faux-healthy wing offering items like baked potato, chili (which is filled with burger meat, by the way) and salads. They were, however, the first restaurant to offer salads in 1979, which led to their Garden Sensations line in 2002.

One of the popular salads offered in this line is the BLT Chicken Salad with Honey Dijon Dressing. You might think that at least you’re having a salad instead of a burger and fries. Before I even outline the caloric destruction this salad offers, I want you to think about it for a second. This salad consists of lettuce, a chopped up fried chicken patty and honey dijon dressing. It’s basically a chicken sandwich with dijon mustard, sans the bread.

So where does the BLT salad stand: 720 calories, 50g of fat and 1610mg of sodium. It is basically worse than any of the single, original burgers and chicken sandwiches you can get at any of the fast food restaurants you probably frequent.

So, there you have it. Everyone is up in arms about the Double Down because it rocks two pieces of chicken instead of bread. The thing is, in comparison to the standard burgers you’ve eaten since you were a kid, the Double Down is actually – and I say this only in context – the healthier of the fast food choices. You can now feel no shame when you walk into a KFC and buy yourself this pseudo-sandwich.

MINI LIST: Ryan’s Favourite Films of 2010

It’s 2011 and we’re one year away from John Cusack doing death-defying feats of amazement, like driving through massive earthquakes, or weaving in and out of volcanic eruptions in an airplane.

So, um, here are some of my favourite movies from 2010? Yeah.

5. Kick Ass


Oh great, here we go again with Kick Ass. What’s the big deal about this movie anyway? In short, Hit Girl. Honestly, there is a lot more going on in this movie than her, but she totally steals the show. I actually had a hard time placing this film in the number five slot over The Social Network, but in the end a little girl killing dozens of henchmen with blades and every variety of gun just beats a socially awkward super-rich geek every time. Wasn’t Nick Cage in this movie? You have some kind of Cage-fetish, don’t you? Why I see all of his movies, I can’t really tell you. He actually did a good enough job in this movie except I wasn’t sure what to think of the scene where he’s tied to the chair (no spoilers!). That was just so disturbing. Did you read the comics? They were so much better! No, I didn’t read the comics. About to blow all the comic fanboy minds here: not a fan of Romita Jr’s art. That and, well, I didn’t really know much about it until the movie buzz. Maybe someday…
Excited for the sequel? Hell yes. Best Kick Ass tagline? Sickening violence, just the way you like it!

4. Iron Man 2


That came out last year? Yeah, in May. Somehow it feels like it came out forever ago. You a big Iron Man fan? No, not really. Honestly, most of the Avenger crowd doesn’t tickle my fancy. The movies are great though, and Downey Jr. is a perfect Tony Stark. If you’re not a big fan, why’d you like this flick so much? It was fun, exciting and action-packed, I guess. Like I said, I’m not a huge Iron Man fan, so it was easy for me to like something like this. Plus it had Stark’s bitchin’ suit case armour! What’d you think of War Machine? Not that I thought that Terrence Howard was a good pick in the first film, but Don Cheadle? That’d be my biggest gripe about this flick – Jim Rhodes is supposed to be a big, jacked dude. The producers definitely dropped the ball on that one. Coolest part of the movie? Drunken armour wars.

3. The Expendables


Is this the true return to “old school” action? I suppose. I find, personally, that a lot of action films coming out lately have simplified their storylines to deliver “wham-bam-thankya-ma’am” action. This was definitely the best of the new crop, though. Stallone’s getting up there. Could he keep up with today's young guys? You’d best believe. He might not have that many more action films in him, but he was great in this. If he decides to quit acting in them he should definitely continue writing, directing and producing them for sure. Are there too many big “names” in this movie? In a way, yes. Not that there are too many actors trying to “steal the scene” or something, but some people were a bit under-used. I’d definitely like to see a sequel that focuses on a few more characters. I heard Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger were in it. Is that true? It is indeed the truth. Bruce, Arnold and Sly are all in a scene together! There isn’t much, though. It was still very cool. Too bad Arnold’s basically said he won’t be doing any more action films though, because I’d love to see him in a sequel. So, will there be an Expendables 2? I think Sly and his gang would be silly not to! And this time, convince Jean Claude to join in!

2. Tron: Legacy


How long has it been since Tron was first released? Just 28 years, is all. Do you think the time in between the films helped this one? It certainly didn’t hurt it. I mean if they’d made a Tron sequel before now, it might’ve been decent. I think today’s technology definitely helped with Legacy. So, how are those special effects? Top notch. They fall into the “blew me away” category. If I had to think of movies in the last few years that really sucked me into their world with the special effects the only two that come to mind are Avatar and Tron: Legacy. Did the 3D ruin it? Everything is in 3D these days! The 3D for Legacy was handled so well. I think that a lot of movies that come out have 3D tacked on as an afterthought. Tron: Legacy did this great thing where it was in 3D for specific scenes and 2D when that third dimension didn’t do anything for the film. Do you want to see more Tron? I would love more Tron. I truly hope they don’t wait another 28 years for a sequel!

1. Inception


Is this movie over-hyped? I don’t know. By now, probably. It doesn’t mean it’s a bad movie, though. It was one of the best movies I’ve seen in a decade. So, what’s it about? I wouldn’t want to give anything away, but the basic premise is about how people who have the technology to enter a person’s mind via their dreams. Why is it called Inception? The film follows a man named Cobb, played by Leonardo DiCaprio, who is basically a dream thief. He steals thoughts in what is called an extraction. The most impossible task to perform in someone’s mind, however, is not to steal a thought, but to implant an idea, otherwise known as inception. Is it all just a big CG gimmick? No, this movie has fantastic visuals and they play a major part of the story, but the story is where this movie truly shines. It’s very layered and warrants multiple watches. Leo DiCaprio is on quite the roll, huh? Yes he is, that is until he ruins Akira (sigh), although I think he’s next portraying J. Edgar Hoover and after that Dr. H.H. Holmes in The Devil in the White City, which I think is particularly interesting. You might have to look that last one up.

MINI-LIST: Cole's Favourite Movies of 2010

2010 wasn't exactly a banner year for movies for me so expect a list of a much cooler year coming soon. But I know certain parties are still curious about my picks so here they are.

I'm glad Shane decided to go with the MINI-LIST format for this one as I really don't have a lot to say (for once). I'm even going to rip off his questions for the most part. Let's do it.



5. The Expendables

How would you describe the movie in five words? Testosterone, testosterone, testosterone, guns, testosterone. Why did it make the list? Well, it does feature Sylvester Stallone, Jet Li, Dolph Lundgren, Jason Statham and a host of other well known ass kickers of fine cinema. That alone is an achievement. What was your favourite thing about the movie? Dolph Lundgren!!! What didn't you like about it? No Jean-Claude. So sad. What surprised you most? For some reason, I didn't think Steve Austin would be playing a bad guy. But he does a fair job of it.











4. Kick-Ass

Why doesn't Roger Ebert like this movie? Apparently, because he finds it overly violent. Do you agree with him? Do I ever? (besides Dark City, I mean) So you don't agree with him here? Oh, I agree with him - it's overly violent. But I think that's a very good thing. What surprised you most? Just how good the soundtrack is - it blends wonderfully with the action. Does the movie cross a moral line by having a prepubescent girl running around killing people? I don't think so because she's killing bad people. People always freak out when minors are shown doing ANYTHING in movies. It's ridiculous. And besides, in the case of Hit Girl, it's rather...far fetched. So gimme a break. 








3. TRON: Legacy

Is it a worthy sequel to TRON? I would say absolutely. Sometimes having a gap of many years between sequels can really be advantageous. In this case, it really helps the story. Is this the best-looking movie you've seen in 2010? Without a doubt. What surprised you the most? The ending, I think. Not that there's a big twist or anything. Was that Cillian Murphy in the scene in the boardroom? Yeah. Maybe he was passing by the set and they asked him over. Is this a better film than its predecessor? No. They're actually quite difficult to compare, really. The concepts in TRON were foreign to about 95% of its audience when it was released. TRON: Legacy tries to push this envelope too but it can't go as far by virtue of the technology-oriented world we live in these days. It's not like 1982 was SO primitive, it's just that back then only a handful of people really understood where technology was going, I think - any movie from the eighties that tried to accurately predict what the world would be like in twenty years or so was way off. But it seems to me that the average person today has at least some sort of grasp of what the next twenty years will realistically bring with regards to technology.
It's the Age of Information after all. Concepts discussed in TRON: Legacy really don't seem that out of reach.

2. Scott Pilgrim VS The World

Is this movie based on you? Pretty much, yeah. Well, that is, it's based on a comic that is based on me. When are you going to start seeing some money for this? Any day now, I'm sure. So you have an X-Men patch on your jacket? No, they changed that. I have a BPRD patch. I guess they figured X-Men was more recognizable. Would you really date a chick with so much baggage? Dude, I ONLY date chicks with that much baggage. Halifax: Threat or Menace? Definitely Menace. You'll see.












1. Batman: Under The Red Hood

Waitaminute! This movie wasn't even released in theatres! What do you think you're doing? Stating my favourite movie of 2010. I don't recall any rules besides date of release. It's a 2010 release so bite me. Ok, smart guy - so what's so great about it? It's extremely faithful to the comic arc on which it is based (what a concept!) - Judd Winick, who wrote the comics, did the script - , the voicework is topnotch, the animation is fantastic, Gotham looks just like it should...I could go on. Anything you DIDN'T like about it, fanboy? While the voicework is great, of course I would have preferred having Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill - all the other actors I'm fine with, even the guy playing Gordon. So who is the Red Hood? You can't be serious. Will this open the door for more animated movies based on awesome story arcs? God, I hope so.

MINI-LIST: Shane's Favourite Movies of 2010

Even though I saw fewer films than usual last year I figured I'd be ruining an annual tradition if I didn't mention my favourites of 2010. I'm hoping my fellow listers will draw attention to their favourites as well. Enjoy the mini-list.

5. Toy Story 3

How would you describe the movie in five words? The Great Escape with toys. Why did it make your list? It's a satisfying and entertaining conclusion to one of the best trilogies around. Pixar never fails to impress with their quality of characters and story. What was your favourite thing about the movie? The way these CG toys convey more humanity and emotion than many real people in live action films do. What didn't you like about it? That the film keeps building and building to the escape portion, but it turns out to be a retread of the escape from Sid's house' from the first Toy Story, and it just wasn't nearly as interesting. What surprised you most? Just how dark and depressing some parts get. The villains are truly evil and sadistic, and some - like the baby doll - are really creepy. This may be a bit traumatizing to younger kids, but I'm ultimately glad Pixar doesn't pull any punches.

4. Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

How would you describe the movie in five words? Super geeky pop culture attack. Why did it make your list? It's a fun, high energy story of love and physical confrontation. It may be the most visually interesting film of the year; every shot has something cool to look at. Plus, it has hilarious, enjoyable characters. What was your favourite thing about the movie? That it takes place in Canada. It was filled with little nods to Canadian culture, and I cracked up whenever Scott defeated a foe and they would explode into loonies and toonies flying everywhere. What didn't you like about it? Well, some of the fights with the 7 deadly ex's aren't quite as cool as that first battle. What surprised you most? That I wasn't tired of Michael Cera playing the same sort of quiet character again, though maybe it had something to do with his inexplicable ability to uppercut people into the stratosphere.

3. Tangled

How would you describe the movie in five words? Chick with magical hair sings. Why did it make your list? It's easily the best animated film Disney has put out in some time (excluding Pixar's work for them). The scenery and design of the film is gorgeous and with compelling characters and story, snappy dialogue, and a rich score, it had everything I had hoped. What was your favourite thing about the movie? Watching the trailers would lead you to believe that Rapunzel's pet chameleon was going to be the comic relief as the typical animal sidekick. Instead a horse with an unwavering sense of justice steals every scene he's in. What didn't you like about it? Not enough of that horse, of course. What surprised you most? I went to the movie not knowing it would be a musical much like Disney's heyday of the late 80's and early 90's. The songs are fantastic and I was pleasantly surprised.

2. Inception

How would you describe the movie in five words? Russian stacking doll brain fuck. Why did it make your list? I could go on for many paragraphs on why I like this movie, but this is a mini-list, so I'll just say that I'm amazed with the story Christopher Nolan has crafted. He's produced another astonishing movie with style, substance, and thrills. What was your favourite thing about the movie? I just love all the ways you can interpret the story. As far as I can tell, there are the events of the film as we see them, the events as they really happened, and then a third layer of how the movie is experienced by the audience. Each element is significant, but they stand alone. It's entertaining at face value, but it gives you plenty to analyze and think about as you watch again. What didn't you like about it? I just wasn't digging the James Bond-esque snowy mountain facility sequence. What surprised you most? That many people hate this movie or call it boring. How can you not enjoy a dream heist that includes things like shifting gravity fights? It's an original movie that demands your attention, and I have no idea how that's boring.

1. Black Swan

How would you describe the movie in five words? Ballerina perfectionist loses her shit. Why did it make your list? It's a haunting, suspenseful, spellbinding movie about a woman who's pushed physically and mentally over the edge by a passion for perfection. The movie manages to be frighteningly beautiful and mixes together unsettling moments of dread and sexual energy. I was strangely turned on one moment, and then horrified the next, and I loved it. What was your favourite thing about the movie? Natalie Portman, who stands out with easily my favourite performance of the year. It's amazing what she achieves to believably play a world class ballet dancer. The physical demands of the role aside, her character is so tragic and intense that there's no looking away. What didn't you like about it? Nothing comes to mind. I'm too busy thinking about watching it again. What surprised you most? That my top movie is about ballet. Well, it's really about much more than that. If you've been hesitant over seeing it because of the subject matter, please ignore that and dive in; it's a modern masterpiece of psychological horror.