Admit it, you’re like this too. You like a band, and almost all of their discography- but there are simply some songs you can’t stand. By all the “rules” of your music taste, you should like those songs. But you don’t.

And you see you’re very alone in your thinking. Everyone else is charmed. Even the people who dislike said band are crazy about it (sure, this can backfire, because fans tend to dislike stuff that is popular with non-fans). And you just don’t get the hype.

I made this list using bands I currently like, or I used to like, or like enough to expect to like a specific song, but for some reason, that doesn’t happen. Also, another criteria for forming the list was the song’s popularity. Everybody else had to like it (preferably non-fans also).

Scar Tissue (Red Hot Chili Peppers)

I love this band. Yes, even after their… questionable concert in Indjija (not to be confused with India) in 2007. And just for the record, I love Flea. One of my fav musicians. A great bass player indeed. I like almost all of their songs, even the “WTF?!” ones. But not “Scar Tissue”.

I know I am alone in my thinking. Also, I do know this song posses a certain quality, if nothing else, the way John and Flea are complementing each other. But something is missing. It’s just… I don’t know- boring? Yes, that might be a good word. No building, no passion. I am not saying they didn’t make the song with a passion- but to me it just falls flat.

Once (Pearl Jam)

Given the fact this song is basically the first thing we hear on their FIRST album (save for Master/Slave intro), one would think the song is a great opener. It isn’t. It’s not a bad song per se. So I blame the production. Or perhaps Eddie Vedder really didn’t know what to do about sing-screaming on this one. Don’t get me wrong, I like that man’s voice (I could listen him read mumble a telephone book), and his singing in the 90s was quite good. But “Once”? He failed. But the song sounds pretty decent live (or so I heard), so I think we should indeed blame the production. Several songs from “Ten” have the same problem (“Why Go”, anybody?).

Also, if “Alive”, “Once” and “Footsteps” are, indeed, a trilogy, don’t you think they should… I don’t know? All appear on the record? And is there a significance behind choosing “Once” to be the first we hear- while, according to most (if not, all) sources, “Alive” is the first one? Or is there some actual meaning behind this (for example, “Once” really being the beginning). I’d like to know.

Always (Bon Jovi)

True, Bon Jovi is not one of my favourite bands, but it’s not like I don’t know their songs. I even like some of them. I like enough of them you might think I should like this one. But it doesn’t work that way.

Originally written for the film “Romeo is Bleeding”, the song never appeared on the soundtrack because the band disliked the film. Can’t blame them- not many people would find a quality in said movie. But the film’s absurd premise, film-noir-but-not-really style and hilarious execution quickly made it some sort of an underground cult movie status. It looks like Bon Jovi didn’t want to be associated with that. Fair enough, but it’s their loss.

“Always” is just… Way too soft for my taste. And not soft in a cute kind of way, but cheesy. Musically, it’s ok but nothing special. But what made this song a big fail to me are the lyrics. Yes, I do have a prejudice when it comes to using a word “baby” in lyrics, unless you’re referring to an infant. But even without it… “I’ll be there forever and a day, Always”. Oh, gimme a break. This is a type of songs teenage couples choose to be “their” song. I wonder what they would think if the song was, indeed, included on “Romeo is Bleeding” soundtrack.

I Want to Break Free (Queen)

Gotta love this band, with all their flamboyant harmonies and borderline-kitsch-but-not-really (kitsch, not borderline) style and Freddie’s voice.

But “I Want to Break Free” does nothing for me. Simple as that. It’s not trash per see, but I fail to see its appeal. It’s simply not working for me.

November Rain (short version) (Guns N’ Roses)

“November Rain, the short version” happens when they cut the outro of the album version of the song. That’s what I’m talking about. I don’t get it, especially given the fact last 2 minutes feature one of the best guitar solos known to man. But let’s start from the beginning.

The song was written sometimes in early to mid 80s and, for all we know, represents Axl Rose’s deepest and most serious feelings/beliefs/memories. He wanted to include this song on a GNR record so badly, and he worked on it for years and played it on any piano he could find, anywhere. Nothing wrong with that.

The other guys were less than eager to ever make it a GNR song, but Slash was happy to play a solo for it (or so they say). About a decade (or a little less) later, we got album version of “November Rain”, neatly packed in 8 minutes and 57 seconds. There was an iconic video to go with it, too.

So, here’s the thing. If a song is 8 minutes and 57 seconds long, you don’t cut it 2 minutes early. Especially if what happens in those two minutes is the best thing about the song. I know I am alone here, but I simply don’t get “November Rain” appeal without the outro solo. The song is good- but nothing special. Musically, it’s good- but nothing special. Nothing that would tell you there was almost a decade of work behind it. When 13 year old romantic and gentle girls find something adorable, that’s usually not a good sign for a rock song, not even a rock ballad. Oh, more people than 13 year old girls adore this song, I know. But there’s nothing pass the “ok” for me there, not without the outro.

And yes, I know many people consider the first song solo to be the better one, and THE “November Rain” solo (and it’s still unclear on which solo Slash actually means when he’s talking about “the solo”). I don’t care. Cut the outro and I’m out.

See also: 5 songs I like against all odds

In 900+ words:

If you want to make a film completely based on visual effects and decide the story isn’t important, don’t take yourself too seriously.

I watched “Avatar” in 2D, so maybe I wasn’t able to get all of its beauty. But if the movie is completely ruined for you if you don’t watch it in 3D… Then, it’s the movie’s fault, not yours.

I was never overly impressed by Cameron’s work. Sure, “Terminator” was good, but “Titanic” was… Well, “Titanic”. “Avatar” suffers heavily from the Titanic-like problems, but it takes them to different levels. Just for the record, my main problem with “Titanic” wasn’t cheap story, Leo DiCaprio or even (even!) Seline Dion. It’s the fact a tragedy- a real life tragedy- was used for romantic intentions and cheesy emotions. Making Titanic tragedy into a date movie was a bit disrespectful, to say the least.

“Avatar” suffers from the same problems, with a few additional ones. It doesn’t treat its (supposedly deep and profound) message with respect. Is it wrong to invade other cultures, kill people and take their land? Is it wrong to destroy environment? Is it wrong to spread military terror on others? Yes, yes and yes. The mere idea we need James Cameron, of all people, to inform us about it is insulting.

A very Noble Savage problem

But even more, the way he treats all these issues is offensive. The guy obviously never heard of Noble Savage stereotype, or the fact is a harmful one. Sure, it does show you criticize wrongdoings of your culture, but you are still unable to understand other cultures or really respect them. Seeing them as “exotic others” doesn’t change your superiority complex, nor the belief those cultures need you in some way (true, problems on Pandora started only after humans Americans came, but Na’vi were also unable to defend and free themselves- they needed a help of a person coming from our western culture).

Competent marine that he is, Jack Sully learns all there is to know about Na’vi in 3 months and becomes not only a skilled warrior, but one of the best in their history. He becomes their leader and gets the hottest chick as a bonus. In other words: natives are pure and close to nature, but the good guy of our (western) culture is still better than them and they need his help to survive. Not a good message.

History for dummies

The other huge problem is Cameron’s need to dumb everything down to the point one wonders if “Avatar” is actually aimed at 8 year old kids. New flash, kids!: destroying nature is wrong. Invading other cultures is wrong. But if there are other cultures in danger, it is OUR job to help them, because we are superior and they are unable to defend themselves. They need us, kids.

In this aspect, “Avatar” reads way too much like Paulo Coelho, Dan Brown or good ol’ Stephenie Meyer. Just like Coelho is good for those who never understood philosophy, Stephenie Meyer for those who don’t like vampire stories and Dan Brown for those who don’t have any education in art history/history/anything at all (example: people who didn’t find blatantly obvious that “an ancient word of wisdom, 5 letters” is Sofia)- “Avatar” is for those who never thought about colonization and history (not even on Disney “Pocahontas” level). To the rest of us, it’s simply insulting to watch such a predictable story.

But it’s not about the story!

No shit?!? So, what is it about, then? Visual effects? If it’s really about it, then fine. Honestly, if Cameron meant this to be Pocahontas/Dancing with Wolves in space, I am fine with it. But “Avatar” simply takes itself way too seriously.

I don’t personally have anything against people who believe they are great and responsible for major achievements. If you’re good, be aware of it all you like- nobody likes false modesty anyway. But you have to have something actually great to back up your feeling of self importance. “Avatar” isn’t that great, James Cameron. In fact, apart from visual effects, it’s not great at all- it’s below mediocre. It’s predictable, it’s childlike in a bad way, it’s insulting both to non-western cultures AND your audience (for estimating their intelligence and education as pretty low).

Random annoying things

• Even with all the beautiful visual effects, the world building itself is weak. Humans still look like humans, horses like horses and wolves like wolves- only blue. And there isn’t any hint that it’s intentional analogy.
• Pandora is Jupiter painted blue. Just take a look: here. It even has the Great Red (well, in this case Blue) spot. I mean, WTF?!?!? They couldn’t even make an original planet design?
• It’s so predictable that is insulting.
• Those poor noble savages wouldn’t be able to do anything without the compassionate marine Jack.
• This wasn’t aimed at kids. If it were, it would, perhaps, make some sense.
• It’s a box office hit and got so many Oscar nominations. And it deserves only one.
• People like it. People actually like it! They like it so much that I really wonder if I was giving humans way too much credit when it comes to education, intelligence or a taste.

And the good things…

• Visual effects. Convincing, almost realistic. CGI will (hopefully) never be the same again.
• USB hair.
• Sam Worthington’s voice. He does have such a beautiful, deep voice. Too bad he can’t act.

Interesting links

• Avatar is racist, say critics
• When Will White People Stop Making Movies Like “Avatar”?
• Three Very Important Reasons Why Avatar Sucks

I’m not your regular music geek, but I am some sort of music obsessed. Mostly rock music.

The irony: I am untalented for singing or playing (not that I don’t try to play bass guitar from time to time), and I am definitely not one of those people who can name every single obscure alternative band from the 80s. Alternative rock (whatever than means exactly) is great, but I don’t have any problem admitting my passion for more “mainstream” stuff, too.

But when I look at my playlist, I do see it’s mostly rock music- some sort of it. As if other genres don’t really work for me. Another thing I notice is the lack of music created in the last-what? 10 years or so. Yes, I am getting old and I can’t stand modern popular music. Apparently.

And yet, there are some songs that I like, against all odds. I try to resist the urge to actually feel ashamed because of it. Only one of these songs could be somewhat categorized in the rock subgenre (perhaps), and most are recent. Some of them are quality songs, but not in a genre that usually gets my attention. Other clearly lack substance, but were overplayed and catchy enough to make an impact.

Right Here, Right Now (Fatboy Slim)

It was a smashing 1999 hit. To my knowledge, this is the only Fatboy Slim song I really liked.

Why this song? I must admit, it’s not so much for the song- it’s the video. I consider this video to be one of the best ever created. It’s certainly my favourite. It must be noted this was the only time I liked the song because of the video.
Why is this surprising? I am not into this kind of music… Whatever “this kind” might actually be.

Sky (Sonique)

Wikipedia defines it as “a trance-house song by singer and DJ Sonique”, released in 2000. It was a big hit where I live, but for some reason people in general don’t seem to remember it.
Why this song? “Oh I wanna touch the sky I wanna fly so high / Oh I wanna hold you I wanna love you tonight”. It’s too catchy to resist.
Why is this surprising? It’s not particularly surprising, considering the fact that I like to dance, even as this clumsy. I do feel rhythm inside me. But I am not usually impressed with this type of songs.

Ya Soshla S Uma (t.A.T.u.)

Yes. That one. Russian (and, I believe, original) version of “All the things she said”, created in 1999. Remember these energetic fake Russian lesbians? (Fake lesbians, not Russians). And yes, their music is too catchy to even make sense. Their Eastern European accents are clearly touchable when they sing in English. They sound better in Russian.
Why this song? Because of the atmosphere at one moment in the song. And yes, that’s about all.
Why is this surprising? You’re kidding, right? Do I really have to explain?

Bring Me to Life (Evanescence)

Yes, they were a rock band… Technically. But I never considered them as such. This song was impossible to escape in 2003. It’s not that I was ever overly impressed with their music, or even the lead vocalist, but out of all the crap that was out there at the time, this one stank a little less than your average Britney Spears song.
Why this song? This damn thing was catchy and impossible to escape.
Why is this surprising? Because even with Amy Lee’s voice and electric guitars here and there, this song (or band’s work a s whole) never managed to make me believe they are a rock band (I have the same problem with Bon Jovi).

Relax, take it easy (Mika)

Seriously, people. We need more quality vocalists in popular music. And Mika is such a great singer, he could make me listen any sugar-high-pitched-song there is. And this one is actually memorable enough. That being said, I hate remixes.

Why this song? Because it’s actually a decent song. Perhaps the best on this list, sung by a really good vocalist. And it makes me feel calm, yet excited.
Why is this surprising? I prefer deeper voices. I don’t particularly like when a man sings that high: apart from concern for well being of his testicles, I can’t really enjoy the velvet beauty of a baritone.

See also: 5 songs I dislike against all odds

I was sure I wouldn’t like this film. Sherlock Holmes as an action hero, in Guy Ritchie style? No way.

I was in for a surprise.

My first impulse was- “this is ridiculous and it makes no sense”. Well, it doesn’t, does it?- which is exactly what makes this film memorable. Maybe I am giving Guy Ritchie way too much credit, but he didn’t simply made “Sherlock Holmes with many fight scenes”- he actually made a pretty good deconstruction of the story. Ritchie’s reading of Sherlock Holmes might not be close to mine, but he managed to make a memorable story which, against all odds, make sense- the way it is.

Unique reading of the story

First ten minutes or so were predictable, in a way I was almost bored (excessive movie action often does that to me). But restaurant scene with Mary blew me away, and it’s followed by the boxing match- so yes, you could say it got me interested.

Roger Ebert wrote in his review, “The less I thought about Sherlock Holmes, the more I liked “Sherlock Holmes.” Which is a good advice for anybody who likes traditional interpretations of A.C. Doyle’s stories (or anyone who is not crazy about fight scenes). But one must understand this is Sherlock Holmes; it’s not any less “true” because it’s not traditional. It’s Doyle’s world deconstructed, and you can see this in all the little details: allusions to original A.C.Doyle stories (along with quotes), setting (not true to the time, but not random either), and, perhaps the most interesting one, the clues left for the audience to deduct character’s past.

The best thing about this film, however, was Robert Downey Jr. His dirty, sweaty, smelly- but at the same time witty, hedonistic and egoistic Holmes is simply captivating. As interesting Ritchie’s reading of the story might be, not many actors could pull it off. It simply wouldn’t work well- or work at all- without Robert Downey Jr. Just like Johnny Depp is captain Jack Sparrow, Downey is this unique Sherlock Holmes. He completely stole the show- but it’s more than that. There wouldn’t be this film without him. Period.

The bad things?

You can’t really count often incomprehensible action sequences, since they’re meant to be that way. The only thing I really disliked were the female characters. Kelly Reilly’s Mary was so and so, but for some reason I couldn’t stand Rachel McAdams as Irene Adler. “She looks and acts too modern!” would be my first complaint, though, in whole honesty, you can say that for all the characters, as well as setting. But I still feel she didn’t belong there; she wasn’t captivating enough, interesting enough, memorable enough. Maybe the woman simply can’t act. But I am so happy they didn’t (spoiler) have wild sex (they didn’t, did they?), that would spoil everything.

The best of

• -Boxing scene with “Rocky Road to Dublin” in the background. Not as amusing as fight scene in “Snatch” with “Golden Brown” in the background, but equally awesome.
• -Art direction and cinematography. They are excellent, and serve the story perfectly.
• -Watson with a brain. I hate interpretations that make him mentally slow (to say the least).
• -Clues left for us to deduct character’s past.
• -Unique vision of the story and setting.
• -Last, but certainly not the least: Robert Downey Jr.

The movie’s IMDB page states this trivia: “New Moon” is actually Robert Pattinson’s favorite book in the Twilight series.

And it’s crystal clear why. He is absent from most of it.

The viewers don’t have the same luck; more than two hours of the “new saga chapter” feel pretty exhausting and tiresome at moments. On the other hand, it’s not worth the LULZ, so to speak; there isn’t any amusing material even for the hard core “Twilight” haters.

Not that the little improvements aren’t visible. Visually, the movie looks better than it’s predecessor. The blue colour scheme is gone- “New Moon” is richer in colours and looks (and feels) more healthy. Perhaps it was done on purpose? To mark healthier atmosphere once the vampires are gone from Forks? In any case, the move looks a bit more coherent (given the source material) and directing, while obviously uninspired, is somewhat better. So those are the good things.

And the bad things?

Where to start? Seriously, watching this film was painful. The reason: distractions caused by low budget effects and untalented actors. Just think about it. They refused to invest in special effects, so we got even worse coloured contacts, cheap wigs and makeup that just doesn’t work the way it should. And not to mention CGI wolves. Oh please, let’s not mention CGI wolves!

And I guess it’s pointless to talk about acting in this flick (or lack thereof); after all, everything is blatantly obvious. Except for the Volturi crew, which was decent (especially young Dakota Fanning), everyone else was bad. Now, bad comes in many levels, and some actors were simply unwatchable. Here I point at Ashley Greene, whose Alice was beyond annoying.

And the main trio was horrible, as expected, so much it’s hard to say which one of them was the worst. RPAttz saved himself from much embarrassment this time because he was (lucky us!) absent for most of the movie, which leaves Kristen and Taylor. They lacked any chemistry and were absolutely unable to capture the warm feeling of friendship and falling in love. I don’t hide that it was my favourite (or, least hated) part in the whole series- the only thing Meyer got right. Here, it’s absent.

All the major scenes and conversations are there, but the feeling isn’t. Which means Kristen and Taylor fail miserably.

Kristen Stewart lacks acting talent, but you can’t really say she makes a terrible Bella. After all, the character is supposed to be annoying and unsympathetic. Which means Taylor Lautner was the one who failed a big time. The kid isn’t horrible, but… What am I saying? The kid IS horrible. He simply doesn’t have the talent needed to pull through all the emotional scenes nor the maturity to grow with his character. And considering Jacob is pretty much THE ONLY semi-decent and three
dimensional character in the whole “saga”, one can see the problem.

However, it’s important to note that New Moon’s main fault is the story itself. No screenwriter or director can make anything semi-watchable out of Stephenie Meyer’s work. “Twilight” novels are terrible- simple as that- so it’s impossible to expect a movie adaptation to be any better. But I must admit that, given the source material, the low budget effects and horrible acting, “New Moon” isn’t THAT horrible. It isn’t bad in a too-bad-that-it’s-good way, so it’s more mediocre than amusing. Not the worst movie in history, but pretty forgettable.

All in all, I could think of much better ways to spend two hours of my time. So can you.

The best moment:
Jasper’s only movie line.

No, seriously, the best moment:
Jasper trying to kill Bella. (Sadly, he fails).

The worst moment:
Any Robert Pattinson scene. That makeup was simply painful to watch.

Rating: *1/2 jefflions out of *****