Harry Potter Alternate Titles

I've always felt the Harry Potter films have been inappropriately titled. Therefore I took the liberty to change the titles myself.

1. Harry Potter and the Three-Headed Dog That Doesn't Really Do Anything
2. Harry Potter and the Giant Fictitious Snake That Shares Its Name with a Real Lizard
3. Harry Potter and the Flying Eagle Thingy
4. Harry Potter and the Death of Edward Cullen
5. Harry Potter and the Wizard Fight Club
6. Harry Potter and the Constant Use of the Word "Snog"
7. Harry Potter and the Excessively Long Camping Trip
8. Harry Potter and the New-Found Usefulness of the Previously Worthless Neville

10 Movies I Hate That Everyone Else Seems to Love

10. Return of the Living Dead (1985)

I begin this list by loosely defining “everyone.” Not everyone loves this movie, but for some inexplicable reason this is considered a horror classic and has gone on to become a cult hit that defined a generation, albeit a very small one of the “splatterpunk” scene. Yes, that’s actually a word.

It’s your basic zombie apocalypse movie except with some of the most obnoxious characters ever conceived. Ironically, the characters are what many critics point to being the movie’s strongest attribute. Nevertheless it’s a bunch of ‘80s punks hanging around in a graveyard, obsessed with sex, leather, and chains. And that’s it. It might be good for a laugh or two, but it certainly doesn’t warrant an entire film. It’s like a basic sketch comedy scene of what-would-happen-if-zombies-and-punks-mixed.

9. Burn After Reading (2008)

While not a huge hit, this was hailed as another “masterpiece” by the masters of dark comedy, the Coen brothers. I found it to be nothing more than a ridiculously pointless movie that lacked the humor of something like The Big Lebowski.

Despite a great cast, Burn After Reading is a huge disappointment. It basically answers the question: what would happen if a couple idiots came upon a bunch of spy information? But the problem here is that everyone is an idiot, including the spy, played by the iPhoneless John Malkovich. Not a single character is relatable, or believable. While the Coen brothers typically specialize in quirky and unique characters, I was very annoyed by all of these.

This is basically a plotless movie, and it goes on for far too long. I must say, though, that there was one part that had me laughing hysterically, but that was really the only part I enjoyed of this movie. And on top of that, the ending has all the action take place offscreen. I’m not a huge fan of the Coens but this is easily my least favorite of theirs.

8. School of Rock (2003)

I remember when this came out and all my friends were talking about how great it was. I liked rock music, so I kind of wanted to see it, but for some reason I didn’t until about 2008 or so. And I was disgusted.

It’s a Jack Black movie, first of all, so that means you’ll have to put up with some over-the-top obnoxiousness. He does tone it down a bit, considering he is doing stuff he’s clearly interested, and he allows the kids to take over a bit. But if you’re like me and you hate kids, you’ll hate this movie.

The movie has no purpose other than to reference classic songs and have stupid kids play them in a much worse way. It follows your basic premise of the main character lying about something in order to get money (or a job), becomes very well respected, until it’s revealed that he lied. It’s been done hundreds of times, and in far better films.

The ending concert is a bore, and I don’t know, but there’s just something weird about seeing a ten-year-old with a Flying V trying to look cool. Or a ten-year-old drummer with spiky hair. It’s just strange. And then there’s the over-acting of Joan Cusack and one of the worst performances EVER by the guy who plays Jack Black’s best friend. Minor complaint for a film that doesn’t focus on him, but it’s just painful. As is a great deal of this movie.

7. The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974)

I was excited to see this movie. One of the most influential horror films of all time, this helped pave the way to the slasher subgenre, but was itself extremely flawed.

It just kind of begins after some creepy narration, and before we ever get to meet the characters, they’re stuck in the middle of nowhere, Texas, and getting killed off. Movies like these shouldn’t try to be too heavy on plot, but we need some kind of introduction to engage us. I guess they picked up the creepy hitchhiker to set the mood or whatever, but that’s it.

There’s like a séance or something, and then not much else happens except a few people die. Modern audiences will be disappointed at both the lack of kills and the lack of gore. I don’t care about that so much, just as long as the movie is engaging. For instance, the original Halloween is not very gory at all and does not have too many deaths, but it’s a great movie because of how well it’s paced and how everything builds up to the final couple scenes.

This movie doesn’t build up to anything, really, but has a chase at the end. And then it ends. I guess maybe it ends to give the viewer kind of an uneasy feeling like the killer is still out there, or whatever, but this was the worst part of the movie for me. It ended literally right when it was getting good. I didn’t enjoy the movie at all until about an hour and fifty minutes in, and then it ended two minutes later.

This movie left me pissed off when it ended, and that’s why it’s in this list.

6. Beetlejuice (1988)

I hate Tim Burton. While I can’t say I hate every one of his films and some of them are actually pretty good, I just hate his style. He abandons narrative conventions purely for his visual style, which is quite amazing, I’ll admit. His best films, however, have some thread of an interesting story, like Edward Scissorhands, for example.

Beetlejuice, however, is not one of these films. It’s an unfunny mishmash of colors and abstract sets, stupidly written and overacted. It actually has a good cast, including Geena Davis, Michael Keaton, and a young Winona Ryder, but the actors outstretch themselves to bring some shred of character to an otherwise flat script. I found myself hating the titular character the first time he spoke, for instance.

Eventually it’s good ghosts against bad ghosts or whatever, but really who cares? Apparently a lot of people did. This was a very popular film that brought Tim Burton into the spotlight and predated films like Batman and Edward Scissorhands, which would use his vision far better.

5. Friday Night Lights (2004)

I remember when I played football freshman year of high school. My team’s quarterback said I couldn’t play football if I didn’t like Friday Night Lights. I guess that’s why I quit at the end of the year, because I will NEVER like this movie.

This movie has so many problems. For one, it focuses on so many characters that the audience never gets a chance to really know a single one of them. Even the lead, Billy Bob Thornton, is just a face and a voice to say coachy dialogue. And Boobie is there just to get injured and kind of inspire the team because he was the best player or whatever.

On top of all this, the football scenes were filmed horribly. It was all shaky cam. And while I know this was more about how football affects everyone’s lives, it clearly was about the game itself, too, because it climaxes in the state championship. So it’s pretty important to have well-filmed and exciting sports scenes, but that is all sorely lacking here.

And my final point on this one will be a small but important one. It’s on the villainization of opponents in sports movies. Sometimes it’s used well, but it’s such a simplistic way to get the audience to support the protagonists. After Boobie is injured, two players from the opposing team are shown fistbumbing each other, implying some kind of New Orleans Saints bounty thing, or maybe just people who don’t give a shit about other people’s safety. And then in the final game, we’ve got some asshole kicking a helmet into a guy’s face and making him bleed. Of course it goes uncalled. I hate movies that do this kind of shit.

4. Batman Begins (2005)

After The Dark Knight, people have pretty much forgotten Batman Begins, but at one time it was widely thought to be the best Batman movie and among the best superhero/comic book films of all time. But that didn’t fool me. This movie sucks.

My biggest complaint here is yet again the shaky cam. In every action sequence, the camera shakes violently like the cameraman is getting his ass kicked. It’s so bad that you can’t tell what’s going on. What’s the most important thing in a movie? Being able to see what’s happening!

So this movie violates rule number one, but it also fails at its own game. Because it’s one of those origin stories, about half the film focuses on how Bruce Wayne becomes Batman, which I really didn’t care about to begin with. Not only that, but we don’t learn anything about Bruce Wayne as a character. He was afraid of bats so now he tries to scare criminals by being like a bat, is virtually all I got from him. Batman and Batman Forever, flawed as they may be (Forever in particular), both managed to be far more interesting about Batman’s origins in just a few brief flashbacks.

And like many origin stories, this falls victim to having a stupid plot and antagonist after the origin is revealed. In this case, we’ve got a bad Liam Neeson (for some reason, even though he seemed pretty good in the beginning; it’s never explained well), Tom Wilkinson playing a mafia dude, and Cillian Murphy as a psychiatrist who makes people insane by spraying them with LSD or whatever. Murphy probably gets the most attention, which is another misstep by the film, because he’s the most ridiculous. Despite this movie trying to be an ultra-serious and realistic Batman film, we still have to put up with the character of Scarecrow. While his motivations are clear, the character itself is so ridiculous. And I’ll add, too, that Cillian Murphy is only good when he’s playing someone from his native Ireland, or at the very least the rest of the British isles.

Thankfully this movie is kind of forgotten, but the damage has already been done.

3. The Boondock Saints (1999)

I shouldn’t even have to say anything because this is a shitty movie and critics know it. For some reason, every dude around my age loves this movie. I don’t know. It’s just an extremely violent and vulgar Tarantino rip-off, replacing wit for the most problematic and stupid message ever put to film.

There are two Irish-Catholic brothers who go around murdering criminals. I guess we’re supposed to like them because they’re taking the law into their own hands. FALSE. While characters like Batman do the same thing, he has a strict code of ethics that doesn’t allow him to kill anyone. Here the two brothers have this one rule that they don’t kill anyone who doesn’t deserve it. Oh. So who puts them in charge of saying who deserves death and who doesn’t? If these guys were serious Catholics, they’d realize that only God has that right, and there is always potential for redemption, even for the most horrible criminals (like them). This is why this movie is so fucking offensive to me as a Catholic.

Oh but they pray in Latin when they kill someone—isn’t that cute!!!!

Done before. Samuel L. Jackson with his Ezekiel passage in Pulp Fiction.

Oh, a gun accidentally goes off in a normal conversation scene, splattering a cat’s brains all over the wall.

Done before. Pulp Fiction again, this time with a human, making it a hell of a lot funnier actually.

They escape and then it’s showed in flashback how they escaped! It’s being nonlinear!

Done before. Every Quentin Tarantino movie ever.

And Willem Dafoe’s in it. Now seeing as how he’s from my hometown, I’m inclined to like him a lot. And he’s done some flat-out amazing performances in movies like Platoon and Antichrist, but here he plays such a stupid character who cross-dresses for some reason and screams out some of the dumbest lines ever written.

This movie is not just not good. It’s terrible.

2. Dazed and Confused (1993)

The soundtrack is all this movie has going for it. It begins in what feels not like a plot but like just an introduction to the main and supporting characters. And then ten minutes in, it hits you: this is the entire movie. People going around acting like idiots, being unlikable, and doing drugs and drinking.

The characters just about all suck. Slater is good for a laugh or two, the Jewish guy from Saving Private Ryan and his John Denver lookalike friend are alright, despite Denver having a creepy pedophilic obsession with a freshman—one of the many problematic messages in this movie, in terms of morals—and the main guy Pink Floyd is somewhat relatable and not an asshole. That’s as big a compliment any of the characters can get for this piece of shit. The main freshman, played by a young Tim Lincecum, is cocky sack of shit who I want to punch in the face every time he’s on screen. The guy who wears the overalls is an annoying sack of shit, and I literally found myself groaning whenever he was in a scene. Matthew McConaughey delivers his inexplicably classic line, but is far too creepy to be found funny, really. And Ben Affleck manages to be more of an asshole in this movie than he is in real life, somehow.

But the characters are the least of this movie’s problems. This movie has no plot. It’s just a movie about people getting drunk and high, with absolutely ZERO consequences. I might have found myself caring about something if there was a threat of them getting caught or busted, but probably not even then. I don’t give a shit if this movie “captures the 70s really well,” as everyone says it does, because it’s just a stupid, pointless movie. Nothing happens and this movie makes no effort to make me care about any of the characters or about anything that happens.

1. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)

I hate this movie more than life itself. While I can’t say I love any of the Potter movies, I consider myself a bit of a fan of the series, liking all the movies except for this one and Azkaban, ironically the two considered by many critics to be among the best.

I hate the style of this movie. The direction is just off. One can look back at the first two films and complain how they’re two kiddy and stuff, but let’s face it: it’s a story about a boy who was 11 and 12 and it’s a story about magic and stuff that appeals to kids. Starting with the third, they took a much darker tone, and the series suffered briefly as a consequence, in my opinion.

My biggest complaint about the Potter series is that there are so many awkward moments. They exist in I think all of the movies, perhaps the exception being the last, which I’ve only seen once, so I can’t be sure. But it’s never more prevalent than in this film. The humor is still quite childish, but it sticks out like a sore thumb because this movie isn’t trying to be for kids. It’s PG-13, for Christ’s sake!

Now if you don’t know what I mean about awkward moments, I’ll do my best to describe a few, but there’s no way I can make you squirm and cringe the way I did while watching this movie. There’s one part where Ron is forced to dance with Professor McGonagall because he was talking or something. The entire Quidditch World Cup scene is just strange, how it’s painfully blunt in its foreshadowing of the importance of Viktor Krum and in its having the Weasley twins have to tell the audience which team is which, when we can clearly tell who’s Irish and who’s Bulgarian, and then in its tease to show you the game only to not show one second of the goddamn game (in hindsight probably not a bad idea, considering the Quidditch scenes started sucking after the second movie). The girl students from France or whatever with their stupid entrance trying to look like sex objects, and the Russian guy students quite literally announcing to all of Hogwarts upon their entrance that they’re evil. Then there’s that scene where Snape kind of pushes on Harry and Ron’s heads and they make noises of pain, and I’m just like “that doesn’t actually hurt at all.” There’s Filch running for some reason like he’s got shit in his pants. There’s the guy that looks like Hitler, who I find myself laughing at whenever I see him. There’s that pointless scene of when they eat the crackers or something that make them make animal noises. And that’s only scratching the surface.

All these awkward moments make the film into such an indescribably uncomfortable viewing experience. All the good moments like the dragon scene are completely overshadowed by glimpses of Neville dancing by himself and a stupid fucking wizard rock band. That people like this movie simply astounds me.

The Miami Heat

If there's one thing I've learned in my time of being a casual NBA fan that for the most part doesn't have time to watch basketball except for during the playoffs, it's that the Miami Heat is a shameless team. They're shameless for a number of reasons, notably their ability to flop at every man that comes across their path and somehow getting just about every call, but also for their concept of revenge.

Now I'm not a Miami Heat hater for no reason at all. I actually have some respect for LeBron James as I cannot see one fault in his game and he always makes everyone around him better. Dwyane Wade on the other hand...I hate him. I haven't hated a single player in the NBA so much since Dikembe Mutombo got away with multiple goaltendings against Jason Caffey in game 7 of the 2001 or whatever Eastern Conference Finals.

I'm going to start off with a few comments on the Pacers series. The incident that first sparked my interest was Tyler Hansbrough fouling Dwyane Wade in the head. It was a hard foul but his intent was undoubtedly for the ball. On the next possession, Hansbrough had a wide-open jumper that he took while Udonis Haslem jumped in with both hands to the white guy's face. Yes, he was called for a technical, but if I were a referee, I would have tossed the little shit out of the game. He had no shame whatsoever; in fact, he went out of his way to make it look like he wasn't going for the ball. This kind of "you get my guy, I'll get yours" philosophy is totally a baseball thing and it shocked me to see it in basketball. And later in the game, while it was already out of hand, benchwarming Heat player Dexter Pittman shot an elbow to Lance Stephenson's neck that would have made even Ron Artest cringe. And yes, he was caught winking at the camera shortly afterwards. And yes, it by no means was going for the ball; he was going at Stephenson. Of course, Stephenson notoriously made a choking face and motion to LeBron once. So I guess that warrants attempted murder on the court. And he only got a 3 game suspension.

Now I'm not one to bitch about officiating but tonight in game 2 against the Celtics things were out of hand. I didn't see game 1 but I can say the tech on Ray Allen was ridiculous. Nevertheless tonight probably topped it. LeBron got away with a goaltending that led to a DWade 3-point play on what was clearly a clean block and should have been either a travel or a jump ball. Rajon Rondo was called for a foul when LeBron James fell on him. Kevin Garnett was called for a technical foul when he tried to get control of the ball after getting punched in the face, more or less. Paul Pierce fouled out on one of the clearest straight-up plays I've ever seen; and yes, I know he left the ground, but you can do that and have it still be a charge if you're straight up and there before Wade, like he was. Dwyane Wade hit Rondo in the face on one of Rajon's layups and went uncalled. Dwyane Wade did his signature kick on Kevin Garnett as he went in for the layup and KG was called for it.

The call that pissed me off perhaps the most, though, was actually the right call. Rondo made a deep 2 that was called a 3. The replay clearly showed that he was on the line, but it was ruled a 3 on the court and wasn't changed until 2 possessions later. That made no sense to me that it could be changed that much later. It would have made sense if after he made it, the Heat called a timeout and they overruled it, but no, the refs waited until after Miami had made another basket. If Miami had known that was a 2, their strategy could have been completely different. That's the equivalent of someone making a field goal in the NFL and having it overturned in the next quarter, saying he didn't make it. The time in between just baffles me. And if they can change one thing like that, why can't they change another? Why couldn't they go back and call the Wade smacking Rondo in the face a foul? He was clearly hit and you couldn't deny that was a foul. This just doesn't make sense to me.

Now I'm always hesitant when it comes to conspiracy theories and there was some talk after game 1. I'm not going to go so far as to say David Stern is behind this, but I can say that that was some of the worst officiating I've ever seen. The Heat got every call possible, and they so happen to have 2 of the most popular players in the game. Draw whatever conclusions you want.

The Great Gatsby Trailer...

Since the Robert Redford version in the 1970s was more or less a disaster, I wouldn't really consider it a remake if someone were to come along and do a straight adaptation of Fitzgerald's quintessential novel of the Jazz Age. However, Baz Luhrmann got the rights to the film and appears to be bringing his signature visual and anachronistic style to the project.

Before the trailer came out I can't remember a time I had been so excited for a movie without seeing the trailer. Why is that, you ask? Well probably the same reason everyone else is abuzz about the trailer: It's one of the greatest and most read novels in history and DiCaprio, one of the best and seems like a perfect choice for the titular character.

Once I finally saw the trailer I was overcome with such a mix of emotions, I don't really know where to begin. I suppose I'll start with Luhrmann himself, for he is probably the most stylistic mainstream director ever to walk the earth. I've only seen two of his films: Rome + Juliet and Moulin Rouge! and they were both decent, but had so many moments that just made me feel uncomfortable. With Romeo + Juliet for example, he took such a post-modern perspective with a barrage of colors, images, and music that it was overwhelming and the first five minutes felt like an extended trailer for a film. I would have called it a bad movie (due mostly to Benvolio, Mercutio, and Tybalt all being horribly adapted) were it not for DiCaprio's amazing performance as Romeo. With the exception of maybe The Aviator, I'd say it's his best ever. Nevertheless it's a film that you really have to get used to in order to watch it and it always bothers me that you have to do something weird with Shakespeare in order to get it watched by mainstream audiences. Nevertheless I saw Moulin Rouge!, Luhrmann's so far signature film, which was up for a bunch of Academy Awards and stuff. The visual style here served the film well because it was just a flashy musical, incorporating some things that never could have been done on stage. I didn't think it was a great movie, however, but a decent one. I also tried watching strictly Ballroom but turned it off after the first 10 minutes because I was horribly annoyed. I know you have to ease yourself into his films, but ultimately I didn't care that much; Romeo + Juliet was Shakespeare and I had heard great things about Moulin Rouge!, so I really wanted to see them.

Now on to the Gatsby trailer, released yesterday.

The first thing that struck me as odd was the music; did you ever expect to hear a Kanye West/Jay-Z song in an adaptation of an F Scott Fitzgerald novel? And I realize it's just in the trailer, but knowing Luhrmann, it's also in the film. I wish he would just make a straightforward adaptation of the novel. He could still get flashy with the visuals, showing the excess of the period, without going 3D (and yes, this film is in 3D) and using modern music. Sadly I don't think this jumped into the director's mind.

The next thing that bothered me was the narrator. It's Tobey Maguire. And yes, I knew Tobey Maguire would play Nick Carraway, but I was distressed to learn that months ago. Why? I'll put it simply: I hate Tobey Maguire. I think he's a terrible actor. I'm going off primarily one film when I say this, but he was so godawful in Spiderman that a decent performance in Seabiscuit can't win him any respect from me. There's just something about him; he's monotone, he mumbles, he looks kind of goofy. I don't know. But hearing his voice in his faux Midwest accent in the trailer just bothered me. He almost sounds like he belongs in Fargo, if you ask me. And yes, I'm from the Midwest, so I know what I'm talking about for once. Listen to him say the word "higher" or "bigger" and try not to laugh. What about the first thing he says? Is it "temper" or "tempo?" I don't know. What do you expect, casting a bad actor from Santa Monica to play a Minnesotan with ties to Lake Geneva, Wisconsin? This seems like a minor detail; I can't say for sure the character is completely ruined like Mercutio in Romeo + Juliet yet.

Now I'd be unfair to point out some good things about the trailer. The look of the film is what I'd expect, colorful and vibrant, both for a Luhrmann film and for an adaptation of the novel. The costumes and the sets look great. I like the part where Leo's tossing clothes down to Carey Mulligan, who also is cast perfectly. There is one point, however, where the car's driving down the road that looks a bit like a cartoon, and I guess I have mixed feelings on the New York skyline behind the bridge in the opening shot of the trailer, but for the most part it looks quite good. I just really hope this film has more of a basis in reality than Moulin Rouge! did. It worked in Moulin Rouge! like I said, but I don't think it would here.

And another thing I'd like to say is that I'm excited about DiCaprio. Yes, he's one of my favorite actors, and one of the better ones out there, but I'm really excited that he's not doing a stupid Boston accent for this one.

So despite my many complaints, I'll still be there in the theaters to see this on opening weekend, I'm sure. And while most of my complaints are about Luhrmann's style, that's not to say the film would not be a good one if it has his usual excess. I just don't think it would be the ideal adaptation that I would want to see. For instance, Romeo + Juliet is a good movie, but as far as actual Shakespeare adaptations goes, it doesn't touch the Branagh ones of the same period, because those stay truer to the feel and the setting, instead of just the dialogue.

10 Best Albums by The Beatles and the Rolling Stones

The Beatles
1. Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (1967)
2. Revolver (1966)
3. Help! (1965)
4. Abbey Road (1969)
5. Rubber Soul (1965)
6. Please Please Me (1963)
7. Let It Be (1970)
8. A Hard Day's Night (1964)
9. The Beatles (The White Album) (1968)
10. Beatles for Sale (1965)

The Rolling Stones
1. Exile on Main St. (1972)
2. Sticky Fingers (1971)
3. Let It Bleed (1969)
4. Beggars Banquet (1968)
5. Aftermath (1966)
6. Some Girls (1978)
7. A Bigger Bang (2005)
8. Tattoo You (1981)
9. The Rolling Stones No. 2 (1965)
10. Their Satanic Majesties Request (1967)

10 Best Between the Two:
1. Exile on Main St. by the Rolling Stones
2. Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band by the Beatles
3. Revolver by The Beatles
4. Sticky Fingers by the Rolling Stones
5. Let It Bleed by the Rolling Stones
6. Help! by the Beatles
7. Abbey Road by The Beatles
8. Beggars Banquet by the Rolling Stones (1968)
9. Rubber Soul by the Beatles (1965)
10. Please Please Me by The Beatles (1963)

Movies I Have Memorized

Some movies are just a lot easier to memorize than others. Others I've just seen a thousand times. This is a list of movies I am confident I have memorized:
Ace Ventura: Pet Detective (1994)
Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery (1997)
Back to the Future (1985)
Jurassic Park (1993)
Liar Liar (1997)
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
Shrek (2001)
Wayne's World (1992)
Young Frankenstein (1974)

Movie that I haven't seen in 10 years but would not be surprised if I still had memorized:
The Emperor's New Groove (2000)

Movies I'm incredibly close to memorizing:
Airplane! (1980)
Finding Nemo (2003)
Forrest Gump (1994)
The Good, the Bad & the Ugly (1966)
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)
The Naked Gun (1988)
Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
Tommy (1975) - I'm sure I have everything but the few changed lyrics

Top 10 Laughably Awful Popular Songs

I've been criticizing top-40 music for a long time, and for one good reason: it sucks. Most of it. There are some good songs, I will admit, but considering the amount of radioplay some of these frauds get, our society should be offended. Expect lots of Nicki Minaj.

10. Beez in the Trap by Nicki Minaj feat. whoever the hell is desperate enough to do this stupid song with her
The song opens with the chorus, which is...confusing to say the least. What does it mean? 2 Chainz does a tolerable job with his verse, but then it's back to Nicki. And the one thing funnier than seeing her move around in a green wig (yes, a green wig) is her rapping in this song. There's a bridge with this weird electronic noise happening that makes it sound like your speakers are breaking. Why would anyone want to put that in a song? Nicki Minaj of course ends the song by naming as many cities as she knows, including "Ohio, Pittsburgh...Saint Louis." Yep. 

9. Best Love Song by T-Pain feat. Chris Brown
The first time I heard the chorus to this song, I almost got into a car accident I was laughing so hard. And that was before I knew the title to this song, which made me laugh once I saw it. Now I hate Chris Brown as much as I hate myself, but he does nothing wrong in this song; it's completely destroyed by T-Pain's stupid autotune antics. And I know that's his thing, but there's only so much a man can take.When he goes "yeah yeah yeah yeah" in that echoing goofily autotuned voice of his, I can't help but laugh.

8. Who Owns My Heart by Miley Cyrus
The line "who owns my heart/is it love or is it art" is itself enough to put the song in the list. That's the epitome of writing a word and desperately needing one to rhyme with it. So she went with art, coincidentally the exact opposite of what this song is.

7. Give Me Everything by Pitbull feat. Nayer and Ne-Yo
The song that teaches you Kodak rhymes with Kodak, and also the rare product placement in the song for Pitbull, when it's usually just in the video. Nonetheless, this song is horrendous, with Nayer whispering the bridge, likely because she can't sing. And then there's that goofy synthesizer beat during the Ne-Yo parts.

6. Stupid Hoe by Nicki Minaj
Nicki Minaj ruins what's actually a pretty sick beat by making an obnoxious "woo woo" noise in the background the entire song and putting together some of the worst lyrics ever written. It's 2012 (maybe '11 when this was made) and she makes a Brad &Angelina/Jennifer Aniston joke. Didn't that wear out in 2006? Add a year-old BP joke, an overly repetitive chorus, and one of those painfully long obnoxious Nicki Minaj note-holds and you have one of the worst songs ever made.

5. Hard in Da Paint by Waka Flocka Flame
That's right. The anthem of first floor Loschert '11-'12 is in this list. Primarily because it'san anthem out of stupidity. One can't even say Waka Flocka is producing rap in this song; he's simply making noise. It's so hilarious that it essentially becomes a great song, something I can't say about any of the others in this list.

4. How to Love by Lil Wayne
This song is in this list for one primary reason: LIL WAYNE'S VOICE. This is coming from a Bob Dylan fan that I can literally not listen to this song. It's so painful. His voice is bad enough when he's rapping, but when he sings it's like nails on a chalkboard. And on a minor note, he erases any and all emotional impact this song could have had by him mentioning that the woman in the song is a bartender or stripper...as if that's the only woman he could imagine. Now I'm not a feminist by any means, but this just goes to show you how stupid and unimaginitive Lil Wayne is.

3. Peacock by Katy Perry
Easily the low point of what I actually consider a solid album. This song is the dumbest, most in your face innuendo I've ever heard, and it's the ENTIRE SONG.

2. My Chick Bad by Ludacris feat. Nicki Minaj
Everything about this song is just horrendous. Actually Nicki's verse it the most tolerable part, so let that be an indication of how horrible this is. Ludacris is rapping about stuff and then stopping and saying one word that kind of connects with what he just rapped about, you know, like Lil Wayne does in all of his songs. Here it's painful. The Homer Simpson part is the highlight.

1. Dance (A$$ Remix) by Big Sean feat. Nicki Minaj
What can I say about this song that I haven't already said. It's guaranteed to make u stupider.