Clifford
Directed by: Paul Flaherty
Written by: Jay Dee Rock and Bobby Von Hayes
Starring: Martin Short, Charles Groden, Ben Savage (?)

“Whats the difference between Clifford and a pit bull?One will tear your heart out, scare your friends andwreck your house. The other one is a dog.”

So reads a very extended tagline to “Clifford”, the1994 coming-of-age tale of a little boy who needs tolearn he can’t always get his way. The story behindthis film is that the makers of the film could notland a child star like Macauley Culkin, so theydecided to get the next best thing: Martin Short. Whatwe end up with is a new take on the wonderful “ProblemChild” series. Mmmm, John Ritter.

Clifford (Short) with do anything to get to theDinosaurworld theme park in Los Angeles. Cliffordmanages to, with the aid of his toy brontosaurausStefan (you’ll see a lot of him), force his parents’plane to land in L.A., where his estranged UncleMartin (Charles Grodin of the Beethoven the Dogmovies) lives. Of course, his Uncle Martin is theeternal bachelor, living in a large home by a cliff hemight possibly have built himself. Martin, you see, isan architect, working on plans for a monorailconnecting the entire city. Martin has no time and nodesire for children, which is unfortunate for him, ashis fiance (Mary Steenburgen - “Back to the FutureIII”) runs a daycare centre at his work.

Back at the airport, Clifford annoys his parents bystealing from some members of the clergy, and hisparents have had enough. They decide to head to Hawaiiwithout him, and leave Clifford with Uncle Martin.Martin sees this as an opportunity to prove to hisfiance that he can be good with kids.

But Clifford is no ordinary child. Oh no no no. AfterUncle Martin cancels their trip to Dinosaurworld inorder to finish the transit system, Clifford goesbonkers. He embarrasses him in front of his boss(played by Dabney Coleman - “Amos and Andrew”"Drexell’s Class”), his fiance’s parents, tricking himout of the house and even trying to steal theaffection of his lover. As Clifford gets crazier inhis quest of revenge, Martin gets crazier as well,only to at misopportune moments find himself even more embarrassed as he’s caught in the act of beating his poor nephew. This is the kind of sitcom-esque laughs I’m expecting on futre episodes of “Thats My Bush!”, but thats another story.

I watched this with my girlfriend, and she foundMartin Short as Clifford to be “just plain scary…and very very wrong”. But forget her, she’s acrackhead. Short rules, as does Grodin. Theirexchanges are amongst the most insane and goofyvariety. They are classic. You will never forget asGrodin is forced off the road to fetch Clifford atreat, resulting in the now infamous line: “Get me thebunny!”

Short goes back and forth from cute little angel todevils cabana boy. And yes, he does manage to sneakthe Ed Grimley dance in there somehow.

The film climaxes when an over-the-edge Uncle Martinfinally gets Clifford to his desired land:Dinosaurworld. This happens after dark, and Martinhas a free pass to the park as he helped design theparks most famous ride: Larry the Scary Rex (thisscene has the catchiest music I’ve heard in a while).Pterry the Pterodactyl is Cliffords guide throughhorror, a device of Martins to finally teach Cliffordto respect people and that he can’t always have hisway.

Go find Clifford. Run to him. Video stores are takingit off the shelves. It needs love. All he wants islove. Wont you love him? I do. — The Pretentious Goon

NHL 2001 (PC)
Developed by: Electronic Arts
Published by: Electronic Arts

Everyone knows that Electronic Arts are pretty reliable when it comes to sports games. They’ve had plenty of experience developing them, so it’s no big surprise that NHL 2001 is a good hockey game. A very good hockey game. But when it comes to EA’s sports games, the only way you can truly judge them is to step back and compare each title with the ones that have come in previous years.

Myself, I find it hard to keep up with their annual releases. (As I’m writing this review, NHL 2002 is probably going to be out in just a couple of months.) Over the last few years in particular, the games don’t seem to have changed much. Sure the rosters have been updated, and the graphics look a little sharper or whatever, but there’s just nothing groundbreaking about them. And I guess you can’t really blame EA, because hey, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

However, I am happy to say, NHL 2001 is the first NHL release in a long time to really truly blow me away.

Part of the reason for this is because this is the first EA sports game I have had the pleasure of playing on my PC. In the past I had found that being a PC gamer is often more trouble than it’s worth. You have the potential for much better graphics, but only if your computer is up to par with the game industry standards (mine is usually far from it). Well it turns out that this year I finally had a new computer with ample processing power, thus making it possible for me to indulge in NHL 2001. And let me just say, it is a real “hoot”, if you will.

Graphically, this game is amazing. For the first time, I can actually recognize a particular player just by seeing his face, rather than by the number on his sweater.

They have further enhanced the illusion of watching hockey on TV by showing little cut scenes in between plays of the players skating to the bench, trash talking or shaking their heads at the ref. The players’ movements and facial expressions are uncanny in their realism, and the variety of cut scenes keeps the game from feeling repetitive. (If you’re impatient, you can always skip these animations anyways.)

The only thing that keeps me from thinking this is an actual live game on TV is the rather lifeless look in the eyes of the players. (I guess they’re saving that fix for NHL 2002…)

The game options are virtually unlimited this time around. You can almost get lost in the maze of menus and screens that allow you to configure the game. To say that the game is “highly customizable” would be a severe understatement. Game Speed? Speed Burst Length? Puck Friction?! Puck elasticity?!!! It’s all here baby.

In order to fully enjoy the game, you’ll want to use a good controller with at least 6 or 7 different buttons. There are probably over 12 different actions that you can assign to a button, so with only a 4 button controller you will be getting by with just the bare essentials.

If you want to use the keyboard, you won’t have a problem finding enough keys, but I think that it will probably be rather clumsy to use. Unless you’re big into using keyboards for gaming. Whatever.

The on-line gameplay is pretty impressive too. I had my doubts, but it proved to be fairly smooth and free of lag. I don’t think it would be playable if you don’t have a cable, DSL or other broadband internet connection though. Of course, you could always play over a local network as well.

EA always does a good job of making the game accessible to both the casual player and the hardcore hockey geek. There is a “Quick Start” menu option that will let you basically choose your teams and hit the ice.

However, if you are the kind of person that really gets into these games, then you’ll love NHL 2001. Especially on the PC.

One of the advantages of playing this game on the PC is that EA releases regular roster updates so that you don’t have to wait for next year’s version of the game to get the results of the latest wheeling and dealing. This is something that we may start to see with console games as well, once they get internet connectivity fully integrated with them.

One disappointing thing about these roster updates is that any players who were not included in the game when it was first released (such as Mario Lemieux) will not get customized faces. Instead, they will have to use one of the generic faces that are built into the game.

My favourite new geek feature in NHL 2001 is the Face Import utility. A lot of people seem to complain that this is useless, but I guess it just depends on your point of view. If you are satisfied just playing by the book, pitting your favourite NHL team against your least favourite NHL team, then the Face Import utility will provide little amusement for you. But if you enjoy seeing digital versions of your friends and other strange celebrities scrapping each other, then this might be a dream come true.

Basically, this feature allows you to scan in a photograph of someone and map it onto a player’s face. Mapping the player’s face involves outlining the head, eyes, nose and mouth, and it is pretty easy to do. While the results are not always the most convincing, at the very least you will have a good time turning your friends into lopsided and disproportionate freaks.

You can also create a custom team, complete with its own unique logo, team name, and a roster that can combine all your favourite NHL players with your custom made players. You can then use the custom teams when playing exhibition games (including on-line play!). The unfortunate thing is that you can’t play a season with these custom teams. Oh well.

You can even import MP3s for in-game music and choose your own taunt sound clips. Tell me, what’s better than scoring a game winner in overtime against your friend and then bugging the hell out of him by repeating an Arnold Schwarzenegger quote over and over? Nothing, that’s what, nothing.

Of course, as with any NHL game, 2001 has a few minor annoyances to it.

The main complaint I have with the game is this new concept of “momentum”. I’m sure you’re familiar with how momentum can work in sports. If one team gets on a roll, and scores a series of goals, then they may gain confidence while the other team in turn loses morale. This makes the team that is on a roll more likely to score again. I’m not sure if this has actually been used in any of EA’s previous NHL games, but I don’t really like the way it works in this one.

The worst part is, you can’t turn this feature off.

From my experience playing NHL 2001, momentum seems to have a huge impact on the outcome of the game. Especially when you’re playing against the computer. If you’re playing the computer, you better hope they don’t score, because once they score, they will usually follow it up immediately with a flurry of goals that will leave your head spinning. It’s like, if they score on you, you might as well just forfeit the game.

In fact, it completely changes your game strategy as well, because you start to pay more attention to the momentum meter than anything else. If your opponent gets a goal, you’ll just be trying to dump a shot on net as soon as possible in order to diffuse their momentum and bring the game back to even ground.

Whether or not it is an accurate simulation of hockey remains to be seen, but the bottom line is, I didn’t find it to be a lot of fun. In order to keep the game competitive, you want to feel like anything can happen. Even if you’re down by 5 goals, you should at least have a chance to come back from that deficit.

In the end, I suppose it adds a fresh challenge to the game, but if you’re going to add such a radical new dimension to the gameplay, you really should at least give players the option to turn it off, or control the extent to which it affects the game. Then again, I guess if they did that, people wouldn’t have much reason to play any of EA’s older NHL games, or to buy any future ones either.

It’s also a lot harder to score in NHL 2001 than it used to be. In past NHL games, there were usually various deke maneuvres that would virtually guarantee you a goal. Now some people might say that it’s “cheap” to be able to use the same move time and again to score goals. But if someone is so predictable that they always use the same move all the time, they should be easy to beat. And you always have the option to control your goaltender manually too.

In a way this is good because it forces people to find new ways to score. On the other hand, it makes for a lot of low scoring games, and less realistic gameplay.

At the very least, in the previous games, there was a good chance you could score if you were on a breakaway. In NHL 2001, deking seems to have very little effect. The most effective way of scoring seems to be skating up to the blue line and letting a floater go. You have to understand how annoying it is to have someone take the lead with less than a minute left from one of these cheesy floaters. It’s a travesty to the game, it really is.

Another small beef I have is that when a penalty is over, a window appears in the top right corner of the screen to show the player coming out of the box. The window temporarily blocks your view of that part of the ice, which can make for some rather frustrating moments. This is one place where EA got a little too carried away with the TV simulation when they should have placed more importance on the actual gameplay.

Lastly, I should note that although my version of NHL 2001 was fairly stable, for some reason it seemed to crash quite often in the middle of creating a new player. Of course, this only happened after I applied the latest patches from EA, so maybe the secret is to avoid those pesky patches altogether. (Again, remember that EA motto: if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.) Either way, I doubt you’ll notice this problem much, since I seem to be the only person I know who actually uses this player creation tool anyways.

Hmmm.. well I guess this has been a pretty exhaustive review of the game. It’s highly recommended for any serious hockey heads, and if you’re wondering how it stacks up with the games from previous years, well, there are more than enough cool new features to make it worth the investment. If it wasn’t for that damn momentum meter, this game could have been perfect. It’s just a good thing I’m not as temperamental as I used to be, because I’d probably have smashed more than a few controllers by now.– Sean

15 Minutes
Written and Directed by: John Herzfeld
Starring: Robert DeNiro, Edward Burns, Kelsey Grammar

I’ll just come right out and say it: this movie was not that great. Am I surprised? Not really. I always think thatif DeNiro is in a movie, it is probably somewhat worthwhile. I keepforgetting that he has been in his share of duds. Like Rocky And Bullwinkle. Stupid me.

Robert DeNiro plays a veteran homicide detective named Eddie Fleming who is a bit of alocal hero in NYC. He is loved by all the journalists, and always gives them the inside scoopon the cases he is working on. In fact, he is even planning on proposing to one of the newsreporters (meaning, he wants to marry her dumbass!).

Along come Oleg and Emil, two Czechoslovakians who have travelled to New York City to collectsome money that is owed to them. Oleg is obsessed with films, and acts like an excitedlittle kid because of the fact that he is in America, where so many great movies were made.He buys a camcorder at a local store, and begins to carry it around on their journey.When their collection attempts turn violent and become a series of murders, their adventuresbecome the source material for Oleg’s first feature film. At first Emil is annoyed by havingthe camera around, but he starts to go a little nutty, overwhelmed by his newfounddesire for fame.

The movie lacks cohesion and consistency.15 Minutes doesn’t really know what it’s trying to be. On one hand it’sreally comic and goofy, but on the other hand it’s very gruesome andrealistic. Then there are these cheesy love stories intertwined too.It’s difficult as a viewer to make the transitions from the goofy moments to theserious moments. It makes the serious moments seem very pretentious and unintentionallyfunny.

Not only does the movie have a lot of mixed up ideas, but it has a lot of mismatched actors too.The relationship between Eddie Fleming and the fire marshall (Edward Burns)is very inconsistent and awkward.The fire marshall continually makes up all these stupid excuses for tagging along with DeNiro.At first DeNiro plays the tough cop who doesn’t need help, then suddenly he changes his mindand gets all buddy-buddy with him.

I hate to say it, but I think the acting was just bad in this film. Even DeNiro seemed really woodenon more than one occasion. After telling a girl that her friend wasmurdered he follows this up by asking, “Are you okay? Do you want a glass of water?” Gee, what a sweet guy.

There are a lot of wack cameos too. David Alan Grier of In LivingColour fame plays a spineless mugger who ends up getting handcuffed to a treeby the fire marshall (Fire Marshall Bill?)and he sits there whining in his high pitched voice. Then later in the moviewe see him all seriously pleading his case against a court… what was with that?Then of course, we have Darius McCrary (best known as Eddy from Family Matters) playingan eager rookie cop who looks up to Eddie Fleming.Having Frasier as the “evil” media guy didn’t work either. Frasier just doesn’t seem evilenough. I think the only actor who really got the job done was Avery Brooks.

John Herzfeld, who previously directed 2 Days In The Valley, doesn’t seem to be one forsubtlety or minimalism.The style of the movie is also all over the map. The music mix is eclectic and annoying.He overuses the handheld camera shots, in an attempt to be artsy, but in the endit just seems cheesy.

15 Minutes is a movie that attempts to deliver some sort of social message, but it alljust gets lost in the confusion. Not to mention the fact that the message itselfis nothing particularly original. How many times have we heard people debating the glorificationof violence in the media?

I’m all for posing questions and delivering messages in movies, but there’s nothing morefrustrating than a movie that reaches for that goal and doesn’t quite get there. If onlythere was a little less goofiness, and a little more depth here, it might have beena cool flick. As it is, I just felt like the film didn’t achieve much of anything.– Sean

Moneen - The Theory Of Harmonial Value
(Smallman)

Although Moneen seem like the hyperactive kids in school who never did their homework,when it comes to music, they have got to be the hardest workers in their class.They have studied carefully, taking notes from bands such as Jimmy Eat World, Elliot andThe Get Up Kids, and then using them to create something new and unique.

Since the release of their first 4 song EP “Smaller Chairs For The Early 1900’s”, Moneen have beenturning heads and wowing audiences with their insane live show.These guys managed to go quite a long way on the strength of this debut EP alone, andthis left a lot of people wondering what the heck they could possibly do for an encore.

Now, as they enter their sophomore year, they show no signs of slacking off. This timearound they have been closely studying the works of one… Dr. Lozlo Pronowski?Dr. Pronowski, they claim, is a Russian mathematician who examined the relationship betweennumber patterns and musical harmony. Whether he is real or fictitious remains to be seen,but there’s no questioning that Moneen’s first full length release is a mathematicallysound piece of work.

The album feels like an honours thesis of some sort. It’s clear from theoutset that a lot of work has gone into the making of this album, and it rewards thelistener with layers upon layers of sound.There are moments of quiet reflection, juxtaposed with moments of raw angst and chaos,but always smoothed over with smart melodies.There is plenty of experimentation on the album… everything from strange noises, guitar effects, and extra instrumentslike piano, to weird tempos and off-time rhythms.

They do not quite manage to capture the intensity of their live show on the recordings, butsuch an effort would likely be a futile one anyways. Instead they have built up a real tangible feelingof emotion on each track, something that not many bands can do, especially not on theirfirst LP.

The Theory of Harmonial Value features 10 tracks, 9 of which are brand new… well… 8 and a halfof which are brand new.The album includes a new recording of the song The Passing Of America, and alsoa pseudo-remake of the last song from the Smaller Chairs… EP.They took the end riff and built a whole new song structure around it, to make the lead offtrack on the new LP (cleverly titled “The Start To This May Be The End To Another”).

Yes, bizarre song titles definitely abound. From “No Better Way To Show Your Love Than A Set Of Broken Legs”,to “What Did You Say? I’m Sorry, My Eyes Are On Fire”, the song titles are as fun to say as the music is to listen to.

The album ends with a “secret track”, that has the alleged voice of Dr. Lozlo Pronowskiexplaining the findings of his research, over top of a wall of guitar noise.Very profound stuff, or at least profound-sounding anyways.

The only complaint I have about this album is that at times it sounds like Moneen are trying too hard.And you may ask yourself, what’s wrong with trying really hard? Well,sometimes it just feels like they needed to let go a little and let the songs play themselves.Everything seems so premeditated on this recording.

Then again, maybe I’m just being nit-picky about an otherwise flawless album.

Moneen have a very bright future ahead of them, and this cd is a great example of howhard work and perseverance can pay off. So remember, kids, stay in school! — Sean

Evolution
Directed by: Ivan Reitman
Written by: Don Jakoby, David Diamond
Starring: David Duchovny, Orlando Jones, Julianne Moore, Seann William Scott

As an aware moviegoer, I’m usually pretty indifferent to all of the clever marketing campaignsthat films are subject to. Trailers and advertisements are rarely reliable in theirportrayal of a movie’s style, so I typically disregard them. If a movie looks good, it couldend up being complete trash, and if a movie sounds bad, it could actually be worthwhile.But I must admit, right off the bat I had doubts about any movie that used a mutant 3-eye happy face symbolin all of its advertisements. Yes, my first reactions to the movie Evolutionwere not overly enthusiastic.

Still, it had David Duchovny in it, and that was probably the only thing that actually caughtmy attention about the film. But then I began to think, what if poor David Duchovny, obviouslyeager to secure his career beyond The X-Files and avoid being eternally typecast as Fox Mulder,had unwittingly jumped into the first film role that was made available to him? What kind ofmess could he have possibly gotten himself into?

Luckily, there was one more element to this movie that could potentially save it.It was directed by Ivan Reitman, who of course, is the same man who helmed the classicGhostbusters movies (not to mention the timeless Kindergarten Cop).

By the time I actually got around to seeing Evolution, the Ghostbusters reference has beendropped so often, I was sick of hearing it.As I watched, it was hard not to notice the many similarities between the films, andit was also hard not to hold this movie up against very high standards.

Okay, so let’s briefly talk about the plot to this movie. A meteor lands on Earth, bringing withit a blue slime that turns out to contain alien life. The alien cells start to multiply and”evolve” at a super fast rate, and suddenly become a major threat to the entire planet.

Yawn. Yes, this plot is as run-of-the-mill as it sounds. The real problem is that it isn’tclear at exactly what point the aliens stop being a mere scientific curiosity, andstart being a hostile threat to the Earth’s populace.By the time the “good guys” start hunting down the aliens, you almost feel sorryfor the poor creatures.

Anyone who was hoping for an interesting cross between horror and humour, Ghostbusters style,will be sorely disappointed.I read somewhere that the original script for this movie was actually a dark sci-fi thriller,and then somewhere along the line, they brought in Reitman to weave his comedic “magic”.There are a couple moments that may make you jump, but ultimately the thriller elementsof this film have been all but glossed over. Really, Evolution isnothing more than a goofy comedy. As such, I felt myself anxiously awaiting the next chance to laugh,and didn’t really care about much else.

The laughs did come, but not quite as often as I had hoped they would.Evolution relies heavily on one-liners, and in this it is often hit or miss.A scene comes across as memorable and funny if the one-liners are witty, or it will comeacross as a dud if they are not.Often times I found myself wondering just how many of the one-liners may had been improvisedon the spot.

Much of the humour also comes from the actors themselves, and how they deliverthe lines.David Duchovny is the perfect actor to take on a Bill Murray-esque sarcastic role, andI enjoyed his performance, but there were times when he was just a little too wooden.His pairing with Orlando Jones felt forced and unnatural.Seann William Scott, who most people will remember from American Pie,is perfectly suited to take on a Rick Moranis-esque supporting role.Well, okay, maybe Moranis isn’t the best comparison, but he was goofy and brought aboutsome of the funniest parts of the movie. He just has to work on spelling his name.There is also short appearance from Dan Aykroyd that was good for a laugh, andof course, another nod to Ghostbusters.

Special effects have come a long way since the release of Ghostbusters, and you wouldexpect Evolution to have a leg up in this department. The problem is, they decided to usecomputer animated aliens, and for some reason I find that mixing CG stuff in witha live action movie usually looks like ass.The CG aliens didn’t look as bad as they could have, but they were notexactly awe-inspiring either.

I certainly didn’t like the cheesy love story in this movie, but I guess if you’re lookingat an 80’s Ghostbusters model, it was necessary. It was just totally not feasible, andtotally not Duchovny’s style, considering it took Mulder like 8 seasons or something beforehe finally had his first on-screen kiss with Scully.

And of course, to complete the Ghostbusters comparison, I must mention that thismovie ends with everyone covered in goo.

Evolution was a little better than I expected it to be, but just barely. It’s no Ghostbusters,that much is obvious, but really it wasn’t even in the same league as Ghostbusters to begin with.I guess this movie had its moments, I just wish it had more of them. It otherwise served asnothing more than somewhat entertaining, yet pretty forgettable fluff.Which is probably what most of you would have guessed from the start anyways. — Sean

Virtual Bart (Sega Genesis)
Developed by: Akklaim

I miss my Sega Genesis. It died an untimely deathduring my first year of college. The wires connectingit to the TV broke, and I never bothered trying toreplace them. My Genesis library wasn’t all that bigto begin with, there was Street Fighter II and MortalKombat II and a WWF game or two, but thats about it. Iwas ready to move on to Playstation and leave Segabehind.

Well, I thought I was. A few years later and I missmy Sega Genesis, if only for one reason: Virtual Bart.

I will make it known that of all the Simpsons gamesever released on a home system, Virtual Bart is myfavorite. It is also the only one I have ever beat.But then again, the other ones were on NES, and thatsystem as mentioned died before I could finish withthose games.

There are two options to the game - play mode andpractice area. I’m glad theres a practice area, andsoon you will know why.

The story of the game is that Bart has wandered intoMartin Prince’s virtual reality machine while at theschool science fair. He became trapped in themachine, and has to complete the 6 different worlds ofthe machine or else he will be trapped in those worldsforever.

THE 6 WORLDS:

In Dinosaur Bart, you are a bartosauraus, and in aplatform game, you travel across a prehistoriclandscape, encountering stone age versions of Homer,Barney, Mr. Burns and others. Its very easy to falloff the platforms, and fighting the final bosses isdifficult because of this reason.. the game doesntrequire as much strategy as it does control… its abasic jump-on-top-of-the-bad-guy-and-he-dies game.

Baby Bart is a side scroller and is much moredifficult, you must strategically swing on trees,bounce off objects and avoid deadly obstacles such asjumping dogs and such. if you hit the ground, you’reoutta there.

Post-Apocalyptic Bart is a racing game of sorts,though you’re not racing against anyone really…you’re traveling and trying to dodge rocks andoncoming traffic (Otto’s bus) as well as get thecorn-dog power ups you can find all over the game.

Waterslide Bart sees you at Mount Splashmore, tryingto get to the bottom of the waterslide, go the wrongway and you’ll meet your maker at the bottom of theSpringfield gorge, go the right way, and give Sherriand Terri a bath.

Pig Bart is another platform game that requiresstrategy. You have to pull levers, time your jumps andfind objects to advance through the game. This game isquite hard because the controls fight you as you are,in fact, running as a pig would.

Picture Day Bart sees you outside the school makingtarget practice with the other kids. You must throwtomatoes or eggs at the other students to avoidpicture day. But don’t hit the teachers, unless ofcourse, Skinner is bending over, then go right ahead.

This game was and I’m sure still is incrediblyaddictive and very challenging. Since its an Akklaimgame, you can bet there are its flaws (not much forsound, and although the graphics fit the cartoon, theycould have been better). The animated endings to theworlds are quite entertaining, but I was a bit letdown with what happens when you beat the whole game.The fun from playing however, makes up for it.

Overall, Virtual Bart is a vital piece of anyonekeeping a collection of Simpsons games, and a greatgame in general. If you still have your Genesis, lookfor it. — The Pretentious Goon

Planet Of The Apes
Directed by: Tim Burton
Written by: Pierre Boulle (novel), William Broyles Jr., Lawrence Konner, Mark Rosenthal
Starring: Mark Wahlberg, Tim Roth, Helena Bonham Carter

Tim Burton is one of those directors you can usually trust to give you your money’s worth. He has a very distinct and exciting visual style that makes his films both original and fun. The thing is, he’s at his best when he is toiling under the spark of his own inspiration, and when he is basically given free reign over the production. When he gets someone else’s project handed over to him, especially a cult classic like Planet Of The Apes, well, then things become a bit more uncertain.

It’s clear that when you make a movie based on a sci-fi classic like this, you are often treading on holy ground. The cult fans can be your biggest supporters, or your worst enemies, so it’s not surprising that they chose to tread lightly with Planet Of The Apes.

This doesn’t mean that they changed very little about the film, however; in fact quite the opposite is true. But in this case, they tried to erase any and all expectations beforehand by insisting that it is a “re-imagining”, not a remake of Planet Of The Apes. “Hey if you spend your money to come see a movie called Planet Of The Apes and it ends up being nothing like the original, then don’t blame us!” That is a cop out if you ask me.

But then again, what’s the point of keeping everything the same either? It can be refreshing to get someone else’s take on an old concept.

It remains to be seen whether this is really anyone’s “take” on Planet Of The Apes, however. It seems like they tried very hard to distance themselves from the original, and changed a lot of things just for the sake of changing them, not because there was any one unifying vision behind it all.

Then, while they are trying to distance themselves from the original, they make direct references to it by reusing certain bits of dialogue, and “pay tribute” by giving Charleton Heston a cameo. This was cheesy, more than anything, and didn’t fit in. More than likely, they were just trying to sucker the cult fans into laying down their money for the flick.

I have a lot of complaints about the revised story they came up with for this movie. If you look at the best science fiction movies, they always tell stories that use a strange new world to make us stop and think about the world we actually live in.

Sure, there are plenty of sci-fi movies out there that are nothing more than fluff, and they can be fun too. The original Planet Of The Apes had a little something more behind it though, and this is why I am disappointed to see the new Planet Of The Apes movie fall into that fluff category.

In this movie, they seem to have dumbed down the ideas. Perhaps they think that today’s moviegoers are no smarter than apes ourselves. Everytime they bring up something that might make you think, they quickly gloss it over with some big fight scene or something. To put it simply, they missed the point.

The story also had a lot of inconsistencies that bothered me. Perhaps they will not bother you, but for a moment, allow me to get a few of these off my chest:

At the beginning of the movie, we meet Mark Wahlberg, who is a futuristic American space explorer of some sort. I’m not sure exactly what they are doing there to be honest. They send a trained chimpanzee out in a space capsule to investigate something, and he disappears. The ball gets rolling when Mark Wahlberg’s character goes out after the chimp. Now, hold it right there: why would they be using chimps for dangerous space travel in the first place? In the future, you’d think that they would have robots and computer systems that are capable of doing this (they have these things today). Even if the monkeys are “genetically enhanced”, as they state in the movie, it would be safer to control the ship remotely with computers. Right off the bat I felt shortchanged by the story.

My next complaint is the fact that he doesn’t crash land on Earth in this new movie, but rather, a whole different planet. This completely erases one of the important issues in the original movie: the fact that humans killed themselves off and destroyed their own civilization.

In the new POTA, the humans on the planet can talk. They are no different than you or I, or Mark Wahlberg. This obliterates the effect of the role reversal. We are given no real reason why apes should feel they are superior to humans. We are simply lead to believe that they are evil, and they oppress humans because they are strong and because they are mean. This is opposed to the original where humans are being oppressed because they are primitive creatures, clearly inferior to apes in terms of intellect and culture. In the original, you are sometimes made to identify with both the humans and the apes, and this is what made it interesting. In the new movie, we are never really given the opportunity to root for the apes.

The only ape that we are able to feel for is Helena Bonham Carter’s character, Ari. (A somewhat shoddy replacement for the scientists Cornelius and Zira from the original movie.) But her character doesn’t seem noble, only confused. Her motivation for siding with the humans is never really explained, so she just seems to be a young, naive ape with a sick fetish for humans.

Then there’s the issue of the ending, which has been the subject of much debate. I won’t spoil it for you, but I will tell you that it’s a “surprise” cliffhanger. One argument says that they are again “paying tribute” by keeping with Planet Of The Apes tradition. On the other hand, this ending lacks any sort of meaning or resonance, unlike the ending of the original. There’s no use in creating a superficial ending just for the sake of catching the audience off guard. It has to have a point. It also doesn’t seem far-fetched to think that they are setting things up for a sequel. If you ask me, that is just going too far.

One thing that made the movie worthwhile, however, was the special effects. If they could have had some of this technology back when the original was made, the movie could have been so much more effective. Having the actors walk like real apes, and making them learn the mannerisms of real apes created a very surreal experience for the viewer. I think they got carried away at times with the high flying fighting stuff though. Apes may be able to jump higher than humans, but I am not completely convinced that this is how they would fight.

Of course, the apes were a lot more intimidating this time around, which is perhaps a bit of an improvement on the original, where the apes didn’t seem like such a physical threat to the humans. Tim Roth’s character was definitely creepy; the way he spoke and moved scared the crap out of me. To once again look at the other side of the coin, however, this made the apes seem less like civilized creatures, and more like ferocious monsters, which prevented viewers from identifying with them in any way.

As for the rest of the actors, well, they were just sort of there. I was worried that Mark Wahlberg would ruin this movie, but I suppose he was well suited to the role. He had the sort of ignorant brashness to him that was necessary in order to believe he could actually go up against these bad ass apes. I think the movie would have been more powerful if we actually felt for him though. The farewell scenes at the end were supposed to be touching, but instead turned out to be laughable (or gross, if you were the annoying teenage girl sitting behind me in the theatre). Charleton Heston’s performance in the original may have been melodramatic, but it certainly felt more convincing than Wahlberg’s tough guy persona.

So how does Tim Burton fit into this mess? Well considering what he had to work with, he did a pretty good job. He doesn’t seem to be able to keep a consistent style throughout the movie though. Some might say he is inexperienced and the wrong man to direct an action film, but let’s not forget, the man directed Batman! There was definitely a dark feel to the movie, and a cool Danny Elfman score, but there weren’t really many things that jumped out and said “Hey, this is a Tim Burton film.” It does seem like perhaps he was held back by something. It’s a shame, but I guess that’s Hollywood for you.

Oh, there is one thing I should mention… You see, I am a little ashamed to admit that I was kind of falling asleep for a while there in the middle of the movie. I mention this not because I want to stress how boring the movie was (it wasn’t, I just happened to be really tired), but because I feel I should put a bit of a disclaimer on this review. Some of my complaints may be rendered null and void because I happened to miss an important part of the story. However, from the discussions I’ve had with other people who saw the movie, I still feel that the points made in this review are mostly valid.

So was this new take on POTA refreshing? I guess so. I may have a lot of complaints about it, but it’s not like it tainted the original or anything like that. The original is still there, as it has been for the past 30 years or so, and can still be enjoyed if anyone desires to do so. It’s a new take on an old classic that is worth checking out for curiosity’s sake. But again, you can’t help comparing this to the original, and the fact remains: there is no comparison. And as a Tim Burton movie, well, it’s not really all that it could have been.

I just keep thinking, if you’re going to “re-imagine” a movie, the least you can do is actually use some imagination.

Ultimately, I can only offer a word of warning about Planet Of The Apes. Don’t get your hopes up. Although it’s not a bad movie, it was kind of a disappointment. But I guess if you’re just looking for a fun summer blockbuster with cool special effects and some decent action, then you’re probably landing on the right planet. — Sean

Add N To (X)
with Pony Da Look, Radio Free Luxembourg, DJ Jimi Lamort
Tuesday July 17, 2001 @ El Mocambo, Toronto

We got to the show a little early, only to have a girl who was outside the club tell us that doors were at “half-nine”. Apparently this is some sort of British term for 9:30, which we managed to deduce after a short period of confusion.

We purchased our tickets and then proceeded to stuff our faces with fast food in an attempt to kill time. Then we went into a used bookstore, where some guy was reading movie trivia questions out to his girlfriend who really looked like she could care less. We did a little bit of browsing, and I must admit, I was tempted to buy the Arsenio Hall biography, but in the end I passed on it.

By this time, a line was starting to form outside the El Mo (or rather a “queue” as the Brits like to call it), so we went back to the club and waited. When we got inside, there was already some industrial music pounding throughout the club. I assume this was DJ Jimi Lamort, doing his thing. The music kind of reminded me of the now-defunct Gord’s Place in St.Catharines from back in the day. I never was a big fan of industrial music though.

As I glanced around, I realized there was an interesting assortment of characters in attendance at this show. I hadn’t realized that Add N To (X) would attract a large goth following, but when you stop to think about it, I guess it makes sense.

The first band to take the stage was a weird one. I believe they were called “Radio Free Luxembourg”, because that is what they kept shouting at the end of every song. They spoke with fake German accents, and they had various people in strange costumes posing and moving about the stage while they played. They were definitely going for that artsy Kraftwerk kind of thing, but in a very tongue-in-cheek manner. Their music was repetitive and somewhat annoying after a while. It basically consisted of them playing a cd, and then talking over top of the music while marching to the beat. I think it was mostly a joke. They were amusing and bizarre, but thankfully they didn’t play for more than 20 minutes or so.

The club was starting to get really hot and crowded by this time. The next band was Poni Da Look, an all-girl British band. They had one drummer and the other four members played keyboards and sang. Their music had a very simple, primitive feel to it as they each tapped out simple melodies on their cheesy Casio keyboards. They attempted to sing and harmonize with each other, but a lot of times they were horribly off-key. Sometimes this was on purpose, in a Kathleen Hanna kind of way, but other times I think they may have just been a little nervous. Their set got better as it progressed and as they gained confidence, but I think they had lost most of the crowd after the first song or two. Their music probably could have benefitted from some other instruments in the mix to make it sound fuller, because it was very stripped down and boring at times.

After they left the stage, the big wait began. It seemed like forever before Add N To (X) were ready to play. I honestly cannot remember waiting longer than this for a band to set up. It was really hot and really crowded, and I felt like I was going to fall asleep before they were done setting up. Granted, Add N To (X) have a ton of equipment, and I did not envy the tech guy who was up there with a flashlight trying to get everything connected.

Finally, Add N To (X) came on, and although the long wait had made me cranky and skeptical, they won me over by the end of the first song.

I don’t own any Add N To (X) albums, but I figured that I had heard enough of their music to make most of it recognizable. As it turned out, I barely recognized any of the songs, but this didn’t stop me from enjoying the music. Everyone else around me seemed to know the material well enough, especially the tall, lanky dude beside me who kept doing this weird dance and knocking his shoulder into my jaw.

My main worries about this show were that Add N To (X) would either (a) be too noisy, or (b) have too many long jams. Well, they were in fact quite loud and noisy, and had a lot of longer jams, but this this turned out to be for the better. I don’t even know how long they played for, but they managed to always keep the energy level up and it never got boring. Having a live drummer definitely added to the overall energy of the show.

Their music has a very atmospheric feel to it, something that operates on an almost subconscious level that allows you to forget your surroundings and be drawn into the sounds they are creating.

They had a few technical difficulties during the show (which is probably inevitable with the amount of equipment they use), but they were barely noticeable. The highlights of the show were definitely the songs that involved the use of the theremin; they were clearly a lot of fun for both the band and the crowd.

I must admit, I was a little disappointed that there were no extra visual gadgets like video projections or stage props during their performance. I was especially disappointed that there was no pornography. I have heard that Add N To (X) are big advocates of porn, and I was hoping for a little bit of the in-out, if you know what I’m saying.

Still, porn or no porn, this was a great show. Add N To (X) know how to rock a hot and sweaty club like no one else. Definitely one of the best (although one of the only) shows I’ve seen this summer. Don’t pass up an opportunity to see Add N To (X) live, because they will blow your mind!!!– Sean