Les Savy Fav
with North Of America, A Newfound Interest in Connecticut, Kitchens & Bathrooms
Monday Apr. 8, 2002 @ The 360 Club, Toronto

On a night when there were a number of other rock shows happening in Toronto and the surrounding area,The 360 Club was the realplace to be if you wanted to see something a little unique. The turnoutwas fairly good considering that Thursday and Sparta were also playing just down the street, effectivelydividing the audience in half (although this show no doubt benefitted from the fact that Thursday didn’t end upmaking it across the border). Either way, as far as I’m concerned this double bill that would pair upLes Savy Fav with Halifax’s North Of America was the more highly anticipated performance of the two.

Kitchens & Bathrooms opened up the night with a 3-piece assault of noisy guitars and off-time rhythms.At some points their sound resembled Don Cabellero, although unlike Don Cab, both the guitarist and drummerprovided harsh vocals to accompany the music. They were not quite melodic enough for my liking, butstill, an interesting band and a pretty good warm up act nonetheless.

A Newfound Interest In Connecticut followed shortly thereafter, with a set of music that wasclearly inspired by The Get Up Kids in name, and Moneen in execution. They are a young band emulating the music ofmany of the emo bands that are so popular right now, and they do it fairly well, although on thisnight they did not sound particularly adept.They did their best to match the intensity and raw energy of Moneen by swinging their guitars aroundand frantically jumping all over the stage, but unfortunately for them, live musical performances usually go overbetter if you actually play your instruments as well. Their inexperience, poor quality gear, and sloppy playingleft their music sounding like little more than a muddled mess. There is some talent in this band,it just hasn’t been given enough time to develop yet.

The show really hit stride once North of America took to the stage. They exploded through a number ofsongs off their latest release, This Is Dancefloor Numerology, including favourites like “Let’s On”and “Revolt On =/= Revolution”. With their discordant dual guitarattack and screamed co-operative vocal delivery, they were very loud and very aggressive, opting forenergy instead of precision in their playing.They seemed determined to steer clear of their older material, particularly the catchier,Pavement-esque material from These Songs Are Cursed, and instead decided to play a couple of brand newsongs (which wasn’t necessarily a bad thing). Unfortunately their time spent on stage was all tooshort, and they couldn’t have played more than 6 or 7 songs before they subsided in order to makeway for Les Savy Fav.

At this point, I feel I should point out that Les Savy Fav are one of those bands that don’tinclude images or photographs of themselves with their albums. They are far too mysterious andartsy for that type of thing, and this is why the appearance of the lead singer of thisband came as quite a shock. He is a chubby, balding guy with a big bushy beard, and onthis night he was wearing a ratty old Edmonton Oilers t-shirt. At first glance he seemed much more likelyto be a roadie than the lead singer of the band. Considering that all of the members of Les Savy Favare or were supposedly art students (at the Rhode Island School Of Design to be exact), it just didn’tseem to fit… although the rest of the band members definitely looked the part of ultra-hip art types.Once they had set up their gear, however, and he stood up on stage looking out into the audience, it all becamea little clearer to me. The guy was obviously a little bit loopy.

He started a weird little piano loop on his beatbox machine, and then bobbed his head ashe stared out into the crowd with a demented look in his eyes. Then he walked to the back of thestage and repositioned a stage light by pointing it directly into the audience, blinding everyoneand muttering “You’re not reaching your true star potential! They had you out there hiding in thedark!” I knew we were in for some good times with this nutcase on the loose.

From there, the band launched into their set and proceededto rock everyone’s asses off. The lead singer danced around the stage, looking out into the crowd maniacally, and makingstrange facial expressions as he sang the bizarre lyrics to their songs. At times he made hisway out into the crowd, weaving his way through the people, sometimes walking, sometimes crawling,sometimes stopping to stare at someone, or other times letting someone else sing into the microphone.Upon spotting an old piano sitting against the wall of the club, he excitedly ran out to play a littleintro to one song, before returning to the stage to continue singing.At another point, he actually decided to crawl right underneath the stage to see what he could find.When asked what was under there, he reported that Sparta apparently were. Other strange behaviourexhibited by this man included spitting water all over his bassist and the audience members, pokingand prodding at stage lights with a mic stand, and crawling along the floor in between audiencemembers nudging a tiny candle along in front of him while singing at the same time.

It also happened to be the guitarist Seth’s birthday, so about halfway through their set,the singer disappeared backstage for a few minutes duringthe end of one song, before re-emerging with balloons and streamers in hand, which he threw all over the stage andinto the audience.

Aside from the wacky onstage antics though, this was just a great rock show. Les Savy Fav were tight,the sound was great. They only have one guitar player, which issomething you don’t see too often among indie rock bands that have weird and/or complicated guitarparts, but they pulled it off live without a hitch.

The selection of songs was perfect too. They covered a lot of great songs from their new album Go Forth,including “Reprobate’s Resume” and “Adopduction”, and also a number of favourites from The Cat And TheCobra such as “We’ve Got Boxes”, “The End” and a blistering version of “Who Rocks The Party”.They even played a couple of songs from their Rome Written Upside-Down EP.Their set concluded quite satisfactorily with a chaotic rendition of “Dishonest Don Part 2″.

Les Savy Fav definitely lived up to their reputation for being a mind-blowing live act (little bits ofmy brain had to be mopped up afterwards), but it’s interesting how your perception of a band canchange due to the live experience. I’m sure these guys left an impression on everyone in the club,and even if an encounter with a seemingly genuine weirdo makes some people feel uneasy,it also makes the eclectic music of Les Savy Fav seem that much more genuine (and that much moreingenious) as well. — Sean

The Simpsons Road Rage (Gamecube)
Developed by: Radical Entertainment
Published by: Electronic Arts

In the fast-paced world of video games, there have always been a few things that we can count on. For one, all games based on TV or movie licenses invariably suck, and for another, any game concept that is even moderately profitable will always spawn an endless wave of second rate clones.

That being said, The Simpsons Road Rage would seem to have two strikes against it right upfront. It is impossible to disguise the fact that this game is a shameless rip-off of Sega’s Crazy Taxi,which was a smash hit in arcades and later on the Dreamcast system. What’s more, it isa licensed game based on everyone’s favourite cartoon family, The Simpsons, and I’m suremany people would agree when I say that game developers have not been very kind to The Simpsonsin the past.

With the limited number of games available for the Nintendo Gamecube at the moment, however,I for one was willing to take a chance on this game, and it really didn’t turn out too badly.

As I mentioned, the game is pretty similar to Crazy Taxi. Surprisingly, there is actuallya storyline that tries to tie the whole taxi idea to The Simpsons world (as if that isreally necessary). Apparently Mr. Burns has taken over Springfield’s entire public transitsystem and jacked up the prices. So leave it to the wacky citizens to rise up againstthe iron fist of Mr. Burns and start up their own cab service, putting you in the driver’sseat with all your favourite Simpsons characters… everyone from Homer to Otto to Chief Wiggum.

The best thing about The Simpsons Road Rage is obviously the number of different charactersand their various spoken phrases. The game could have been really dull if they had onlyfocused on the main characters like Homer, Bart, Marge and Lisa, but there are over20 drivers that you can unlock, in any order you want. This includes classic characterslike Groundskeeper Willie, Professor Frink and Apu.There are a lot of Simpsons characters that fit into the taxi theme simply because theirrespective vehicles are such an important part of their personalities.How cool is it that you get to drive control Otto in his school bus, or Barney as The PlowKing?? Very cool. The vehicles all handle differently as well. For instance, Groundskeeper Willie’slawnmower is slow and difficult to maneuver, while Professor Frink’s rocket car blasts throughthe streets at extremely high speeds.

The graphics are pretty cool. Nothing spectacular, but they did a respectable job of bringing the look ofthe characters into three dimensions.If you saw the Halloween episode of The Simpsons where Homer entered the 3-dworld, you have an idea of what to expect here.One thing that is kind of cheesy is the fact that all the vehicles in the game were created without roofs.I’m assuming this is so the programmers could avoid having to do intricate animations of charactersopening and closing car doors, or perhaps it is so that you can see the characters’heads fully as you drive. This isn’t a big deal for some of the vehicles, but it just looks plain stupid to drivearound a school bus without a roof on it.

The other thing that this game has going for it is the fact that it is pretty simple. This is what made CrazyTaxi such a fun arcade game, and likewise it is also what makes The Simpsons Road Rage an enjoyableplay. This game is ideal for even novice gamers. Basically, you drive around the citylooking for passengers to pick up, and once you load one up, a floating hand will point out thedirections to help you reach their requested destination.(Of course, there are shortcuts, and as yougain more driving experience in Springfield you will not need to follow the floating handat all because you will already know the quickest path.)Along the way you can choose to avoid obstacles or trash them as you see fit. Every now andthen you will have the potential to score bonus points either by ensuring the passenger a saferide or by blazing a path of destruction through the city.

You can also play a two-player head-to-head variation of the game in a split screen mode. You can competein head-to-head mode using any of the levels or characters that have been unlocked in the one-player mode.One cool thing here is that you can actually steal your opponent’s passenger in mid-ride simply by bumping into his orher vehicle, which makes for some pretty intense competitions. I think the multiplayer modeis really where you can have the most fun with this game.

The main downfall of The Simpsons Road Rage is the lack of depth or replay value. I was worried that the sound clipsand interaction between characters would quickly grow tiresome, however, this wasn’t really an issue.There is enough variety in the sound clips that they do not get overly repetitive, and they are funnyenough to be entertaining for a long time. There are even some little hidden gems for the true hardcoreSimpsons geeks, such as the mascots that yell “I regret nothing!” when you run them over, just like thatguy who fell from a bridge while standing in line for the Itchy & Scratchy Movie. Do you remember thatepisode? I do. Good times.

Anyways, the real problem here is that the scoring system, unless I’m missing something, leaves nochallenge to the game whatsoever. Characters and levels are unlocked based on the total amount of moneyyou earn from your taxi runs. Since your total simply accumulates after each run you make, it seemsinevitable that you will eventually unlock everything, whether you are good at the game or not. It just meansthat if you suck it will take you longer to unlock stuff. So really, what the hell is the point?

The mission mode was a good idea to try and create a sense of challenge, but it seems like a bit of an afterthought.In these missions, you need to accomplish various tasks such as driving Homer to work without being caught byMr. Burns, or helping Barney run over a number of mascots within an allotted time limit.I could probably forgive the fact that the objectives of these missions are completely lame and nonsensical,but they’re also too short, and there aren’t enough of them.Another annoyance to add to this is the slow loading time. This is a real hassle in the mission mode, where in some casesit takes longer to restart the mission than it does to play through it.

In my opinion, the multiplayer mode is the best part of the game; it’s simple, but addictive. As a one playergame, The Simpsons Road Rage is definitely not worth more than a one or two day rental. The multiplayermakes up for this, but it still doesn’t really have the lasting appeal that would make it worththe full $70-80 that most videogames cost nowadays. It’s a fun game, and of particular interest to anyone wholoves The Simpsons, but it still could have been a lot better. — Sean

A.I. Artificial Intelligence (DVD)
Directed by: Steven Spielberg
Written by: Ian Watson, Brian Aldiss, Steven Spielberg
Starring: Haley Joel Osment, Jude Law, Frances O’Connor, William Hurt

Over the years we have seen many science-fiction concepts develop from fantasy to reality with startling accuracy. Time has proven many of our most popular science-fiction writers to be more clairvoyant prophets than they are imaginative storytellers, and yet I can think of one particular recurring sci-fi gadget that still eludes us, even in the 21st century. I am speaking of so-called “intelligent” robots. It’s true that much progress has been made in the field of A.I. and robotics, but we are still a light years away from creating complex beings like Data from Star Trek: The Next Generation or even that junky-looking “Danger Will Robinson” robot from Lost In Space.

Still, I am surprised that up until now there haven’t been more films that deal with the subject of robots in a serious manner. It seems only inevitable that one day we will create robots that look and act like humans, and (much like the current controversy over human cloning) there are a whole host of issues and implications that would come with the creation of artificial life.

Enter director Stanley Kubrick and a pet project he called “A.I.” This was a film idea that he had been working on since the mid-80’s, after he acquired the rights to a short story entitled “Supertoys Last All Summer Long” by Brian W. Aldiss (which had actually been published back in 1969). The story is about a robot boy named David who is built with the capability and objective to “love”, but who cannot make his human mother love him back, no matter how hard he tries. For many years Kubrick slowly collected his thoughts on the subject, trying to come up with a workable storyline, and gathering as much technical information as he could about the capabilities of current special effects technology. He had also taken into his confidence his good friend Steven Spielberg, whom he had considered bringing on as director of the project. Eventually, however, the time came when Stanley Kubrick passed away, leaving the A.I. project stalled in its formative stages. Steven Spielberg was offered the chance to pick up where Stanley Kubrick had left off, and he went forward with it as a way for him to honour Kubrick’s memory, and also because it was the only way the film would ever see the light of day.

It is easy to see where a lot of people might be thrown off by the thought of Spielberg trying to recreate Stanley Kubrick’s original vision. Kubrick is seen as the ultimate film auteur and an obsessive perfectionist who has a fondness for dark, cynical films, while Spielberg is perceived as a mainstream Hollywood director who directs feel-good family movies. Many of Kubrick’s hardcore fans will have a hard time accepting this “collaboration”, but it is important to realize that Kubrick wanted Spielberg to be involved with A.I. in the first place.

It has taken me a while to sort out my feelings towards this movie. When I first saw A.I. in theatres, I knew from the very beginning that I was seeing a wonderfully thought-provoking film with a unique vision, but a rather extraneous ending left that vision a little blurry, so to speak. If you’ve already seen the movie, you’ll know what I mean. If you haven’t seen it, I’m willing to bet you have still overheard other people debating the ending of this film at great length. It’s not so much that it creates an unexpected surprise plot twist, it’s just that it goes really far out on a limb and stretches the film’s credibility to the limit.

The DVD release of A.I. has given me a chance to re-evaluate this film, and it has lead me to the conclusion that it is a great movie that gets better and better with each viewing… but somehow the ending still does not click for me. It didn’t wrap up any of the issues that the rest of the movie had explored, it only clouded them further, not to mention the fact that it goes way beyond the realm of believability that the rest of the film worked so hard to establish. At the very least, the ending should have been shortened, because it just drags on and occupies much more screen time than it really deserves.

However, I want to make it clear that the ending, although flawed, does not overshadow the many other finer points of A.I.

The film resembles a modern day fairytale and it is layered with references to a number of other works of literature, most notably Pinocchio. David’s mother reads Pinocchio to him one day, which eventually leads David on a quest to find the “Blue Fairy” so that he too may be granted Pinocchio’s wish to be a real boy. The parallels between Pinocchio are quite obvious, but there are additional references too, some more obscure than others. A.I. is very clever in its ability to weave together many different sources into a new kind of fairytale. The story does feel like it consists of a few distinct acts that have been stitched together (the first being my favourite), but it is like the stitching of a beautiful tapestry as opposed to awkward and ugly patchwork.

Like all science-fiction, A.I. requires some suspension of disbelief in order to raise important questions about the nature of humanity. One of the reasons we are able to suspend our disbelief is because the acting in A.I. is superb. Haley Joel Osment and Jude Law blend human and robotic characteristics together in a way that is both compelling and eerie. Osment in particular has almond-shaped eyes that strangely resemble a mecha out of a Japanese anime. They don’t move and speak like stereotypical robots; for the most part they act like humans, but there are certain subtle movements and mannerisms that they use to remind us of their mechanical nature. An interesting tidbit to be learned from one of the special features on the DVD is that Osment and Law do not blink throughout the entire movie. It really is fascinating to watch their performances, and it makes one realize that the story wouldn’t have been nearly as engaging if David had been portrayed through animatronics (which is what Stanley Kubrick had originally hoped would be possible). It should also be noted that the rest of the cast does a great job too; they provide interactions with the artificial beings that appear genuine and plausible.

This film was also beautifully photographed, and from a purely aesthetic standpoint it is a lot of fun to watch. The cinematography and lighting showcase Steven Spielberg’s affinity for backlighting, giving much of the film a soft, dream-like feel, and giving David in particular an angelic glow much of the time.

The special effects… well, they are obviously quite impressive, and in fact, they were nominated for an Academy Award. Some of the coolest things are Teddy, David’s robotic toy bear, and also the flooded Manhattan cityscape. It is important to note that although A.I. benefits largely from special effects technology, it does not rely on it too heavily. The world of A.I. is futuristic yet also believable, similar to the environment portrayed in Back To The Future 2 (with less pop culture references mind you). The only point where the computer effects are a little too prevalent comes during the conclusion of the film, which is one of the reasons why the ending seemed so cold and out of place.

The DVD for A.I. consists of two discs, and as you might expect for a film filled with cutting edge special effects, there are a lot of behind the scenes featurettes. These are interesting, and I was also happy to find some featurettes examining the evolution of A.I., and how it came to be passed on from Stanley Kubrick to Steven Spielberg. With some of the excellent feature-length documentaries that have been coming out lately, it would have been nice if they took a cue from the Star Wars Episode 1 DVD or The Matrix Revisited, and combined some of the featurettes into one long documentary. Alas, a number of short, easily-digestable featurettes no doubt gives the illusion of a much more jam packed DVD, thus making it more attractive to consumers.

Even with all the behind the scenes footage on these two discs, however, it still seems like something is missing. I guess the most notable omission is an audio commentary from Spielberg, and to me, DVDs just don’t seem complete without commentary tracks. While there are plenty of people who never bother to listen to them at all, I tend to listen to them specifically for movies where I am interested in learning more about the director’s intentions, and A.I. is definitely one of these cases.

There’s no question that A.I. is an ambitious movie, and because it aims high, this can lead to a sense of disappointment when it doesn’t quite get where we want it to go. I can’t call it a masterpiece, but the film is a fascinating collaboration between two great filmmakers, and this is perhaps its greatest strength, and its greatest weakness. Mainstream viewers will be bored by the slow Kubrickean pace, while hardcore film buffs may be turned off by Spielberg’s touchy-feely sensibilities. Just don’t try to tell me that Spielberg ruined this movie, because he clearly had a hand in both the good and the bad.

If you are watching this movie for the sole purposes of eye candy or fantasy escapism, it is enjoyable. If you are interested in searching for symbolism and deeper meaning you will find this movie even more rewarding. On the other hand, if you crave action and explosions, then you’re definitely looking in the wrong place, as A.I. has very little of either. — Sean

Panic Room
Directed by: David Fincher
Written by: David Koepp
Starring: Jodie Foster, Jared Leto, Dwight Yoakam, Forest Whitaker, Kristen Stewart

I didn’t think it could be done. It didn’t seem likely to me that a movie could take place entirely inone house and still be interesting from start to finish. I should have known better than to doubtDavid Fincher.

For anyone who is unclear about what the title of this film means, let me explain. The movie leads usto believe that in many big houses owned by rich people,they often build a secret, highly secure room where the occupants of the house can protect themselvesand their valuables in the event of a home intrusion or other such emergency. Jodie Foster playsMeg Altman, a mother who was recently divorced and is looking to move into a new home with her daughterSarah. Since Meg’s rich ex-husband will be the one picking up the tab for their living expenses,they decide to move into a huge 5-story brownstone in Manhattan. The house happens to have one ofthese aforementioned panic rooms in it — but before they have a chance to learn much about it, they areforced to use it during their first night in the new home, when three men break in unexpectedly.It turns out these men know quite a bit more about the panic room than Meg and Sarah do, including the factthat there is a whole lot of money hidden in it somewhere, stashed there by the house’s previous owner.Since Meg and Sarah have locked themselves into the room, this creates quite an interesting stalematesituation.

Now let me just say that Panic Room is a pretty original idea for a film…except for the fact that I saw the exact same movie about 12 years ago and it was called Home Alone!In all seriousness, Panic Room is kind of like a dark, tense, and realistic version ofHome Alone where the burglars show up a lot better prepared than the good guys. (Don’t ask me to choosewhich film I like better though, because I can’t decide.)

There are two main things that keep this film from getting monotonous: the direction, and the story.

David Fincher directs the movie masterfully, and in his execution he succeeds in keeping us interested(if not enthralled) for the duration of the film.

Although the characters are trapped inside the house, for the most part we as viewers do not feel confinedbecause the camera swoops and dives all over the place. With the help of computer effects, it alsorises up and down through different floors of the house, plunges through wiring and ventilation ducts, andzooms in and out of locks, flashlights and other gadgetry. This is something Fincher did a little bitin Fight Club, and he seems to been encouraged by the results because he uses it even more here.The pacing is also just right, with certain sequences extended or played in slow motion to heighten thesuspense.

Panic Room looks and feels a lot like many of Fincher’s previous films. It has his usual slick, high-techvisual style (once again, another cool set of opening credits– three dimensional words appear to float in frontof buildings at strange angles), and a lot of dark and dingy lighting. Fincher also does not pull any punches as far asviolence goes. This movie is not as extreme as Fight Club or Seven, but there is still afair amount of blood and I am pretty sure you’ll flinch at least once during the film.

The movie was written by David Koepp, who previously wrote and directed Stir Of Echoes (and who apparentlyalso wrote the screenplay for Spiderman). His story is well-crafted and cunning; just when you thinkthere is no place for the story to go, he throws a new twist at you.More importantly, the story is also believable — in other words, it doesn’t cheat the audience.Most of the events are fairly plausible, and the characters are intelligent and self-aware. They don’ttake any unnecessary risks, and this added realism makes the movie that much more intense.

To add another dimension to the film, there is also a story behind each of the intruders. In fact, the movieis almost as much about the bad guys as it is about Meg and her daughter.Forest Whitaker plays Burnham, a security expert who knows the house and the panic room inside out.There are hints that his family is in desperate need of money, otherwise he wouldn’t be here. He alsodislikes violence, and in many ways we feel sorry for him.

His two partners in crime are played by Jared Leto and country singer Dwight Yoakam.Jared Leto was one of the only flaws in this film. I found that I just couldn’t take the guy seriously.I still think of his pretty boy role in My So-Called Life, and since then he hasn’t reallydone much to prove that he goes beyond that as an actor. I guess he was supposed to embody a spoiledbrat sort of character here, which he does, but his overacting dispels some of the grimatmosphere of the film. Yoakam, on the other hand, plays a trigger-happy dirtbag named Raoul whowears a goofy looking ski mask for most of the film. You know, country and rap music seem to have moreand more in common as time goes by.

One other thing to note about Panic Room: the menacing score by Howard Shore is awesome!

Panic Room is a thriller in every sense of the word, and should not be missed, especially if you area fan of any of David Fincher’s past films.It has gut-wrenching suspense, cool visuals, and plenty of surprises to keep you guessing all the waythrough. What it doesn’t have is the acting chops of Macaulay Culkin, but hey I guess you can’t alwayshave everything you want. — Sean