Tyler's Movies, Games, Music and Book Review Page

War Of The Worlds

2005-07-06T10:39:00.000Z

War Of The Worlds:

Steven Spielberg is one of the master directors. His work spans decades of cinematic entertainment, including fun films, intelligent films, thought provoking films, child oriented films, summer blockbusters, etc. You name a genre and this man has probably tackled them all. He's had some amazing movies and he's had a couple of turkeys. This film is somewhere inbetween. By no stretch of the imagination is this a bad movie. It is competent, well directed, well acted. It has some extremely good special effects and the story is very good. Yet everything put together and shown on screen is just, merely, average for Spielberg. Admittedly, an average Spielberg movie is usually a lot better than most other director's best movies, you just can't help feeling that Mr Spielberg could do so much better. Perhaps it is because, like Sir Ridley Scott, you expect better from someone of such directorial magnitude.

The pace of the movie, for the most part, is well done. Spielberg does his usual excellent job of amping the suspense just right. Giving you just enough to keep you interested. The surprise for me was just how quickly we got to actually see one of the alien tripods. I was expecting, after the trailers did such a good job of showing enough but not too much, to see the tripod ships glimpsed rather than shown. Yet pretty early in the film we see the tripod in all it's glory and I think the suspense could have been kept by revealing the monster ships a little bit later.

The "everyman" lead character that Cruise plays was done better in Close Encounters. The chase sequence was done better in Jurassic Park. The Holocaust style destruction of humankind was done better in Schindler's List. None of this is means that WotW is bad, it is most definitely not! It merely means that Spielberg seems to have directed this one "by the numbers".

Tom Cruise plays the part of Ray Ferrier well, giving some very emotionally charged scenes a lot of weight, but I felt that other actors could have possibly done this better. Cruise is much more of a star vehicle actor and this film was striving to be a character driven drama. I couldn't help but wonder if, perhaps, someone like George Clooney could have been a better choice. But Clooney wasn't in the film, Cruise was and he was good, but not great. Dakota Fanning is freaky! She is such an old soul in such a young body and acts far too well for someone of her age. Justin Chatwin, as Robbie Ferrier, is actually quite good. Once he stopped being the spoilt, no faith in his father, brat at the beginning, he pulls in a very fine performance. The hatred that he holds for the aliens and his desire to fight back for all the lives lost and the destruction of his world is palpable. His best acting comes when he rages at the aliens and needs to fight back. You can feel that and understand it. Both Miranda Otto and Tim Robbins, for me, were throw away characters. Robbins' character was barely needed except to show that sometimes, in extreme circumstances, people will resort to extreme measures to protect themselves and their family. Otto could have just been an avatar. Someone that was barely seen but was thr driving point for the characters to get to. She seemed a bit wasted here. It was also nice to see Gene Barry and Anne Robinson in cameos, as a nice little aside to the original George Pal WotW.

There are some spectacular moments in this film (watch for the camera movement while the family are speeding in the car. Absolute class), there are moments of intense suspense. The direction is solid with some great moments. The look and feel of the movie is excellent. Yet on the whole, it didn't grab me and throw me around in the way that, say, Batman Begins or Sin City did. This is a very good movie, but it's not great and I would recommend watching it. Will it be on my must have DVD selection? Probably not. Will it be one that I will get when I have bought all the other DVD's that I'm wanting? Certainly. And it's that reaction I have that makes me feel that it is merely an above average film, not a classic.

Plot:

Ray Ferrier (Cruise) is a loser dad. He enjoys himself too much and balks at responsibility. When his two children Rachel (Fanning) and Robbie (Chatwin) come to stay while their mother visits her family in Boston, the atmosphere is strained. Soon, a storm appears, a strange storm that doesn't act like most other storms, with lightning striking the same place many times. Ray leaves his children to find out what has happened and what he finds at the flashpoint is disturbing and horrifying.

Aliens have come to Earth to wipe out the human life their and take the planet for their own. Ray gathers his children together and decides to reunite them with their mother. It's the only thing he can think about amongst all the horror occurring around them.

The journey takes them through a series of increasingly dangerous areas and events with the aliens never far behind. All the time the family find themselves observing the extinction of the human race all around them and they can do nothing to stop it.

After meeting a strange survivor, Ogilvy (Robbins), Ray thinks he may have found somewhere safe to wait until they can move on again, yet the aliens are never far away and Ray finds that even some humans can be as scary as the aliens.

Can the human race survive? Can they fight back and retake our world? Ray doesn't have the answers. All he knows is that he has to get his children back to their mother and he means for nothing to get in his way.

Rating: *** and three quarters of a star. Entertaining, chaotic and well directed. Still, this isn't one of Spielberg's best and could have been much much better had he had less of a rushed schedule. Very watchable, yet not the best of this years movies.

Mr & Mrs Smith

2005-06-29T21:34:00.000Z

Mr & Mrs Smith:

From the director who brought us such fare as Swingers (one of my favourite films), Go and the acclaimed The Bourne Identity, Doug Liman, Mr & Mrs Smith is this years non-blockbuster popcorn movie. This film is a delicious roller coaster ride from start to finish. While it does have it's downsides it trundles along nicely and almost makes you instantly forget any shortcomings it has. Liman obviously relished the opportunity to make a film almost the opposite to his stark and intense Bourne Identity. There is a lot of pride up on the screen with set pieces given full rein to show off the thought and effort made to bring them to our theatres. It's not a masterpiece of direction and it tends to allow the effects (explosions, gun work, etc) to swamp the movie in places, but it does exactly what it was intended to do and that is entertain. It will probably not even be nominated for any Oscar, nor do I think any part of the film would deserve it, but I was damn well entertained almost throughout.

From the Woody Allen-esque couples counselling moments, to the wisecracking marital homicide attempts, to the John Woo/Sergio Leoné style, all guns blazing, Butch and Sundance finalé, this film entertains. Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie have a wonderful chemistry and it would be quite easy to see why Pitt dumped Jennifer Aniston for Jolie (but then, I have always had a "thing" for Angelina Jolie). Their timing together is perfect and the little facial expressions give them that edge of reality to their onscreen relationship. Anybody who has been in a stale relationship will find parts of the films dialogue that will make them think they are viewing some form of deja vu. Vince Vaughn brings in a so-so performance, in my eyes. It was almost as if he was just doing this movie for the paycheck, or that he knew that he was going to be over-shadowed by the leads and couldn't be bothered even trying to steal any scenes. He just didn't seem to have the energy that I'm used to seeing from him and I was disappointed. Most of the other characters were just filler, from my point of view. Barely any of them had any real character to speak of and everybody's lines (Other than Pitt, Jolie and Vaughn's) could quite easily have been interchanged with each other.

My only real gripe about this movie is that it was a tad too long. While still entertaining, it was beginning to lose it's steam by the end and would have been served better by chopping off at least twenty minutes and keeping the pace that it showed at the beginning and in the centre of the movie. As such, while I believe this is among the best of the popcorn movies of the year, it misses out on classic status. But just by a tiny bit.

Plot:

After five, or six, years of marriage, John (Pitt) and Jane (Jolie) Smith find their homelife becoming stale. They visit a couples counsellor to try and work through their problems. What neither of them knows is that they are both paid assassins who work for competing organisations. After being assigned to the same target, they begin to realise certain things about each other. They soon find themselves assigned 48 hours to kill their spouse and both take great relish in the attempt until they realise they do actually love each other, allowing the time limit to run out. This leaves them both on the run from their respective employers.

Can they evade death and become the cheery, white picket fence couple they desire to be or will they pay the ultimate price for love?

Rating: *** and a half stars. A fun, entertaining movie that will bring an "oh yeah!" to many couples in the audience. Not amazing, but very very well done for a popcorn movie.

Batman Begins

2005-06-23T08:54:00.000Z

Batman Begins:

First, let me say that I loved Tim Burton's vision of Batman, in the late 80's. It was stylish, fun and, hell, it was Batman! The years haven't been kind to that film, it has aged terribly. The sequel, Batman Returns, fares better and is still quite entertaining, even now. Batman Forever was different and didn't fill me with joy when I saw it and Batman and Robin was an unmitigated horror of a movie, plain and simple. Batman Begins is a different kind of Batman film. This is a "What if ..." type of film exploring what the real world would be like with a Batman in it. There are plenty of geek/fanboy moments in the film, where you can see the obvious influences from such great comics as; "Batman: Year One", "Batman: The Dark Night Returns" and "The Long Halloween".

The film begins with a back story, showing how a young Bruce Wayne finds the cave he will eventually use and giving him his first reasons for becoming a bat as a symbol. We see him grow and change from a young boy, traumatized by his parents death, to a young man searching for revenge, to the man who will wear the batsuit and become a force for justice, not vengeance. The story is deep and has many layers, but the layers are so well crafted it doesn't feel like a chore to watch the film all the way to the finish. David Goyer shows how well he can script in this movie and he can script very very well!

The direction, by Christopher Nolan, is a key factor in this films success. His use of camera movement, scene setting and character placement is superb, pulling you deeper into the film without being heavy handed. Burton was a slave to his style, whereas Nolan is in a symbiotic relationship with his. Nolan's Gotham is a real city, the only part of which that feels slightly unreal being The Narrows, a slum area of Gotham that could have been transplanted from the shanty towns of Mexico City. The use of muted, natural colours in the film serve to give the feeling of reality more basis rather than being inundated with colour (as in the Schumacher movies) or starved of colour (as in the Burton ones).

Nolan's Batman is able to show the fear that the criminals of Gotham must face. Instead of Batman fighting in full view, he stalks his victims, attacking from the shadows then retreating back into them to move on to his next prey. When he does stand and fight, the action is swift and brutal. You feel that this Batman hits hard, real hard, and that his opponents won't be getting up anytime soon.

The pacing of the movie is exceptionally well done. There is never a slow moment that has you looking at your watch. There is never a frenetic moment where you find yourself wishing the action would slow down. It moves at a pace just right to keep the audience hooked from beginning to end. I had to force myself to look away from the screen sometimes to guage the audience reactions to this film and almost all were completely enraptured by it.

It goes without saying that the acting in this movie is exceptional. The cast that was brought together for the movie are a film fans must see list. Morgan Freeman shines as the acidic witted Lucious Fox. Rutger Hauer (in his second massive film this year) plays the part of Wayne Enterprises' slimy CEO with relish, yet without overacting and chewing the scenery as some other actors would have. Liam Neeson once again becomes a mentor character, in the role of Ducard, yet buries his other mentor roles with a fine performance here. Cillian Murphy is fantasticly reserved as Dr Jonathan Crane, but becomes addictively psychotic as the Scarecrow, again without overacting. Katie Holmes, as Rachel Dawes, pulls in a performance that fits the role well, even if the part was a shadow of a part for her. Michael Caine takes on the role of Alfred, Wayne's loyal but feisty butler and fills the shoes magnificently. As much as I liked the previous Alfred, Caine makes the role his own giving an emotion and surprisingly witty fun filled performance. This Batman movie also has a real Jim Gordon, not a tacked on comedy role. Gary Oldman plays Gordon fantastically in a world weary fashion and shows just how a policeman, a man of the law, can decide to help a vigilante, a man who works outside of the law. Finally, Christian Bale. As Bruce Wayne, Bale has the billionaire playboy down. As the young revenge seeking Wayne, he embodies the role. Yet, it is as Batman that he comes into his own. It's as if Bale is actually playing three different characters as even his facial expressions change wildly from character to character, showing that it would be quite easy to fail to realise that Wayne and Batman are one and the same. In one scene, where Batman is interrogating an upside down character, you can see the venom and fire in Batman and it is Bale that brings this to the performance, not the script or the director. All other parts in the film were played equally as well, even down to the one-line-extras, who obviously relished being in this film.

Unlike Sin City, this is not an exact replica of the original comics. This is a movie based on the comics and, as such, has had to move away from some of the comic book staples (such as a young Bruce and his parents seeing Faust at the theatre, rather than The Mark Of Zorro at the movies). Although it does keep many of the traditions from the comics, it does change many things to make it more movie-goer friendly, yet these things could not spoil the movie for me. This film is what Batman should always have been and I look forward with unreserved anticipation for the continuing adventures in the sequels to come.

Plot:

After seeing his billionaire parents gunned down before his eyes, a young Bruce Wayne finds himself consumed with anger and guilt. His entire life is spent trying to asuage these emotions and to prepare himself for a day when he can eventually begin to fight the criminals that scarred his life. His journeys take him to the depths of China where he is met by a mysterious benefactor, named Ducard (Neeson), who trains Wayne (Bale) in the arts of the League of Shadows (Who's equally mysterious leader, Ra's Al Ghul, presides) in order for Wayne to eventually lead them. After refusing to go beyond his principles, Wayne evades the League to return to a now corrupt and dying Gotham.

Upon returning to Gotham, Wayne along with Alfred (Caine), his faithful butler, Lucious Fox (Freeman), his man on the inside of Wayne Enterprises and Segeant Gordon (Gary Oldman), an uncorruptable friend on the Gotham police force, begins his transformation from billionaire playboy to a Dark Knight saviour of Gotham.

Meanwhile, the League of Shadows are preparing to destroy Gotham becuase of it's corruptness, with the help of Dr Jonathan Crane (Murphy) and utilizing a form of gas that brings primal fears to horrifying reality. Now, as the newly forged Batman, Wayne must fight the combined forces of Gotham's underworld bosses and the League of Shadows, along with the crazed, transformed Dr Crane who calls himself the Scarecrow. Batman must foil the elaborate attack before all of Gotham becomes a city of fear and destruction.

Rating: **** and three quarters of a star. This is how Batman should be done. Almost perfect from start to finish. An instant classic of modern cinema and hopefully the beginning of a succesful franchise.

Sin City

2005-06-08T13:18:00.000Z

Sin City:

Frank Miller's hard boiled slug fest comic book has made it's way to the big screen and it's difficult to see where the book ends and the movie begins, the adaptation is that seemless! Robert Rodriguez, after resigning from the director's guild in order to be able to credit Miller as co-director, has brought us the most pure, the most technically perfect comic book movie ever to grace our screens. Where Spider-Man 2, a fantastic roller coaster ride of a film, slipped from it's source material in some places, Sin City embraces the source material and pastes every blood filled panel, every scenery chewing piece of dialogue (editing for theatre release, notwithstanding) and every anti-heroic pose (contractual obligations, aside (I'm talking to you, Jessica Alba and Clive Owen!)) right there on the screen as it was on the page.

The lovingly made sequences play across the screen in a succession of jaw dropping scenes so that any Sin City fan will find themselves, inadevertantly, pointing at the screen and gaping at how much it resembles (Resembles? Not good enough. Clones!) the comic it was, for want of a better word, adapted from. This is not an adaptation, it is a cross-technology wonder of the modern world. It is faithful to it's source, sometimes slightly too faithful. The middle section of the second story (Dwight and the girls from Old Town), drags exactly as it did in it's parent publication. The dialogue, spoken with pure pulp abandonment by all the characters, may seem silly to some non-Sin City (the comic) fans. While not at the absurd level of corny dialogue as was seen in Star Wars: Episode III, the dialogue in Sin City is intentionally corny, drawing comparisons to the best of the old black and white, pulp-noir movies of Bogart, Robinson, Cagney etc.

There are far too many good performances in this film to single out every single one. Mickey Rourke was born to play Marv, no arguments. He is Marv, even when the prosthetics were clearly that, you still looked at him, listened to him and knew that Marv had arrived on the big screen. Bruce Willis embodied Hartigan, perhaps not as much to the soul as Rourke did, but not far away. Hartigan is one of the few characters where you can allow yourself to feel sympathy and Willis puts Hartigan's soul right there on the screen for all to see. Clive Owen looked the part for Dwight, but I still find his delivery strained and even forced in places. That being said, I still think this ranks among the best parts of his career. Elijah Wood, as Kevin, makes you forget immediately that cute, heroic Hobbit from a certain other set of films. Instantly. Who would have thought that little Frodo could be so ... Horrifying? Jessica Alba embodies (there goes that word again) an innocent brought into a hell of sorts while still managing to retain a vestige of that innocence. Roasario Dawson is, quite simply, magnificent as Gail. I could go on and on and on. I don't know if the cast did it of their own volition or whether Rodriguez and Miller did it, but every one of the actors in this film know exactly what is needed and how it needed to be done.

There are so many things that can be praised in this movie, but that is from the standpoint of a Sin City fan of long standing and it is for this reason that the film will fall down and fail to become the instant classic it deserves to be. Some people watching this movie will just not "get it" and, while this movies main appeal will surely come from the DVD sales, I believe it will ultimately disappoint at the box office. It is a classic and it will be hailed as such in years to come, going by word of mouth to a wider and wider appreciative audience, but the general public will probably take a while to "get it". Until that time, I suggest buying the books, digesting them entirely, then watching the film again and bask in the glory that is the world's truest comic book movie. Possibly not the world's best comic book movie, due it's smaller mass appeal to other films, but certainly the most perfect imaging of a comic on the big screen, bar none.

Plot:

In a fictional city in the bowels of an enigmaticly timeless America there are a great many stories to be told. Most of them blood drenched. Some of them heart wrenching. People like Marv (Mickey Rourke), a beat-up, slightly sociopathic, almost superhuman bum, who's life is brightened by a beautiful prostitute he finds dead in his bed the next morning. Using the little skills he has, he busts his way to the top of a conspiracy deep in the heart of BaSin City leading finally to a confrontation with the terrifying Kevin (Elijah Wood) and the godless Cardinal Rourke (Rutger Hauer).

People like Dwight (Clive Owen), a surgically altered, self confessed murderer out to protect the girls (prostitutes) of Old Town from a demented brutal cop, Jackie Boy (Benicio Del Toro) only to find that the girls, Gail (Rosario Dawson), Little Miho (Devon Aoki) and the rest can more than handle themselves.

And people like Hartigan, a retiring cop out to stop the last crime he can, the only way he can, only to find himself betrayed and framed. Finally getting back to Sin City, he seeks to protect Nancy (Jessica Alba), the stripper with an innocent heart from the evil Yellow Bastard (Nick Stahl), even if it costs him his own life.

Life is cheap in Sin City, but the thrills outweigh the chills.

Rating: **** and half. Misses out on the elusive last half star due to it's lack of mass appeal, but it is an instant classic, regardless. It is, quite simply, an amazing movie.

Kingdom Of Heaven

2005-05-13T07:58:00.000Z

Kingdom of Heaven:

Ridley Scott has always been one of my favourite directors. As you can see from a previous review, BladeRunner happens to be one of my all-time favourite movies. That being said, I was disappointed with Hannibal and I am equally disappointed with this movie. Where Hannibal does appear to get better over repeated viewings. Whether Kingdom of Heaven will have this benefit, remains to be seen.

As with all Ridley Scott movies, the film is technically superb. The direction cannot be faulted in it's perfection. Sweeping views, intimate close-ups and visceral battle scenes are all performed with a strength and precision rarely found in most hollywood movies. The cinematography is beautiful and, where House Of Flying Daggers was specifically made to look beautiful, this movie oozes beauty in a much more natural vein. The acting in this film was surprisingly good. The central performance by Orlando Bloom was shocking in it's emotion and has begun the steady turn around to my starting to actually like Bloom as an actor, in much the same way that my head was turned when Brad Pitt performed outstandingly in Se7en. Edward Norton, as the King of Jerusalem, is truly fantastic. He manages to convey such rich emotions while being stifled, creatively, behind a heavy mask. Truly, Edward Norton must be ranked as one of the most versatile and accomplished actors of out generation. Ghassan Massoud, as Saladin, was a revelation! It is a long time since I have seen a man play a king so brilliantly and with such confidence. You truly believed that this man ruled over the entire Muslim world.

Where the film falls down, however, is in it's childish dialogue and it's see through script. At times I cringed listening to dialogue that would have been out of place on a BBC children's tv series. While the dialogue was delivered with aplomb by the admirable cast, it failed to engage the the brain to a point where you merely sat and enjoyed the movie. The speeches grated, the individual scenes grated. On the whole, I have to say I have rarely witnessed such poor dialogue in such a high gloss movie. The script feels like a first draft and a not very good one at that. Cut scenes that appear to be shoe-horned in, time lapses that make no sense and entire scenes that bring no energy to the film are all part and parcel of a script that was best left in the producers "pending" tray. I cannot say how terrible the dialogue and plot/script were and how much of an uphill struggle Scott and his ensemble must have had to make this movie as good as it looked. If only it had sounded and felt as good as it looked and was performed, we may have had a true epic. Unfortunately, we are left with movie that, were it in school, would have had a report card stating "Shows great intentions. Could do better."

Plot:

In a time between the second and third Crusades, a young man, Balian (Orlando Bloom), loses his wife to suicide. He is found by his long lost father (Liam Neeson) who attempts to persuade Balian to join him to help fight in the Holy Land, the Kingdom of Heaven of the title. Balian refuses at first, but after killing a priest who has goaded him over his wife's death, Balian pursues his father and joins him, in the hope of some kind of redemption for his wife and himself.

After his father is injured, eventually dying of his wounds and passing on his knighthood and inheritance to his son, Balian finds himself in Jerusalem. After a number of incidents, he becomes a trusted warrior for the King of Jerusalem (Edward Norton). Meanwhile, arrogant Templars cause strife between the Kingdoms of Christianity and Muslims and a war soon begins. Balian is left to defend Jerusalem and it's inhabitants against the might of the Muslim world and it's cunning and wise king, Saladin.

Rating: ** and a half. Not one of Scott's best, but a beautiful film, nonetheless. Would have been better written by someone with an idea of plot progression and characterization.

House of Flying Daggers

2005-01-30T15:10:00.000Z

House of Flying Daggers:

While this movie looked absolutely spectacular, beautiful vistas, stunning cinematography and some excellent pieces of directing, I was eventually disappointed with Zhang Yimou's epic tale. For the first hour or so, the film delivered a competent, but not outstanding, story. The acting, apart from Zhang Ziyi, was passable and on a par with Chinese movies from, say, ten years ago. Zhang Ziyi, herself, delivered an excellent performance, truly showing that she is a talent for the future.

My main problem with the film was it's stodgy and hard going story. It smacked of back street Chinese theatre. With all the cliches that go with it. Even the way the characters drank their wine was classical Chinese theatre style, which grated. The use of repetitive scenes throughout the movie got, well, repetitive. How many times can one watch a movie and say, "Ahh, they're replicating a scene from previously in the movie", before getting bored and hating the feeling of deja vu? While other critics praised Daggers for it's hectic pace, I found it to be quite the opposite, until, half-way through the movie, I almost fell asleep! I woke myself up and continued watching until the very end, which was, at least, half an hour later than it should have ended. The final scenes, with the climactic confrontation were excrutiating. Ziyi's character being the worst part, she dies, she's still alive, she dies, she's still alive, she dies ... At one point, a cinema-goer behind me shouted out "Just f**king die, already!" And I shared his sentiment. One other thing that annoyed was the lack of closure concerning the titular House of Flying Daggers. The House is built up throughout the movie but then thrown away in the run up to the finale. The last we see of them is of an army approaching their headquarters and then nothing. A wasted opportunity to add an extra piece of war pizazz to a tired movie.

Despite her death throes, I feel Ziyi is one of the better parts of the movie, along with the amazing cinematography and the elegant way in which the thrown daggers fly around the screen. But none of these elements saved this film from ultimately being one of the worst Chinese films I have ever seen ... And I have seen more than my fair share.

I have not seen Yimou's Hero, yet, but I expect people who enjoyed that will enjoy this. Comparisons with the amazing Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon can be made, but I feel Crouching Tiger is the better movie, by a long, long, long way.

Plot:

In Tang Dynasty china, a group of rebels, the House of Flying Daggers, perform Robin Hood like acts of robbery. Stealing from the rich to give to the poor. After their leader is assassinated, the government want the House to be finally destroyed and enter into an elaborate plot to infiltrate and bring down the House. Unbeknownst to the government, they have also been infiltrated and a plot, by the House themselves, to find the killers of their leader is already in motion.

After finding the, supposed, blind daughter of the dead leader. The captains of the guard attempt to have her lead them to the hideout of the House, only to find that the government gives them chase, believing that the attempt is actually a real turn by one of the captains.

Suffering attacks from many sides, Mei (the daughter) and Jin (Takeshi Kaneshiro) eventually meet up with the mysterious new leader of the House only to find someone has been lying the whole time.

Will Jin and Mei fall for each other, or will Mei return to her first love, Leo (Andy Lau Tak Wah) and will the government succeed in finally bringing down the House of Flying Daggers?

Rating: * and half Beautiful, but ultimately disappointing.

Blade Runner: Director's Cut and Fight Club

2005-01-28T10:07:00.000Z

I'm going to start this whole shebang off with two of my favourite films of all time, the Director's Cut of Blade Runner and Fight Club.

Bladerunner:
Pretty much everybody should know Bladerunner, directed by Ridley Scott, starring Harrison Ford, Rutger Hauer and Darryl Hannah. It was originally released in 1982. A later Director's Cut, really made it a cult film, bringing better pacing, structure and losing the monotone monologue tacked on and read by an, obviously, uninterested Ford. The orginal release was a good film, but the Director's Cut made it a classic of neo-noir film making.

Plot:
In the near future humanoid robots, known as Replicants, are used to perform work on colonised planets. As the robots become more sophisticated and human-like, they are banned from returning to earth. Especially after a number of incidents involving them begin to cause unrest within human society. A short life span is programmed into these Nexus 6 models to ensure that no repeats of these incidents occur. A special police unit, known as Bladerunners, are used to enforce the Replicant immigration laws on Earth.
Soon, a group of Nexus 6 Replicants return to Earth, illegally, searching for a cure for their limited life-span. Rick Deckard (Ford, in one of his best roles yet), a retired Bladerunner, is brought back to find and Retire (IE kill), the itinerant androids. But is Deckard an android himself? And when he falls in love with a Replicant with human memories, can he bring himself to perform the duties he is required to do, to the android he loves?

Rating: ***** One of the best films of modern cinema.

Fight Club:

Fight Club was released amidst a slew of controversy. Deemed as too violent and disturbing, it combined elements of arnarchic subtexts and a backdrop of violent masculinity. The true nature of the film was lost to most people, critics and audiences. That of a love story, cleverly hidden and crafted beneath the violence and the politics. Brad Pitt and Edward Norton shine in David Fincher's tale of love and sacrifice. With beautiful directing and cinematography, Fight Club decries the normal standards of movie making and causes thinking and reasoning about today's society that can disturb and change one's own viewpoint.

Plot:
The un-named protagonist (Ed Norton), suffers from insomnia, finding it difficult to assuage his guilt with the requirements of his job, assessing the problems with vehicles that his company produces, compared to the fatalities these problems can cause. He finds solace in numerous self-help groups for various diseases and syndromes, finally finding peace, and sleep, by pretending he is something he is not. Upon meeting a fellow fake, Marla (Helena Bonham Carter), his problems return. Soon, on a plane returning from a vehicle assessment, he meets Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt) who opens his eyes and intrigues him about the world they live in. Upon finding his apartment destroyed, the protagonist (refererred to as Jack), seeks Tyler's help. After a night drinking, starting a club for emasculated men, where fighting each other brutally gives them the masculinity that has been severed from them in today's society, Tyler drags Jack into a maelstrom of anarchy and violence. But in the end, who *really* is Tyler Durden and what is his real connection with Jack? And how does Marla figure in Jack's world?

Rating: **** and a half Technically brilliant showing that Fincher can be very bold with his films after being castrated by the studio execs for Alien3.

The New Page ...

2005-01-28T09:21:00.000Z

Welcome to Trust Tyler's new multi-media blog. In this blog I will be reviewing all kinds of things, such as movies, games, books, music and anything else I feel needs to be reviewed.

Reviews will be new media as well as old, so look forward to reviews of some Golden Oldies as well new releases.

Don't take my views as gospel, they are just my opinions. I hope you enjoy them.