samuliff

Yes, Fight Club is controversial. It is also violent, gory and deliberately cheap.

Furthermore, it is one of the most poignant depictions of materialism and human nature in film history.

From start to finish, it is loaded with sarcastic remarks on today's society. There are so many visual hooks and catchy thrills that you won't get away with watching it just once.

Essentially, Fight Club is a story about consumerism. The main character, brilliantly played by Edward Norton, is a victim of the society's requirement to make a lot of money and then spend it on furniture and other false delights. He cannot sleep and he doesn't have any real friends.

Once his material fortune is destroyed by a fire, he has no choice but to turn to Tyler Durden, an alpha-male who lives in a dirty squat and makes soap for living. Tyler is the character Brad Pitt was born to play.

Then there's Helena Bonham Carter as the tortured misfit who can't make her mind up on anything.

And that's about everything that can ethically be reveal about the plot. You have to see the film yourself and get impressed, time after time.

There are no guarantees that you will love Fight Club. A load of people have been angered by it. In my opinion, that's exactly the film's forte. Whatever you think of it, you will think something of it, and you will never forget what you've seen.

Some have criticized it for being pro-violence. I have no patience for their point of view. Fight Club is a hugely ironic portrait of human mind taking a wrong turn. If anything, it's strictly against any form of violence, mental or physical.

David Fincher has directed revolutionary music videos for Aerosmith and Madonna, among others, as well as some formidable thrillers, such as The Game and Panic Room. Here, he outdoes himself. He jam-packs the flick with genius visual clues and lines Tarantino should envy.

Now here's a handful of ridiculous cheese that still manages to entertain, like it or not.

We've got Tom Cruise in his breakthrough role, with all of his famed mannerisms, such as the toothpaste smile, already in full use. We've got all the splendor of the worst Eighties gear.

Add the then-promising Rebecca De Mornay as Cruise's good-bad love interest, a laughable plot-line about college boy Cruise losing it at home while his parents are away, the tackiest tunes of the decade, and a bottom line so imperialistic and right-wing that it's on the verge of being repulsive.

Yet, there's no denying that Risky Business is entertaining all the way. The plot runs along smoothly, always leaving the viewer to eagerly anticipate for the next twist.

It is all incredibly dated and corny, but let's not be fooled by that. Let us enjoy Risky Business for what it's worth. This was Eighties at its most brilliantly disgusting.

Do you remember "The Big Sleep" (1946)? Bacall, Bogart, sparkling dialogue, thrilling plot-twists.

Enter "Harper", produced exactly twenty years after. It is a smooth, ambitious spy story, but it never adds up to much.

We see Paul Newman as detective Lew Harper wondering around, trying to find a clue about who killed who. Newman, admittedly a talented actor, never breathes life into his character. He is tragically miscast here.

The one saving grace is Lauren Bacall, who makes an impressive turn as the bitchy wheel-chair bound woman whose daughter (Julie Harris) keeps ridiculing her for her aging. Bacall's delivery is acid and she walks away with every scene she's in.

There are more A-list stars whom Newman has to face while making his way toward the solution. Janet Leigh is his frustrated wife, and Shelley Winters plays an obese has-been film star who has a problem with alcohol.

All in all, "Harper" is a tired repetition of not only "The Big Sleep" but some other classic film noires. Coloured in bright 1960s Technicolour, screened in Panavision, and packed with clichés and faux-funny lines, this spy story is better left forgotten.