A review to be taken seriously, despite the author...

Fight Club
1999, David Fincher, US/Ger

Ed Norton plays a tired, worn out car sales exec, an insomniac who is living life as if he were dead. The only comfort he finds is in various meet-up groups for testicular cancer (which he doesn’t have) and other problems (which, again, he doesn’t have either). He meets Marla (Helena Bonham Carter), who looks like she’s popped straight out of a comic book. And then he meets ultra cool soap salesman Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt). Together, they form a fight club, a weekly meet for guys to pummel each other and feel free because of it. But as things escalate out of control, Norton finds that Tyler is overtaking the project into his homemade national anarchy brainchild.

This would be the greatest thinking man’s movie of recent years if it wasn’t so much of an obvious insult. A subversively feel-good film, perhaps, especially if you’re an insomniac businessman with a nagging boss, the thinking man’s equivalent to Scarface (1983). I’ve said thinking man twice (thrice now) already, but don’t let that fool you. For this strives to be the greatest rebellion ever made, to evoke thought and make men all over the world go round picking fights in order to let themselves be free.

As with all glossy, flashy, showy, pretentious, self-referential (so much that it’s up its own arse, unlike, say, Altman’s wonderful The Player, 1992) films, this looks good, sounds good, acts good, and even feels good. But it isn’t. Because, for every message this film has, there’s also a downside: that it’s all a sadomasochistic fantasy, impossible to take seriously. The Oscar-winner of 1999, American Beauty, was also about a man finding himself through rebellion—during a mid-life crisis no less. But while that film had genuine sentiment and the ability to move, Fincher’s film attacks its audience and abandons them.

Fincher’s stylish credit sequence for Seven (1995) still sends shivers down its audience’s spines. It’s inventive, classily dirty, and really sets the pace for the film. Here we have a tour of a brain, which gives a fair indication of what this film is too: a cerebral revision of what masculinity actually means in today’s world. Take it or leave it, but it’s going to tell its story whether we agree or not. And, in the end, who can blame Fincher? At least this tries to do something different, and as a film to get up after and feel ready to backchat your boss tomorrow morning, it succeeds admiringly.

The acting is also a delight. Carter looks as if she’s walked onto the wrong set. She’s not, however, all that different from her male counterparts. In fact, she’s exactly the same: heartless, cardboard, a walking zombie, more or less. Pitt is as charismatic as ever, flexing his lean body about as if in an advert; at one point in the film, Norton asks him if a guy advertising designer boxer shorts is a real man, and Pitt laughs—intentional or not, the irony in his reaction mocks himself more than the guy in the advert. Norton is perfect for the role; he has a rare stuttering quality to his humour—I’d love to see him in a Woody Allen film—and his voice-over, on which the film relies so much for dramatic ironies (the recurring “I am Jack’s…” phrases are brilliant) is delivered with a lipsmacking lack of emotion. Perfect.

So, why isn’t this film as fantastic as many people say it is? It’s in the patronising delivery. A cinematic treat, with beautifully smooth pans, tracks, CGI and adrenalin-pumping fight scenes, the film fails to show any moral depth or quality. It comes dangerously close to glorifying its violence—no wait, it does glorify its violence. There’s something mightily attractive in the way Pitt spits his own blood out onto Lou, the tough-guy owner in charge of the basement where fight club takes place. The final “Gotcha” twist isn’t really twist: it’s been there all along, with Pitt popping up at various points before his character even talks. And if we’re blown away by the ending, we haven’t been watching the film closely enough; we’ve been distracted by the voice-over, blood, and darkly witty mise-en-scène (though Seven’s still seems far more apt and effective), and have failed to discover the film’s narrow-minded shallowness.

But of course, at the end of all this, it seems any critical analysis is unnecessary and worthless. Judging by the book with critical quotes which comes with the Region 2 DVD, the makers encourage such disclaiming scrutiny. In true pompous fashion, they’d probably turn around and say they intended it this way. Oops.

I am Jack’s frustratingly disappointed and unstretched brain.

Thanks for reading,
Mick

I saw it on opening night at the theatre, and had no idea what to expect. If I had waited a week for the hype I probably wouldve been really disappointed with it.
Its one of those movies that people say they like because "it really makes you think". Perhaps, but I can think of over 100 movies that do it better. This might make it seem hard to justify, say, a #36 ranking on IMDb (haha)....but the movie does have its great qualities. The main thing I like about it is that it is disgustingly funny (the cancer paitent who wants to get laid, the "dick or ass" enigma on the plane, manboobs, pick a fight and lose). It all cracks me up. This movie may fail in its goal, but for me it "pulls a Homer" and is still pretty damn good

I'm really surprised with that review Mick, I thought it would have been a film you enjoyed.

Good review,i thought it was a good film,Brad Pitt
plays a blinding role

Mick: Amen.

I usually read most of your reviews Mick and agree or disagree with them is not a point to made here. I think we read review to measure our tastes, compare them with others and also look toward overall acceptance within a group, but at the end of the day a true fan of a film, thinking man or not does not rely on the review of others. The review you present here I consider your own little operation mayhem, designed to spark rebellious debate within this BB community. I sense that you watched this film with one eye on the screen and two hands on the keyboard with a pre determined outcome in mind. I could compare Fight Club easily to The Player then the 1984 cartoon Scareface . Where Altman mocked the hand that feeds him blacker and darker then Woody Allen would ever begin to consider. Fight club does the same by mocking the the life style of it’s eve of the millennium audience. The Ikea buying, Starbucks drinking, material minded, single, successful Gen x’ers that contributed 80% to the box office and DVD sales of Fight Club are being mocked here. Jack is a product of society just like Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver . I see this film and I see Taxi Driver.


Jack is Travis; he just has a better job and makes more money. Fight Club digs a little deeper then Scorsese dug and shows you what it finds when it digs deep into the physche of Jack and that is Tyler Durden. In Taxi driver we see Travis Bickle talking to himself in the mirror. Jack never talks in the mirror, he speaks to Tyler. Both Travis & Jack think they know what the problem with society is and they want to fix it. Travis is a loner and will do it alone; Jack will recruit many troubled individuals to help him fight his fight. The one major difference between the two is that Jack realizes that Tyler is part of the problem; we never know what Travis Bickle’s final thoughts are.

I think every component in this film works, Casting is great with fine performances even from Meatloaf. It’s stylish but should not be critiqued for that. Because at its core Fight Club is really making a comment on this stylish society that we have created. Thinking man’s Scareface , I don’t think so, but a thinking man will enjoy Fight Club more for its core study rather then its testosterone driving fight sequences.

I gotta feeling one of these days your going to give a poor review on the holy celluloid its self The Godfather

Wow, a surprising wealth of replies. As expected; this is a popular film, and so my review is (again, as expected) somewhat controversial.

Daigo, I suspect you may have been speaking metaphorically, but I'd never watch a film with two hands on the keyboard. I watch a film with headphones in, all light shut out (with a darkened roller blind) and absolutely no distractions. There's no other way to appreciate a film, for me.

Taxi Driver (1976) is much more of an intense film than this. Scorsese respects his protagonist, and, perhaps more importantly, his audience. And, to sound even more cynical, Fincher's film would never have been made was it not for Scorsese. And yet, when I watched this, I thought at one point that this was something Scorsese may have made before his taxi jerked to a stop and started to make films of serenity.

And if Fight Club was made merely to update Taxi Driver to the Millenium, what's the point of that? Sånger från Andra Våningen (Songs From the Second Floor, 2000) deals with the Millenial hysteria in a lot more cinematically fresh and equally funny (and cynical) way. Far more unique than Fight Club.

What makes you think I'd write a review disclaiming The Godfather? Do you think I write reviews just to cause controversy. Not quite. I'm far from that shallow.

Thanks for reading,
Mick

Film Review #23 where Capo disapointed me when he totally dropped the ball!

I concur in that I figured the movie would be the sorts that you would dig, Capo. Oh well...

I've always been shocked that Mick has disliked this film, but, hey, what can I do? I enjoyed the film alot, mostly for its "big-boom" ending; you would have never seen it coming.

Although, I can totally see where Mick is coming from. This film is deffinatly a hit-or-miss for audiences. It is impossible to catagorize as mediocre. It's either a masterpiece, or an extremely over-done idea.

I do disagree with Capo on many films such as Fight Club and The Woodsman. However, I have to say at least he doesn't pop up in a thread and go "This movie was stupid [insert cult film] was better." He gives respectable reasons to why he dislikes a film.

I don't disagree with your critique, Mick, and anyway, it's your opinion and you're entitled to it. I liked "Fight Club" despite its emptiness because it was so utterly off-the-wall, and because Norton and Pitt gave their (very good) all.

I love Fight Club...I don't think I could not love a movie with Brad Pitt and Edward Norton I also really like the whole idea of the disenchantement with material things and wealth (You're not your job...etc.). I don't think this movie really glorifies violence, because that's not really what it's all about, in the end. I thought it was about being what we truly want to be, letting go of illusions. I think the violence was how the film represents the desire to do this, because that kind of violence is something that society would deem unacceptable.

After watching this film for the first time, I must say this was an excellent review, and I agree with much of what Capo's saying in regards to why he dislikes the film. I must however, disagree that the things he has mentioned make Fight Club a bad film.

What exactly is wrong with a director abandoning his audience? Don't you praise Weekend for the exact same thing?

FIGHT CLUB ultimately will be seen as a film commenting on a whole generation, made by people of that generation.

Besides the fact that when he's willing to fight the riot fires for his negative reviews of pretty popular movies with logical reasoning, Capo certainly is a chap that knows his movies. Its not like he's some BLOCKBUSTER hack clerk that when asked if they have Fellini's 8 1/2, instead brings up NINE & 1/2 weeks. Capo has seen the great movies that many of us (DV, me, others) has witnessed outselves, so again, he knows his shit.

Of course I disagree with his thoughts on SCARFACE and FIGHT CLUB, but I do understand his arguments, though I certainly reach different destinations based on the same road we drove.

Among other things, FIGHT CLUB is one of those denseful pulp garbage post-modernistic-labeled stories that reaches out for people like a fishhook, and then reel them in for the de-gutting. It's that sort of movie that you watch, and then you're like "Holy fucking macaroni shit!", and try to get your friends to watch the fucker...and many of them get converted into a hopeless cult.

However, I think the basic message in FIGHT CLUB I dug was how a drone wanted a savior to save him, but that itself is folly, for his would-be messiah ended up using the loyalty and mindless devotion of his "Army" to go way too far, yet they follow Tyler Durden, because he is infallable. "In Tyler We Trust"

Instead, the story's point is this: Don't expect someone else to lead you to safe haven, or to make meaning into your life. Be your own savior.

Capo, I'm guessing you like Se7en better than this. Is that correct?

RRA and Capo, I never thought that the movie had any special message to offer. It is just a fantasy theme. When I saw it, I did not think it was great, but now I feel like watching it again. It was good afterall!

Capo, you inspired a spontaneous rewatch.

Review

That review is horrible. How prone I was to hyperbole.

I was watching Fight Club about a month or so ago, with a friend. We only watched the first twenty minutes, before concluding that it was a very clever, critic-proof film. I'm dying to watch it again.

The book IS GREAT.

Never seen the movie, don't plan on it either.

The book has a better ending while the film has a better climax. I like the film slightly more. I read the book a lot though when I have nothing to do.

I've read Palahnuik's other books: SURVIVOR, INVISIBLE MONSTERS, and CHOKE.

Good works, though with CHOKE, by then his writing felt repetitive, and apparently Palahnuik agreed. Afterwards, he's done some "horror" books, to which I need to try sometime to see if can cut the mustard there as well.

Really, I would kill to adapt INVISIBLE MONSTERS as a book honestly.

You should. Palahniuk is one of my favorite writers (tailgating Hunter S. Thompson very closly). The book is great, I've read it about ten times or so... But for some reason, I prefer the movie; It is my favorite movie of all time. As Vercetti has said, the climax is much better than the one given in the book. Palahniuk is quoted himself as saying he prefered the way they ended over the movie, actually... But, to get to the point, this film is perfect in my eyes. It has all the great comedy and social commentary of the book, plus great cinematography, ALOT of cool "clues" to look out for, and amazing acting. Edward Norton has to be one of the finest actors of his generation, and this film has proved that to me (not to mention his amazing performance in American History X. Pitt plays an amazing Tyler, as does Carter as Marla.

I wrote a review a while back, but can't seem to find it at the moment. You're all just going to have to take my word.

While I like Edward Norton a lot, I personally felt Pitt outdid him by a little bit here.

I was thinking about the film all day and I had another point I wanted to make.

This film has, hands down, the best use of CGI technology in my opinion. Fincher has great discretion when it comes to whether to use it or not, so it's there and it can be appreciated without becoming overkill. Fuck all that Lord of the Rings bullshit.

Pitt is a good actor. His choice in projects? Not always so much. Norton, I think is a spectacular actor who picks out gems. But, maybe I'm just being biased, as I can relate to the narrator more so than I could Tyler. (that makes me out to sound as if I fullfill the most depressing life ever, no?)

The CGI; is was perfect. Very realistic, very detailed... If you were to examine the opening scene frame for frame, when the camera is rushing through the park garage, Fincher and Norton have both said that you could spot tiny details, like Janitor Closets, keys left in doors, bathrooms, etc.... I always found that cool.

Brad Pitt can be a GREAT actor...when he gives a shit. Save for maybe FIGHT CLUB (where his natural charisma is used to sell his character) and 12 MONKEYS, he usually coasts like hell (apparently, Pitt rather be a movie star than an actor.)

Edward Norton is a great actor, and probably will be noted in decades to come as one of the best of our present times. Thankfully, after a lengthy vacation from movies, he's come back, albeit in either short but brilliant performances (KINGDOM OF HEAVEN) or that in very small movies that is of his own crafting, and apparently disapear as suddenly as they reach theaters.

The Illusionist and Down in the Valley both look brilliant. Now if I could only FIND a theater nearby who gives enough of a shit to play them...

I find what you said about Pitt being a movie star rather an actor to be very funny. Truthful, but funny in that Norton is the complete opposite.

I skipped Down in the Valley. Didn't look that great.

You are a terrible smidgen of a person. God hates you.

"Norton, of course, gives everything to the role, but not even an actor of his immense skill can completely erase his pre-existing persona."
-- Jeffrey M. Anderson, COMBUSTIBLE CELLULOID

I love Edward man, I place no blame on him, just didn't seem like it was worth my time.

Yeah, and Ebert said Dead Man was a shit-stain of a movie with Neil Young sounding like he dropped his guitar over and over again.

His negative review makes me say "Critics are nothing to go by."

The latter comment which is what Ebert really said makes me say "He's an idiot."