|Page 2 of 268:||           |
|Index||2671 reviews in total|
I had avoided this movie as I had assumed it was 'Rocky Goes
Underground'. Saw it last night (May 2013) only because my son wanted
to watch it and I was too tired to get off the couch. I was totally
blown away. It has no resemblance to Rocky or any other boring boxing
Can't stop thinking about it today, certainly can't concentrate on work. Why? Because I totally identify with The Narrator and it seems from the comments here and from the consensus of viewer ratings that I am far from alone. Its not 'Macho Porn', or 'little-boy posturing' as Roger Ebert describes it. It is rather one of the most thought provoking movies I have ever seen.
I unleashed my own Tyler Durden 10 years ago, not violently or illegally, but I did turn my back on my serf-like existence as a well- paid corporate slave. Sure it was painful and chaotic. But my marriage survived and now I run my own small business. Sometimes I think I made a mistake, as my former affluent life sure was easier. But it takes a movie like this to remind me how empty it was and how much more satisfying it is to take the road less travelled, to forge my own destiny, to have a proper work life balance that allows me to know my kids and to not be sucked into hollow consumerism.
This movie has been hailed by many (mostly men) as the greatest movie
of all time. It has been continually rising up the "Top 250" and now
ranks as the 10th best on IMDb.
I'm sorry, after 4 viewings, I still do not get to that level. I don't think I ever will.
I have read many of the reviews and I agree with most of the positive comments and do not agree at all with most of the negative reviews. The movie is not dumb by any means. It is not an experience in testosterone driven world of violence. It is anything but a mess.
It is a very well written, extremely well directed, view into a dark anti-consumerism world.
The movie's message is recognize consumerism and reject consumerism. As such, it presents the conflict between two characters Tyler Durden played by Brad Pitt and someone who is called Jack, Rupert or Cornelius and who is played by Edward Norton.
Jack is quite a consumer, or at least at the start of the movie he is. There is also Marla Singer played by (Helena Bonham Carter), who is both like Tyler in most ways and like Jack in other ways.
Tyler is basically against everything society values, and virtually anything positive. He argues with, and eventually begins to win Jack over to his thinking. At one point, he fights Jack and the two of them create fight club. Tyler also has a sexual relationship with Marla, despite the fact that his friend Jack can't stand to be around her.
The movie has a good and memorable twist. The movie is loaded with numerous unique and memorable quotes. Most of the quotes are very negative. The movie is extremely intelligent and every frame of the movie is meant to be in the movie for some reason. The Director, David Fincher is Fantastic.
If we desperately needed a movie against consumerism: this is it! Here is one of the quotes:
"You're not your job. You're not how much money you have in the bank. You're not the car you drive. You're not the contents of your wallet."
If we needed a positive movie or a positive message or to learn something positive, or something that at least makes us feel good or feel uplifted in some way,
This is not it,
This is anything but it.
Here is another one of the movies' unique quotes that gets shouted more than once:
"You're the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world."
Here is another line that someone shouts:
"You are not special. You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You're the same decaying organic matter as everything else."
If you like dark negative movies, this is a good one. If you want to be uplifted, this is not your movie, it's Jack Movie as the DVD tells you.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I believe the movie-watching community is divided into three parts;the
ones who love "Fight Club",the ones who hate it and the unfortunate
ones who are yet to experience it.To maintain a neutral stance is quite
impossible.Once the credits roll, you may be in awe of this
logic-defying piece of celluloid or you may detest the seemingly
needless depiction of blood,gore and violence.
I belong to the former category and hence,what follows is more of a eulogy than review.So, if you have not seen it I,suggest you first give it a watch and then come back.
This movie does not live on the edge;it goes beyond.It does not border on the bizarre.It quite literally ventures head-on into the bizarre and refuses to return.Simply put,this movie is the rock star of its generation.
The plot revolves about an insomniac (Edward Norton) who is a by-product of the lifestyle obsession.His life is clichéd,branded and superficial;one where the "Starbucks" and "Microsofts" compensate for the complete void of emotion.He gets addicted to support groups for various ailments,pouring out his heart to complete strangers.Among these groups of terminally-ill people he finds solace making him realize he needs an outlet.In Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt) our protagonist finds his outlet and we find one of the all-time great movie characters.And they team up to create the Fight Club.It is in the fights here that they feel life;a far cry from the desensitized worlds they dwell in.
To reveal anything beyond this point would be criminal.But to throw light upon the masterful adaptation from Chuck Palahniuk's book is a necessity.
David Fincher's execution oozes style in every frame.Each scene brings out his innovation and is a sheer delight from start to finish.The casting is exemplary as Edward Norton as well as Helena Bonham Carter (having quite an integral role) play their parts to precise perfection.But Pitt's Tyler Durden is the zenith of Fight Club.His every word and mannerism is cult.So Hats off to Brad Pitt.As bad as his "Achilles" in "Troy" may be, his Tyler is,by now, immortal.Beyond that, tight screenplay,impactful dialogs,effective light and sound,a wacky score and stellar direction catapult it into a timeless classic.
The essence of "Fight Club" lies in its sadomasochistic theme.It shows us the beauty of anarchy and the symmetry of insanity.It asks us to let go,to reject consumerism and to pull ourselves out from the deluge of brand-consciousness,without ever sounding preachy.It asks us to be alive.Blood-splattered fights may not be the most subtle way of telling us but "How much can you know about yourself if you haven't been in a fight?" is the Tyler-istic way of saying it.
I am Jack's mesmerized head bowed in admiration.
A woman needs to speak up for Helena Bonham Carter's incredible acting performance in this movie. Because it's guys who post for the film she's been overlooked because no man can relate to how anti-female this woman is and how far from the real Helena. Women who can treat random sex and despicable grunge as a natural and casual form of life have gone off the path somewhere and this girl isn't looking for redemption. She embraces the strange as normal and rejects the comfortable and pretty as the aberrations. Few other actresses could have achieved the level of intense hyperactivity and abandon Helena captures here. So much so that she sinks into the movie like a dead body into a sewer and has been ignored on these boards thus far.
Having just watched this film, I honestly can't believe it is ranked in
the top 250....let alone in the top 10! Don't get me wrong this film
was good but I just can't see why it is rated so highly. If there's
only 9 films supposedly better than this then I have lost all faith in
the IMDb rating system.
After all I had heard about this I was expecting an absolute classic, which is what it is being classed as. With that expectation it fell horribly short. For me this is just worth a one time watch and is a decent 7/10 movie at best.
I thought this was supposed to be FIGHT Club, well there was very little fighting or action. The drama was good and did keep me gripped for quite a long time but then when the twist came it was just stupid. Maybe it's just not for me.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
So. It flirts a bit with the ideals of anti-conformism and
anti-corporate (a bit hypocritical considering a corporate made this
movie, but let's pretend otherwise), and then offers as a solution a
gang of people meeting up to beat up each other. Like "to hell with
this system, we'll make a super gang of fighters and take over!". And
then what? I see people rebelling but without any goal or project
beside rebelling. "We are tired of this system, we make gangs and beat
up corporates!" I won't even go into the plot flaws of the protagonist
etc because that's be too easy.
A movie for losers with a lot of passive aggressiveness inside and no solution for it, they just want to rebel. A movie for people who will go all "eff the system!" and then buy iPhone 17 on first day, just to complain the following day about their low- paying job. A movie for those typical guys who talk crap about capitalism but if you try to offer them a different system they'll dirty their pants and start sucking their fingers calling mom State to save them from the terrorist. A movie for those who are all rebellious and when stopped by police will go all "G-Good afternoon Agent" and sh*t their pants.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
"...Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy things we don't need. We're the middle children of history, man. No purpose or place. We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our Great War's a spiritual war... our Great Depression is our lives. We've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars. But we won't. And we're slowly learning that fact. And we're very, very.........." David Fincher has created a masterpiece based on Chuck Palahniuk's novel.This movie photographs our entire generation,analyzing the dead- ends of our society.The narrator(Edward Norton) has become a person who basically has everything,but nothing.Subconsciously,he tries to find an alternative way to go on with his life but this is not possible cause he has already a wrong perspective.Therefore,he invents Tyler's character as a defensive mechanism.Nobody can realize that they are the same person,until the story shows who Tyler really is and the plot follows a different direction.A great thing about this movie is that Fincher keeps a neutral perspective as the movie ends concerning what is right or wrong.Bombing large buildings is a solution to our society's economic problems?Inventing an alter-ego character is a solution for everybody's personal issues?Creating a fight club is really a way to solve your daily problems?It's up to everyone to make his/her own conclusions at the end of the movie.The director does not preach,he just presents both sides of the same coin. I have read that Brad Pitt has become the only choice for Tyler.I totally agree.This movie would be different with another actor playing this character.It's a brilliant performance.I also think that it wouldn't be among the 10 best movies,if the director was a different one.David Fincher has this ability to deeply analyze a situation and all movie characters.All scenes have his own perspective and the plot never reveals the double character.Norton also gives a unique performance and becomes completely his character which is quite difficult considering that he grows a psychotic behavior. In general,fight club is definitely one of the best movies ever made.It demands more than one viewing in order to be understood completely,but after that it creates lot of discussion.A real masterpiece.
Surrender to FIGHT CLUB...A No-Holds-Barred Knockout! If you haven't
seen it...See it! If you HAVE...See it again! In the weeks after its
release, either the critics just plain DIDN'T GET IT...Or shrewdly
pretended not to! Considering Fight Club's tauntingly in-your-face
Political INcorrectness, it's easy to see why most critics opted to
play it safe! Here is a film that almost cries out, "HATE ME! DESPISE
ME!" An occasional film will step gingerly on the toes of audience
sensibilities. Fight Club drop kicks them!
Yet, it is so relentlessly and quirkily original, so pathologically tantalizing...you will LOVE it...and then HATE yourself for it! Make no mistake, however, Fight Club always shows its audience ample respect. It never pontificates nor proselytizes, as would your typical formulaic Hollywood film.
The term "Ride" is employed so freely to movies today, that it has become rather meaningless. Fight Club re-invents the word! Literally, from the DNA Roller-coaster opening Credits (Accompanied by the DUST BROTHERS musical equivalent of a sustained amyl-nitrate rush!), to the metaphoric wailing ("We're still men!") of castrated testicular cancer victims, to the mesmerizing and deftly parlayed 3-way screen chemistry of Norton-Bonham Carter-Pitt, to the sharply focused pointlessness of our cruise-control, hyper-consumeristic lifestyles...
...Fight Club synthesizes both our pent-up frustration and our self-induced reluctance to communicate it, in RULE #1..."You DO NOT talk about Fight Club!" This, Ladies and Gentlemen, is one "RIDE" you DO NOT want to miss! 10*.....ENJOY/DISFRUTELA!
Any comments, questions or observations, in English or Español, are most welcome!
Edward Norton plays the nameless narrator whose life radically changes when
Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt) enters his life. Norton plays a character who
can't sleep and finds respite in the many groups that help people tackle
cancer or give up smoking. He meets Marla, a creature just as dependent on
those support groups as he is.
Tyler Durden's arrival turns Norton's world upside down as he highlights how consumerist and pointless his life has become. They lash at each other and find violence eases their dissatisfaction with the world. Others join them as fight clubs emerge across the country. Tyler and Norton's character come to believe that they can take the dissatisfaction and help change the world and they develop something called Project Mayhem. But Norton begins doubt Tyler and becomes troubled by Tyler's origins.
It's easy to see why this movie has become popular with heterosexual males from late teens to early thirties. It's an expression of discontent with modern life, challenging expectations, capturing adolescent and middle-aged angst and distilling it into a movie put together with great panache and flair.
Norton and Pitt give showy performances typical of their work. Pitt is clearly trying to break away from the pretty boy image established by A River Runs through It and Thelma and Louise. Bonham Carter, similarly, is attempting to change her prim Edwardian image (A Room with a View, The Wings of the Dove) for something more shocking.
It's an exercise in style with its flashy editing and obvious special effects. It's probably Fincher's best film to date but the points it makes are hypocritical. One scene encapsulates this: Pitt and Norton look at an advertisement and ask whether this is how a real man is supposed to look. But this is exactly how both Pitt and Norton appear; it is the image movies like Fight Club perpetuate; it's the ideal that movies like this reinforce. Pretentious and glossy entertainment.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
(Spoilers herein) Films like this frustrate. This is so competent, so
engaging that I curse it for wasting the chance to say something memorable,
or important or perhaps both.
What's good is the way that they've solved the `narrator problem.' here, the narrator has imagined the hero (we find out), which is rather clever. We become cocreater of the hero because the narrator has cast the whole film as a conversation with us to explain the last scene which we see in flashback at the beginning of the film. Along the way, we are reminded that we are messing with the film, and the film with us. This latter goes so far as to have the hero work as a projectionist, explaining cigarette burns. He inserts subliminal pornography, which we see throughout with a longer, more noticeable flash toward the end. When we find out about Pitt's non-existence, it is underscored by images on `video.' Add to that the inherently cinematic nature of voyeuristic personal violence, and this film has us captured.
When we return to the last scene, Pitt tells us that the whole thing is `flashback humor,' the most strongly selfreferential trick I know in film. Obviously, the self-referential notion of narrator is the reason for this film. That's why Ed Norton bought the film rights to `Motherless Brooklyn,' which exploits a similar experiment in the narrative mystery. In that case, the narrator has Tourette's.
So the film competently captures us, and then what? A wasted opportunity. My major complaint is that this film meant nothing, imparted nothing, only thumbed its nose as if to say: I can capture you as easily as the doofuses in the story and for just as capricious a reason. We deserve better. You with talent should do better.
Norton and Pitt are excellent, though Pitt has much the simpler requirement. Why waste Helena Bonham Carter? She's got the moxie; she's been memorable before. I think the director just didn't know how to use her beyond a vapid sullenness. Another wasted opportunity.
Narrative tricks like this are best when they follow the detective story `play-fair' model. This is what `The Sixth Sense' does. On a second viewing of that film, everything works, but with new information. More, some minor problems become clearer. Not so with this film. The writers have played too fast and loose with motivations. It is rather in the `oh, that was a dream' or the `oh, time travel reversed that' category. And it could have been tidier in this regard without messing anything up.
Most every scene was weird (a good) because it ran against short-term expectations. But the scene where Lou and thug visit the fight club is pure stereotype, and predictable. Why?
I wish the last scene were more, more something. This is where it really begins to hit you that the whole thing was motivated by an illusion, with as much effect.
Bottom line: this film is so good, and its makers so talented that should be held to higher standards. I give it a 9 for competence. You should see it for that reason. But it has no purpose.
|Page 2 of 268:||           |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||Newsgroup reviews||External reviews|
|Parents Guide||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|