You are wrong.

A masterpiece. Loved every second of it and the 2nd viewing only made it better. The ending had me thinking for a little, and the whole movie basically had me thinking. Some of the lines in there really make you think. Amazing film. Number 12 on my all-time list.

A classic and easily one of the best movies of the 90's.

A+

One of the best movie's of the 90s like many have said. It truely is a masterpiece in every sense of the word.

A

Yeah, my grade has definitely gone up to an A+. This is easily one of my favorite movies and I get more from it every time I watch it. Fincher is a great director, but this is his crowning achievement, IMO.

Doesn't anyone else find this film to be seriously heavy handed and, well, obvious?

Possibly, but not quite up to the levels of say a Requiem for a Dream.

Not sure that can be topped.

bump

One of the best combinations of weird/unique and entertaining that I've ever seen -- great acting, great writing, great plot twists, great cinematic style...this is the best Fincher film I've seen, and I've seen most (the one large link missing from the chain is "Se7en"). It stinks this wasn't a hit in its own time, but luckily it found a following after theaters.

A

Everything about this fiLm from the performances, to the script, to the images is fucking groundbreaking. I think I'm pLacing it to my top 25 and possibLy an A+ grade upon fourth viewing.

A

Edward Norton

Eh, this was hardly one of his greater performances. He just needed to come across as very bored, and then add a little spice later on. They gave Brad Pitt a much more interesting part, IMO.

He is a good actor.

He was the only one that made Incredible Hulk interesting and his performance as the leper King of Jerusalem in Kingdom of Heaven was creepy and outstanding. Lets not forget American History X as well.

I stand by my earlier review. Although the grade is even worse on repeats.

Jeff you are on crackkkkkk

It is such a horrifically bad movie. I can't understand all the praise. OMG LOOK! It's a movie everyone loves! Must love!!!

It's like Juno. Except Juno was generally good.

What's kitsch about Fight Club?

Wrong word. This is why I should not type and talk at the same time.

Maybe reading the original novel by Chuck Palahniuk on which the film is based can mitigate your dislike for the film. The book is v. "visual" which means it is readily translatable into visual media. And David Fincher and co. did a pretty good job capturing the "tone" of the novel. They did change the ending though, leaving a silent sigh in the end.

I do. Blame the source material. Chuck sucks.

It's still a very good film, though.

Despite being well made on the technical level, this is a terrible film. Its ideas, or rather, its idea (since it only has one...and a muddled, incoherent, yet forcefully expressed babbling of one at that), is reprehensible. Nothing more than a display of unchecked, barbaric masculinity that is completely belittling to not just women and homosexuals, but to anyone with a brain or culture.

On the homophobic part, since it might not be an obvious offense, it exists in Fincher's elucidation of "letting go," letting masculinity take full reign, reaching all extremes and displaying all of the repressions of the masculine persona except for male's homosexual desires. It's a theme that goes hand in hand with the type of violence showcased in the film, but a side Fincher refuses to express out of homophobia.

It tries to get away with it's reprehensibility by labeling itself a "satire," but a satire requires more than glorification of the target. Perhaps the filmmaker's intentions were not so sinister, but what is much more troubling is the fact that the audience which is now enamored with this film is clearly only so into it for its glorification. Either way, Fincher is attempting to hide the moral failings of this film by labeling it a comedy and simply choosing to make a film so vile, or his words are more earnest and it's his skill as a filmmaker that's at fault.

The comparisons to "Requiem for a Dream" are valid on the surface. But that film is an infinitely more successful use of the neo-techno-post MTV-noir-insert more ambiguously style-defining words here- genre. Regardless of how heavy handed they both may be, Requiem actually exists for a message and purpose. Also, Requiem is just much, much better at developing it's characters and happens to be one of the best acted movies I've ever seen (not that the acting here is bad, it's actually quite good except for Norton who seems so bored not even his bored character can salvage his acting).

Anyone who attempts to legitimize this film by saying it condemns its events should be silenced by Fincher's own exclamation: "I wanted people to love Tyler." Hmmm....
One positive thing I can say is that Fincher has grown tremendously between this and the almost-great Zodiac.

I'll close this review with brilliantly bitchy words of Margo Channing: "I hate men."
Thank god we have women to keep us from destroying ourselves and each other.

F

I'm guessing I'm not making any friends with my statements here....oh well.

Does Chuck Palahniuk being gay himself add anything to your sense of the film/novel? Perhaps the novel was him coming to terms with it?