I rented Fight Club last night, fully expecting the crap fest that I thought it would be. The first part ( before Brad Pitt shows up) I thought was interesting, but primarily, I watched it for the sight of Brad Pitt’s naked chest.
I turned it off when his legion of fighters started to become terrorists.
How does it end and what happens with Helena Bonham Carter?
You would never guess… I’m not even gonna try to explain it.
be grateful.
I won’t be much help, cause I found the whole movie to be less than memorable. Basically, IIRG, Ed 's character discovers that Brad 's character is really a darker side of himself, so in order to stop the chaos that the Brad character is arranging, he has to “kill” that side of himself.
I think the very, very end has the Ed character shooting himself, thereby killing the Brad, but somehow manages not to die himself and he and the woman cling to each other in the wrecks of the room. Of course, that begs the question of what in the hell is he going to do the NEXT day, when it may happen that he has to legally deal with the consequences of the Brad character.
But, all in all, an ugly movie, IMHO, guys would love it.
The terrorist drones actually think of Ed Norton’s character as Tyler Durden. Brad Pitt’s Tyler Durden only exists in Norton’s head, and all interaction with Pitt is imagined. Before Durden “entered” his life, Norton’s character was in sort of a slump. He imagined Durden as a way to change himself and his life.
E.G.: when Pitt and Norton are fighting behind the bar and the beginning, onlookers see Norton hitting himself and throwing himself around.
I think that wring and lawmill have it about right. I just wanted to say that I thought that this movie was a stinking pile of dog crap. I don’t see how anyone, with the possible exception of testosterone-flooded teenage boys, could find this redeeming.
please elaborate.
Phooey on those who don’t like the genius that is Fight Club. I’m sick of all those “American Pie” movies that send the message that the way to go from a boy to a man is to exploit women. FC sends the message that the way to go from a boy to a man is to test oneself and find out what one is made of.
By getting battered? ok, I get it, it’s a guy thing, you aren’t a real man until after you’ve gotten scars in a brawl.
sigh.
FTR - I found the “plot twist” of having the “inner” him played by another actor to be well, not very convincing or unique. The plot was not all that interesting either (“I hate my life”). Oversimplification of humans struggle to understand themselves. In short, a waste of time. So sue me. PS I’m not a fan of the others you named, either.
Fight Club seems to be one of those “love it or hate it” movies. I wanted to love it. I think Edward Norton is a great actor, and I though Seven was okay and The Game was very good. I even left work early to see FC on opening night. Unfortunately, i hated it.
I guess that calling it a pile of dag crap was a bit too much, as Norton’s acting was good. I think my biggest problem is that the more I hear “this is the greatest movie of all time”, the more I hate it. It’s not a good movie. People seem to find things into it that I don’t think are actually there, trying to make themselves seem pseudo-intellectual. C’mon, a guy imagines his alter-ego and becomes a cult leader by beating the crap out of himself? an army of followers making soap so they can bring down the man? A super-skank who seems to be thrown in just so there is a woman’s name in the credits? Meatloaf and his man-boobies?
It seems that if you throw a twist ending into a movie, everyone thinks it’s incredible. See also The Sixth Sense, a good movie that was ruined because of the hype. It’s just a movie, and the ending wasn’t THAT good, even if you didn’t see it coming.
I’m capable of suspending belief and enjoying a movie, but when a movie seems to be made just for a few gory fight scenes and a bunch of pseudo-intellectual babble, and people try to push that off as the “greatest movie ever”? Not for me.
To each his own, I guess. If you’re a fan of the movie, then that’s your business. I just don’t see what the big deal is. I’m sure that you or others would say the same thing about some of my favorite movies of last year (American Beauty, Being John Malkovich, Topsy-Turvy, etc.)
Thanks for saving me the hassle of ffwd the video to subject myself again to its silliness.
I did, for the record, like Ed Norton’s character, especially when he was beating himself up in his bosses office.
Is this movie based on a book?
I agree with wring on this one. It’s true that exploiting women is not the way to go from boy to man, but neither is proving how tough you are in a fight.
I’ve got two scars on my face and one on my shoulder from fighting. It didn’t make me more of a man, it made me sorry I got in a fight and now have scars cuz of it.
You don’t know what you’re made of until something tests your character not your strength. I found out what I was made of not when I got in bar fights in the AF, but after a car accident that left me in a wheelchair. It tested my strength of character and mind that I was able to walk again, not the strength of my muscles.
Thanks for saving me the $4.50 rental.
My testosteron filled 16 year old son thought it was supremely stupid as well.
He obviously has the mental strength to overcome the hormones. I’m guessing that the intelligence comes from your chromosomes…
Remember, the guy has a sleeping disorder. That can cause dementia, even irreversible mental problems.
The point of the movie isn’t Hey, let’s start a club and kick everyone’s ass or even Hey, let’s start club and become terrorists. I think that it was mentioned in passing a few times, the issue here is the segregation of humanity based upon the property they own, the wealth they acquire and the status others impart on someone because of this things. The club started as a mean of male bonding…a demented way of bonding, but one that would reach the type of people that would be more likely to respond to the idea of throwing off the shackles of the class system. You’ll notice that this appealed not only to the lower-class individuals, but the middle- and upper-class, too. And I don’t refer strictly to the movie here, but also those that enjoyed the movie. The point was to make people aware that we live in a society very much rooted in the material world. One that has a strong desire to improve their material standing as a manner of improving their life. Wealth = happiness for many people. The problem with this, of course, is how much is enough and then you start running into the issues of wives in divorce court telling their befuddled husbands that they wanted more of them when the husband can’t understand what went wrong, he was working all those extra hours to provide for them, to make life better. I’m not going to get into more detail there, but it is important to realize that people today, not all people, certainly, but many people find that they are spending their lives working for the next big thing, rather than living their lives as it is happening.
People that didn’t like the movie, I wonder if you went into it thinking it was going to be some action-packed, male-testosterone-filled, angst-ridden piece, and were disturbed that it instead attempted to deliver a message. Or perhaps you were too wrapped up in your life, too focused on the money you spent based on the value you thought it would deliver you, to see the message, to see the challenge.
For the record, I loved “Being John Malkovich,” “American Beauty,” and “Fight Club.” I think each was very good in their own way.
Point taken, thinksnow. I agree with you in a way. “Fight Club” was the first movie I’ve ever seen that tried to look at human society from a totally radical point of view, to examine the very underpinnings of how we live our lives. Sometimes we never really LOOK at the world, we just let the drone infect us. I totally understood where the movie was coming from in that respect.
But having said that…human society has ALWAYS been based on materialism. Aquiring material wealth is a basic human drive that will never go away. The idea that all people have equal intrinsic worth and can and should meet on a common level is a very noble one, but actaully running a country that way is contrary to human nature.
That’s why “Fight Club” wasn’t as good a movie as it could’ve been. Let’s face it, people who think Like Tyler Durden get thrown in prison, not lionized. And from the World’s point of view, there’s a good reason. The world runs pretty smoothly for those in power when everybody knows their place and doesn’t deviate from it. A nice, orderly society keeps the silent majority either happy or numb, and it doesn’t really make a difference which. Those who try to rock the boat get taken care of pretty quickly. Martin Luther King Jr. is a good example.
Atlantic Monthly did an excellent article about the Unabomber along these lines a couple of months ago. The gist of it was not that the Unabomber was crazy, he just saw things in society that he found profoundly disturbing and was trying to fight back in any way he could. Frankly, I see some real parallels between the Unabomber and the Tyler Durden character from Fight Club. And I think that what happened to the Unabomber provides a clear lesson to thse who think the lesson of “Fight Club” should be taken to heart. Ted Kaczynski is in prison for life, labelled a madman.
Why yes it is. Fight Club the ending is much better. It also focuses less on the “oh my god they’re the same person” aspect. the writing style is a bit off-putting at first (the author uses no quotations) but as you get into the book you see that it is so you can never tell who is realy speaking “John” (called Jack in the movie–norton’s character) or tyler. it works very well.
Well, I liked the movie, but I’m probably biased. I read the book, and really liked it, before seeing the movie and thus was just happy that the movie turned out to resemble the book at all. And the movie was fairly faithful, but people can’t get over the violence. To most people, guys fighting=testosterone garbage; end of story. It doesn’t matter that fighting is a part of our culture. Since there’s fighting present, there can’t be any deeper meaning, right?
I admit that the movie wasn’t as good as the book, specifically the ending. I liked Being John Malkovich more. But you really should look at the meaning behind it before dismissing it totally. Why did Jack create an alter-ego? Because of John Wayne. Yep, John Wayne, and Steve McQueen, and all of the other macho role models. The main message that I got is that in society we’re taught to conform but have heroes that defy society. Jack was already disturbed, but he created Tyler Durden so he could become the heroes he looked up to. The heroes who didn’t file a lawsuit, but faught to solve their problems. Tyler Durden is what he can’t be.
Why do the others follow him? Because they’re looking for the John Waynes too, and they’ve found a real-life hero in Tyler Durden. He’s lionized not because of his message but because he’s a hero to them. Someone who seems to have attained the American male state of Zen: being like their heroes in the movies. It doesn’t start out as a terrorist group. It goes slowly and steadily, until he has them right where he wants them. But who are the followers? They’re your everyday Joes, the guys pumping your gas, the guys that watch your homes at night, the guys who rush you to the hospital when you’re sick. Tyler’s teaching them that they don’t have to bring down the man, because they are the man. They’ve just been made to believe that they don’t matter, that they’re just faces in the crowd, that they’re just consumers, and walking billboards.
Tyler tries changing that, but in doing so creates the same affect in the opposite direction. They become faces in his army. That’s part of the point of the movie. It’s about the person as an individual. You’re not your money, or your car, or your khakis. Even Ed Norton likes Tyler at first, when this is the message. But then Tyler becomes the new power, and has his own agenda. Then you see the big point in the movie is that you’re also not the person who leads you. Again, it’s about the person as an individual. Though it’s not said by Tyler, an underlying message is that you’re not what movies you watch, you’re not your favourite rock star, or your favourite movie, you’re not what politician you support, and you’re not your favourite movie star. Jack gets this confused and has to find himself; literally. Not to say anything bad about The Duke, but if John Wayne were still around, those who idolize him would follow him, no questions asked.
Just thought I’d throw out my opinion on the movie. Sorry if I stepped on anyone’s toes, and sorry it took so long.
So, the message is that men (or mankind) are sheep? Actually, I totally buy that.
lol 
When the guys are in society, it’s a negative thing. Then, when they all follow Tyler and all dress and talk alike, it becomes a negative thing. The only person put in a positive light is Ed Norton, who ends up following nobody. So, though rereading my previous post gives me a head-ache, the final message is that the individual is more important. And thus, the message isn’t that all men are sheep, but don’t become sheep.
Even I’m confused now. 
Sorry if it came off as being really unclear. It probably did.