What do you think of Fight Club?

[Mole 0]

I think a large part of the problem is that much of the younger generation hasn't actually seen these films.  Hence, Fight Club is the best of the limited number of pictures they have seen (which probably includes crud like Pearl Harbor and Armaggedon).

I think about that all of the time.

 

That is why Quentin Taratino is such a great director/writer, his favorite movies are all older movies. He has a better knack for movies, so that is why he writes so well.

[The Amazing Rando 0]

<invisible text spoiler about the book>

 

In the book, the Narrator does not die. The ending sequence, at first glance, seems to be a heavenly scene...but it is in fact the Narrator speaking with a hospital orderly telling him that "it's not over yet" and "that everyone will wait for him".

 

 

Those may not be the same phrases, as I borrowed the book from a friend a few weeks ago, but that's close.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Yeah. You've got the wrong read there, Bruiser. The end of the book basically suggests that Jack has failed to end the system the Fight Club created, whereas the movie has a gorgeous triumphant ending with the Pixies playing.

 

I like the movie better than book, because I think Fincher is a better director than Palanhiuk is a writer, if that makes sense. The movie is still one of the funniest, snarkiest movies of its era. Everything technical is first rate. All the leads are pretty much playing types, but they do it well and vamp it up like whoa. Brad Pitt in the background with the nunchucks is one of my favorite little details ever. The plot is silly, but I do like that the big 'twist' happens at the beginning of the third act, not the end of it, and the movie tries to crawl out of the weird hole it dug for itself. It's weird as hell and I alllllmost buy it. Not quite though. The awkwardness of that silly plot hook slows a lot of the legit pathos that's been building through the whole thing. Good effort, though.

 

So, I like it a lot. Really good, fun, clever, stylish movie that I always enjoy watching.

[Vyce 0]

Not overrated at all. It's probably in my top ten movies of all time.

 

Yes, all time. And I actually HAVE seen most of these older movies mentioned (Gone with the Wind, Lawrence of Arabia, Casablanca). I'd take Fight Club over then any day of the week.

 

IIRC, in the book, the Narrator (Norton's character) and Marla both die, as well as Durden, hence the "Hollywood ending" where only Durden dies.

 

He doesn't really die. Reread the ending.

[Nighthawk 0]

The notion that no one watches old movies is incorrect. At least on this board. Most everyone here watches them from what I've seen. Which is how they were introduced to this discussion, the lack of them on the recent top 5 lists. But you don't have to get defensive about pointing it out. As a whole, it's a safer bet to watch old movies because it's only the good ones that survive to be watched in this day and age for the most part. But like I said, they aren't as relatable.

[PLAGIARISM! 0]

The only thing that bugs me is why did all those guys gather round to watch Ed Norton beating himself up? Was it really such a life-affirming sight?

[nl5xsk1 0]

Actually, Mole, the reason that the end seems so rushed is because that's how all of Palahniuk's books end.  It's a slow burn until the last chapter or 2, and then it all falls into place.  And I think that the movie tried to capture that same feeling.

Well, that isn't very good writing then.

How is that bad writing? I think it's just the opposite. After I read a Palahniuk book, I want to re-read it immediately to see what clues were planted throughout the story that didn't make sense when first read, but would be self-explanatory after knowing the end, the 'catch', of the story. That a book would cause me to want to re-read it, compared to immediately throw on my bookshelf and not touch for months or years, is well written to me.

 

(and I thought it'd be obnoxious to quote your whole post, so I removed the second half, but am responding to it now) ... yes, I understand that life doesn't have a plot, and thus D&C not having one was like everyone's high school experience. But I'm not watching a documentary, I'm watching a movie. Movies are supposed to have plots, not just a series of cool scenes strung together.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Actually, Mole, the reason that the end seems so rushed is because that's how all of Palahniuk's books end.  It's a slow burn until the last chapter or 2, and then it all falls into place.  And I think that the movie tried to capture that same feeling.

Well, that isn't very good writing then.

How is that bad writing?

I don't know if this is the same sort of "bad writing" Mole is getting at, but I think it's bad writing simply because Palanhiuk doesn't carry it off that well. The approach would work but Palanhiuk seems to want the reader to say "Look how clever Chuck Palanhiuk is! What a cool guy!" rather than "What an excellent book." I haven't read his most recent book or two, but this is a problem he has through all of his earlier work. I rushed through Fight Club the book because he does have a good, fun style of prose, and he does play with exciting imagery, but I rushed through the ending because I wanted to get it over with. Enough with the "My god, what a twist" business. That's where the book gets closest to being out-and-out James Patterson type crap. Fortunately, Palanhiuk is funny and acerbic enough that it doesn't bring down all the amusing stuff he's generated earlier.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Thanks for all the spoiler warnings, bitches.

 

J/K -- Movie didn't do much for me, although I'll probably get around to buying the DVD one day...

[Mole 0]

The only thing that bugs me is why did all those guys gather round to watch Ed Norton beating himself up? Was it really such a life-affirming sight?

I don't know, if I saw a guy beating the crap out of himself I'd watch. That would be one interesting site.