Hello??? Doesn't anyone care about coherency anymore???

Rating: 2/10 (27 October 1999)

First, the good stuff. The acting was superb. Edward Norton was very strong (though I expected more, somehow) and Brad Pitt was a phenomenon. I'm glad Sean Penn pulled out of this role, though I'm sure he would have nailed it as well (and in a very different way, I'll bet). The direction was also interesting, though it seemed like the director was enjoying himself to much. So much of it seemed like the "wouldn't it be cool if..." style of direction.
Now, the bad stuff. This plot is more full of holes than Independence Day. I mean, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Other reviewers have said that if you go to this movie, you must be prepared to think. Very true, you must think about the film's themes and the film's subtext every step of the way. This was extremely interesting and enjoyable. But whatever you do, please do not think about the plot. It doesn't hold up under any scrutiny at all. At a very basic level, this film doesn't make sense. I can't elaborate without throwing out a huge spoiler, so I won't.
If you ask me, plot is the first thing. If you have a weak plot, that can be forgiven by other strengths. But if your plot can't even stand up without the willful indulgence of a forgiving audience, then you've already fouled up too big to ignore. This movie could not have been good without massive script alterations. No matter how good the acting, how good the directing, how clever the dialogue, this movie could not have been other than a travesty of modern film. Horrible.
On the other hand, from the number of posters here who seem to think that Edward Norton's character was named Jack, it's quite clear that people indeed don't pay very close attention to films. No wonder this film is so highly regarded.