Um. . . yeah. (major spoilers for this movie, Sixth sense, Perfect Blue, and Psycho)

Rating: 7/10 (23 June 2001)

I read the review by Roger Ebert--and he seems to have been right in his prediction that most people would like this movie for its ultra-violence instead of its alleged anti-violence stance. Although I disagree with his apparent assumption that satire should be fairly obvious, I'd have to say that the movie seemed to be almost consciously trying to hide its satire though the bludgeoning effects of Pitt's violence preaching, with only Norton's poorly written and repetitive narration to counter-act (what the hell's up with the "I am Jack's. . ." crap, anyway?). What are we supposed to get out of it--should we be wary of the Fight Club-devotees, or the commercialization/corporate rat race/feminization that seems to create the people who need fight clubs? Just like with Jonathan Swift (through Gulliver) seemingly sincere declarations that human beings are the most wretched creatures on Earth (even worse than horses), there's probably a little truth either way you view the issue.
However, I don't buy into the "surprise twist" one bit. Maybe it would have worked in the book (I haven't read it), with a book's limited focus (a movie--even Rashomon--is always third person perspective, since the narrator is the camera)--but come on! The same person? Look at this literally--people interact with both of them at roughly the same time, and after the blonde boy gets beat up by Edward Norton, he sees them *both* climbing the stairs (sure, it could be said the blonde kid and all the others were delusional, too, just like the killer in Satoshi Kon's Perfect Blue, but once the secret is revealed, no one mistakes him for Narrator, they all call him by his name). This is more pretentious than the Sixth Sense ending, mainly because the teaser trailers for sixth sense show scenes that were cut that show people not seeing him, such as when he almost gets hit by a car--hence the problem with that movie lies with the editing and not with the writing. Fight Club (and Perfect Blue) just jerk your chain.
If we look at the character in Fight Club in the same way Haley Joel Osment describes dead people, we can understand how Edward Norton could be deceived--if he's a walking "dead", then he only sees what he wants to see. And if we look at him through the lens of "Psycho", then we can see the motivation for the change and the basics of Fight Club's satire. The things Edward Norton wanted to do (tell his boss off, blow shit up, fight) were so heinous to his way of thinking (just like when Norman Bates kills his mother) that he had to split off from himself to perform them, thus absolving himself of the guilt. However, as stated before, Fight club doesn't pull off the physicality of this psychosis as well as either Sixth Sense or especially Psycho. It's basically on par with the ridiculous "Dressed to Kill" (is it just me, or is Fincher a fan of Brian De Palma?).
Did anyone else wonder why the blonde guy stuck with it, even though in one scene Brad Pitt rubs his hair and in basically the next Edward Norton (but the same character) beats the living shit out him? I guess because he's crazy, too (they all seem crazy).
Here's something that I really liked about the movie: everything Brad Pitt says is like a twisted version of a commercial catch-phrase--the same sort of brain-washing crap he's supposed to be against. I'm not sure if Fincher intended that or what, but it points toward the anti-violence moral. I do kind of wish he made the movie maybe a year later, though, so he could have capitalized on the new Barbie catch-phrase, "It's a great time to be a girl." That's the sort of supposed corporate brain-washing that Pitt's character would have lashed out against, since he keeps preaching the values of masculinity versus the evils of femininity.
Still, most of what this movie is saying has been done before--which leaves Fincher's interesting (but not entirely artistic) visual style and the amount and viciousness of the violence to fill out the originality of the movie. The part where Brad Pit speaks to the audience and the sides of the film appear was pretty good (and appropriately frightening), but most of those kinds of shots are reserved to the first 30-40 minutes.
Also, isn't it a little ironic (or conversely hypocritical) that the director of this movie is in the movie business, and that he did several of Madonna's music videos? Would that fall under the "aesthetic criteria" heading that Woody Allen talks about in Annie Hall?
6 1/2 out of ten, which would round up to 7/10.