Some thoughts...

Rating: 10/10 (2 January 2002)

*SPOILERS AHEAD*
Ok, I don't want to tell people what they should think and what they shouldn't, but I have to say it. There... about the twist in Fight Club, there's something that a previous user (as well as some other users) are obviously missing.
There are numerous hints that become apparent after a couple of viewings which suggest that the narrator only partially acts out as Tyler. One of the scenes is the one with Raymond K. Hassel, the clerk that he threatens with a gun. Rewatching that scene, a couple of things become clear:
a) There are blurred boundaries between "when" Tyler actually talks and when Tyler's talking is just an illusion in the narrator's mind. Raymond answers some questions, yet a couple of times the narrator has to do the talking for Tyler, as apparently Raymond didn't hear what Tyler just said. What does that tell us? That in these small fragments the narrator failed to bring out Tyler. In other words, in these small fragments Tyler wasn't "acted out" by the narrator. When they are alone (they practically never talk to each other in public), the narrator is having a conversation with himself in his mind, but he's not speaking out loud, as he doesn't need to act out Tyler.
b) The same is true for the scene in the car. There are fragments where Tyler speaks out loud on behalf of the narrator, but again, the boundaries are not defined, since the whole film is the subjective view of a man suffering from "dissociative" psychosis: the narrator ONLY partially acts out as Tyler. This is not just to justify why the space monkeys in the back answer Tyler's question. Fincher, I believe (and I've been watching the movie a lot, to see if there are flaws on this) paid particular attention to this, and it came out well. In fact, the whole conversation that the narrator and Tyler have in the car is just an illusion in the narrator's head, as he's not speaking out loud except in a couple of fragments. The couple of fragments where he's speaking out loud are, apparently, where emotions are prevailing (the narrator screaming "I wanna know certain things first"): the "wall" that he has built in his subconscious to permit him not to "act out" the two personalities is torn down for a small fragment of time. When one of the two personalities is specifically addressing questions to an external person, of course, he doesn't need this "wall", so he can act out one of the two personalities.
Another thing... Fight Club doesn't attempt to give answers to the question it raises; in particular, doesn't portray the fight club, Project Mayhem and Tyler himself as the underlying philosophy that one should follow. This becomes more and more obvious through the movie, the final twist being the ultimate proof of the irrationality of these solutions. Sorry, but it bothers me a little that one refuses the validity on the twist on the whole and then blames the movie for being "empty".
I say that the movie righfully does not offer solutions (there's only a brief hint in the end about *love*): let's face it, no matter how long, a movie can not support the weight of such heavy questions as the role of society and the equilibrium of the human in it. But the movie addresses heavy criticism about what consumerism portrays as "happiness". I say -- in this, Fight Club succeeds in spades.