A dissenting opinion....

Rating: 3/10 (17 October 1999)

S**t - I had a whole review written and then I accidentally hit escape and erased the whole thing.
Basically Fight Club was bad. Which is really unfortunate because I was looking forward to another great film from David Fincher.
I read over some of the other comments made by users here, and I was really surprised that every single one I read was a positive review. It really makes me wonder about the film-going public...
I actually thought the premise itself was quite interesting - lonely guy seeks way to connect with other individuals in the modern world. Going to the support groups was interesting, forming fight club with "Tyler Durden" was interesting.
Somehow though I just wish that guys could vent their frustrations or anger or unhappiness without resorting to violence - though I am starting to see that is an impossibility. It must be coded into their genes (which is a REALLY good excuse - I love that one...)
Now don't misunderstand me - I am not squeamish about violence - some of the fight sequences were well done and I enjoyed them - it is a rare thing that I will turn my eyes away in horror because of violence - there is a perverse fascination with it in my psychological make-up and I am certainly not the only one. But when I was sitting watching the film (and I honestly wasn't too thrilled about it already because it was just a bit boring) during the scene where Edward Norton beats the blond kid to a shadow of his former self, I became offended. And not specifically because of the beating. That was horrifying and I think (hope?) most people would find it horrifying. What offended me was the handful of young men who were whooping and cheering the beating on from the audience. That was frightening.
I don't think it is arguable that this film does glorify violence in a very bad way. It makes it cool to beat people up and to get beaten up. Other reviews I read argued that it doesn't glorify violence because it makes the drones in Durden's terrorist army look stupid or something. Well yes they do look stupid - I don't think that people go out looking to be a stupid "drone" but they do look for leadership (ie Nazi Germany). Furthermore it seems to me that more people would be interested in being Tyler Durden. That is how it glorifies violence with respect to terrorist organizations - it wouldn't necessarily make you want to follow in one, it makes it look cool to lead one. I would like to think that people are not stupid enough to fall for that kind of thing, but I know I am wrong and I think Fincher gives the general public to much credit for intelligence and being able to think on their own.
Moving on - I hated the "twist" [details deleted]. How lame, what a predictable cop out. And I thought it was poorly done - implausible if you look back at the rest of the film. That really put the nails in the coffin of this film.
I actually thought Brad Pitt, Edward Norton and Helena Bonham-Carter were pretty good. I wonder how different the original screenplay looked from the finished product.
One other thing - I read a review from an LA critic that stated that the worst thing about this film is that it THINKS it conveys a message. Close - I think it TRIES to convey a message but whatever that message was, it is not effectively conveyed. Sure it says consumerism ans capitalism are bad, it then goes on to say fight the system with whatever (violent) means necessary... And does not really contradict that message ever. Is this the message Fincher intended? I do not think that Norton's character running around trying to make things right at the end (when it was clear that that was impossible) turns around the core message of the film... What a disaster.