==Oops, I guess you can say that, yes, I am aware I am breaking the first two rules initiated. But, fuck it! Fight Club sets out to break the rules.== This classic about the Narrator, an insomniac who meets an odd but very cool soap salesman, named Tyler Durden, is fucking amazing in every single way! Once the narrator's apartment burns down, he begins to live with Durden, where soon, they create a secret fight club taken place under grounds. One of the coolest part about the movie is that not only does fight club become a favoured ground but it additionally ends up becoming a movement.

I think that Fight Club is such a hilarious; quotable; intense; brutal; and intelligent film. The cinematography is amazing but don’t even get me started on the script. The concept is intelligent in every single way. This movie is quotable af, and Edward Norton, Brad Pitt, and Helena Bonham Carter completely epitomize their characters. So much talent in one film. It isn’t even just them but the supporting characters, too.

Fight Club demonstrates such a bleak and raw portrayal of human society. The narrator has such a dull life and relentlessly desires more, therefore, creating the imaginary Tyler Durden, whom, to quote the man, “All the ways you wish you could be, that’s me. I look like you wanna look, I fuck like you wanna fuck, I am smart, capable and most importantly, I am free in all the ways you are not.” The film teaches the audience that people should allow to accept their authentic selves. We are not special in this world. “Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don’t need” (Tyler Durden), being cool and edgy, owning fancy clothes, and having a nice home and a kick-ass car does not make us special. And Fight Club completely mocks that utilizing it in the Durden’s “masculinity.” In this film, we learn to just wake tf up and take a look at the reality around us. No one is special and in the end, the movie just portrays the bleak and brutal, dark side of reality in which Durden faces; death. The narrator is left with a chance to start all over.

I remember not liking it all that much when I first saw it, but I can’t for the life of me remember my own reasoning for that.
Now it’s my favourite film.
That’s kinda interesting in its own right, as this is such a Gen X movie, which I’m not a part of. It’s a movie that to me seems to delve into the general sentiment about a lack of direction/purpose and ideals to strive towards this generation was feeling around the time, which I don’t think directly translates to Millennials or Gen Z.
Yet, because the writing is so compelling and rich, it’s still engaging from beginning to end. Its themes are not dated in the slightest, and have only become more and more relevant as time went on.
It has 3 great characters at the center, fantastic and tight storytelling ([spoiler] the twist is genius [/spoiler]) with lots of sharp and poignant dialogue, and Fincher is on top of his directing game.
The cinematography and score are both raw, dirty and disgusting, and I mean that in the best possible way.
It’s also quite challenging in the way it analyzes masculinity and its place in our modern, capitalist society. None of that is handed to you on a plate, you have to put some thought into its ideological messaging, otherwise you might very well get to the wrong conclusion.
It may not be the most accessible film on first viewing, but the film will open up on a second viewing, because your entire perspective as a viewer is completely different.

10/10

I was mostly neutral on this movie until the last third, when things turned psychologically thrilling and gave me American Psycho vibes. The "His name was Robert Paulson" scene specifically was where the film turned from 3 starts to 4.5 stars. Would recommend and I intend to return to this in some time as I feel it has higher rewatchability than many films of this style.

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com

David Fincher’s new film, Mank, is coming soon on Netflix, released six years after his latest installment, Gone Girl. Therefore, this week I’m reviewing five of Fincher’s movies. Se7en was the first one, and now it’s time for one of the most culturally impactful films of the 90s, Fight Club. This is another rewatch of another filmmaking classic, one that I was never able to absolutely adore like most people. When this movie came out in 1999, critics were extremely divided, and the film failed at the box office. With time, it gained a cult following through home media, but it’s still considered a very controversial piece of cinema. So, nothing new, having in mind Fincher is at the helm.

Despite this being my third or fourth time experiencing this story, I never really changed my opinion about it, which is a bit uncommon in my viewing history. Usually, after multiple rewatches, my overall thoughts about a movie slightly vary, but Fight Club is one of the few exceptions. I believe my opinion remains intact from the very first watch. I really enjoy this film, but I can’t state that I absolutely love it. Since this is a special case, I’m going to start with what still bothers me after so many viewings, something I also rarely do in my reviews since I always leave the bad stuff to the end of the article.

Without spoiling anything, of course, there’s a vital plot twist that comes later in the movie that I could only appreciate by its execution, but never by its impact on the narrative. Jim Uhls’ screenplay relies on the main characters’ friendship to carry the story forward, and throughout the first two acts, Fincher leaves not-that-subtle hints to a massive revelation, which eventually triggers the beginning of the third act. This major plot point is brilliantly executed, and I still feel incredibly fascinated by its delivery, both in terms of the dialogue and the performances. However, its impact on any lightly focused, observant viewer is close to zero due to the clear evidence that pointed towards this development.

Now, I don’t want to sound like that stereotypical moviegoer that says, “I guessed the twist before its revelation, hence it all sucks”. Like I insinuate above, I was still wholly captivated during the entirety of the third act. Nevertheless, Fight Club’s runtime is far from being short, and Fincher spends a lot of time building up an idea that loses its surprise factor even before the film’s midpoint. It changes the protagonist’s perspective, it takes the viewer through a predictable yet entertaining path, setting up a powerful, meaningful ending. However, personally, I don’t feel like the time spent in the first two acts was satisfyingly compensated in the end… at least, not in its entirety.

The second act also has a short period where it loses a bit of steam due to some repetitive sequences and an unnecessary amount of flashbacks. Again, I feel like Fincher didn’t completely trust the audience back then, contrary to his procedure in Se7en. In the latter flick, Fincher left the biggest responsibility to the viewer’s imagination, leaving the murder scenes for the audience to picture in their minds. In Fight Club, that ambiguity and implicit dialogue are still present, sure, but even before the third act, there’s already an attempt to explain too much certain portions of the narrative that I wish would stay vaguer.

Without spoiling anything, of course, there’s a vital plot twist that comes later in the movie that I could only appreciate by its execution, but never by its impact on the narrative. Jim Uhls’ screenplay relies on the main characters’ friendship to carry the story forward, and throughout the first two acts, Fincher leaves not-that-subtle hints to a massive revelation, which eventually triggers the beginning of the third act. This major plot point is brilliantly executed, and I still feel incredibly fascinated by its delivery, both in terms of the dialogue and the performances. However, its impact on any lightly focused, observant viewer is close to zero due to the clear evidence that pointed towards this development.

Now, I don’t want to sound like that stereotypical moviegoer that says, “I guessed the twist before its revelation, hence it all sucks”. Like I insinuate above, I was still wholly captivated during the entirety of the third act. Nevertheless, Fight Club’s runtime is far from being short, and Fincher spends a lot of time building up an idea that loses its surprise factor even before the film’s midpoint. It changes the protagonist’s perspective, it takes the viewer through a predictable yet entertaining path, setting up a powerful, meaningful ending. However, personally, I don’t feel like the time spent in the first two acts was satisfyingly compensated in the end… at least, not in its entirety.

The second act also has a short period where it loses a bit of steam due to some repetitive sequences and an unnecessary amount of flashbacks. Again, I feel like Fincher didn’t completely trust the audience back then, contrary to his procedure in Se7en. In the latter flick, Fincher left the biggest responsibility to the viewer’s imagination, leaving the murder scenes for the audience to picture in their minds. In Fight Club, that ambiguity and implicit dialogue are still present, sure, but even before the third act, there’s already an attempt to explain too much certain portions of the narrative that I wish would stay vaguer.

Don’t worry, I’m done with the negatives, and don’t forget: I really, really like this movie. Obviously, Fincher and Uhls created a story packed with underlying themes and social commentary. From the whole consumerism theory to the more psychological component regarding Edward Norton’s mental state, every message is seamlessly communicated to the audience. I’ve also been through a point in my life where I wish I’d be someone else, someone who had already achieved every dream of mine successfully with an overwhelming feeling of fulfillment. Coping with the inability to become that perfect someone can become an excruciating, sad, depressing process, and it varies drastically from person to person.

Fight Club approaches mental health and people’s acceptance of who they truly are in a groundbreaking manner, capturing Edward Norton’s emotions perfectly and broadcasting his thoughts through some of the best narration in the history of cinema. Its take on the world of consumerism is undoubtedly interesting and plays a big part in the climax of the film. Despite the issues described above, Uhls’ screenplay is very well-written, elevating the conversations between Norton and Brad Pitt (Ad Astra, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood), which are indeed remarkably entertaining. Predictable or not, the main story is wonderfully executed by Fincher, who continues to demonstrate his impressive technical attributes.

Once again, the pre-production phase is proved here to be as important as any other stage in the filmmaking process. Fincher’s dedication to his features is palpable and visible on-screen through every single technical aspect. This time, Fincher brought in Jeff Cronenweth as the director of photography, and both worked together to not only create that desaturated, realistic atmosphere that Fincher loves so much but also to deliver the brutal, violent, bloody fight scenes that keep the entertainment levels at their highest. With clean, consistent, coherent editing from James Haygood, the movie flows beautifully despite its lengthy runtime. The Dust Brothers’ score is quite alternative, which suits the also unconventional storytelling.

Last but not least, Edward Norton and Brad Pitt. I know it’s incredibly cliche to write that two actors share impeccable chemistry, but Norton and Pitt take it to a whole other level. In two physically-demanding displays, both actors deliver award-worthy performances that marked their careers. Pitt offers one of his most underrated portrayals, being extremely funny throughout the entire film, but also astonishingly badass, carrying his fight sequences as amazing as he does with his dialogues. On the other hand, seeing Norton go all-out is a terrific experience. I lack words to describe such an emotionally compelling interpretation, filled with powerful character moments. A final word of praise to Helena Bonham Carter (Enola Holmes), who also delivers an exceptional performance.

In the end, Fight Club is and will probably remain David Fincher’s most controversial movie for a long, long time. With an absolutely brilliant direction and execution, Fincher uses Jim Uhls’ captivating, layered, unconventional screenplay to tackle themes such as consumerism, society’s behavior, and mental health, seamlessly transmitting meaningful yet contentious messages. Once again, the filmmaking in display is technically flawless, going from the trademark authentic cinematography and production design to the unique score, all flowing superbly through excellent editing. Unfortunately, I don’t belong to the group of people who utterly love this film. The excessive (sometimes unnecessary) use of flashbacks doesn’t help, but it’s the enormous build-up packed with overly explicit clues to a significant (yet unsurprising) plot twist that ends up partially ruining the viewing for me. I also wish that the script developed a few plot points more ambiguously, but Brad Pitt and Edward Norton elevate the whole movie so much with their ridiculously outstanding performances that these small issues don’t keep me away from highly recommending one of the most memorable, iconic films of all-time.

Rating: A-

Pretty awesome movie. It shows what one crazy person can convince other crazy people to do. Everyone needs something to believe in. I recommend Jesus Christ, but they want Tyler Durden.