MovieChat Forums > Fight Club (1999) Discussion > One of the greatest films of all time?

One of the greatest films of all time?


"Fight Club" has a huge reputation as a stylish cult flick and is often ranked with the greatest films ever made. The first half is entertaining enough, both quirky and amusing; and I like the interesting themes explored: Escaping the maternal and material, being a slave to advertising, rebelling against life-stifling conformity, being a blind follower of a charismatic leader, finding your inner wild-man, Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Cool, the nature of lawless “revolutionaries” (which is too reminiscent of ANTIFA thugs), the struggle with homosexuality interpretation, etc.

That’s all highly commendable. Unfortunately, the second half isn’t compelling. I sat there bored and couldn’t wait for it to end. “Donnie Darko” (2001) had the same problem – promising set-up with clever ideas, but a tedious wrap-up. Meanwhile the twist that everyone gushes over is actually underwhelming and not very surprising, although it’s relatively interesting.

Moreover, watching guys get radically beat up is only entertaining a couple times; after that it gets redundant. Speaking of which, how exactly does bare-knuckled fighting inspire or enlighten? Does it really help one’s life to have missing teeth, black eyes and other assorted injuries? I hope they have a good dentist. Of course the movie doesn’t emphasize the long-lasting negative effects of regular brawling. Have you ever met a brawler, boxer or professional football player in his 50s with the perpetual aches & pains?

Cult flicks like “Pulp Fiction” (1994) deserve the praise and stand the test of time; this one disappoints mainly due to the curiously dull second half. But it's genius on the metaphorical level no doubt.

I give it 6.5/10.

reply

I disagree. Although I agree the ending of the movie is it a bit "meh", that is only the last ten minutes , to me.
I don't find the beating on each other redundant either. The whole point of missing teeth, black eyes and assorted injuries is the fact the body is a vessel. To be used and abused. The movie does emphasize the bodys lack of durability, I think. This movie never pretends that the protagonists are long for this world.

This movie is nowhere near as good as pulp fiction, but comparing the two is pointless. Completely different flicks. I think both will stand the test of time. I think pulp fiction is better and more watchable, but both a great movies.
I suggest you read the book, it might help with your appreciation of this flick. It's a short little novela. One of my favourite books. Happy travels.

reply

Thanks for the insights.

I compared it with "Pulp Fiction" because they're both 'hip,' innovative cult flicks from the 90s often cited in greatest movies of all time lists.

reply

Yeah fair enough. I agree that both are hip innovative flicks. I also have no problem with you not liking it. The more I think about it, the more I realise it's innate ability to divide or for lack of a better word marginalize it's viewer. I just happen to be a superfan.

reply

Also, my issue with the fighting is the idea that regular brawling is the pathway to enlightenment or freedom from the doldrums/conformity/slavery. Sure, it could work as a "wake-up call," but not as a regular activity for the reasons cited. I've known guys who got the sh!t beat out of them and it inspired them to positive change. But getting beaten to a pulp on a regular basis just leads to missing teeth, serious injuries, limping around in pain and blowing time & money on constant dentist/doctor visits. That's not enlightenment at all, but rather utter stupidity.

Yes, I understand that the fighting is metaphorical, but symbolism should first make sense in the literal interpretation. If it doesn't, viewers naturally walk away rolling their eyes.

reply

I guess I kinda understand. But to tell you the truth I know people, close friends, I hate to admit. People who get into fights a lot. It's not the constant trip to the doctor or dentist you envisage. Most the time it is painful, but for sure walkawayable from. The truth is pain can be pleasurable, just cause it ain't your cup of tea doesn't mean it ain't someone else's.

reply

I know what you mean. People are so numbed in the zone they need to physically clash with others just to feel alive.

Yet I wasn't talking about the occasional, semi-regular fight with the minor injuries thereof, but rather the constant beating to a pulp shown in the movie. Such injuries would definitely require regular visits to the dentist, doctor or, at least, unprofessional alternative. That would hinder one's life more than enhance it.

reply

I mean, I guess, but not necessarily. Plus that wouldn't jive with the whole altruistic (is that the right word?) vibe.
But if you're trying to say getting beaten to a pulp weekly would most likely not enhance your life, you're not wrong. But that's kinda the point, this isn't normal behaviour. They are looking for nirvana in pain.

reply

symbolism should first make sense in the literal interpretation. If it doesn't, viewers naturally walk away rolling their eyes.


I'd disagree with this. This precludes more surreal fiction, and in the way Fight Club is filmed, it's clearly not looking to be grounded to reality.

reply

It is a highly stylised film. Plus in what world should symbolism conform to a literal interpretation?

reply

Precisely. The movie is stylized and all the events and absurdities that happen are all part of that.

Although, I do agree with OP that some films do handle symbolism in a way where something can be interpreted entirely literally. I just disagree with OP that that's the only way to do so or the best way to do so.

reply

Well put. I mean when it comes to symbolism or, rather art, there is hardly a hard and fast rule about how to go about it.
But, I mean, the best thing about movies like this is that some people don't get it, or understand it in the same way as others. If everybody liked it it would be pop music radio friendly bubblegum. For a movie to be truly great it has to alienate a decent chunk of its audience, I think. If that makes sense.

reply

But even surreal movies adhere to real-world laws for the most part, unless it's a delusion or dream sequence. For instance, when someone gets hit with a bat in the surreal New York City of "The Warriors" they feel it and fall down. If they don't, viewers understandably walk away thinking "Why Sure!"

reply

I think fight club is more grounded than the the warriors, maybe that's just me though.

reply

No, I agree.

reply

I mean, that's kind of a poor example, I feel like, as physical damage as shown in the vast majority of movies are not at all believable. Most viewers don't walk away thinking "why sure" just because they don't realize how unrealistic it is.

But we're talking about a movie where the protagonist literally doesn't sleep. The stylized nature of the movie isn't just how it's presented. The movie continually snowballs into continuously outrageous situations until it hurtles towards the climax. You're right, fights don't magically lead men to nirvana like this. But you know what, random dudes like him don't create complete terrorist organizations that have infiltrated multiple layers of government and police across the country either, all in a matter of a few months or so.

The movie is a loose adaptation, but if you check out any of his novels including this one, they all share this similar disconnect with reality. These are not things that happen in real life. They're extreme. They're over the top. None of it is realistic.

reply

There's way more reality in this than, say, 007 though. James Bond flicks are essentially superhero movies without the gaudy costumes & capes. So you view the movie with that understanding and enjoy it for what it is, including the unbelievable gadgets and wild action.

"Fight Club" is more reflective of the real world despite the quirkiness and style. People work mundane jobs, suffer insomnia, go to support groups, travel in planes and so forth. Even the eventual terrorists are reminiscent of modern day ANTIFA.

reply

I love how you say James Bond movies are pretty much superhero movies without the capes(or powers). I was just thinking that today.

reply

Last month I watched 17 of them from all the eras, so 007 is fresh in my mind.

reply

I was going to do that, still might. I mean I've seen alot of them. But I did want to watch them all in order. I'm still on the Connery ones. I got aways left yet.

reply

My favorites are the Roger Moore ones from 1973-1985, as far as all-around colorful entertainment goes. But each era has its points of interest.

reply

I was actually just thinking of like, Rumble in the Bronx lol. typical martial arts action films. They're meant to be "real", but they're not XD.

reply

No, not at all. Art travels it's own path. If it's well done, it can break from what's expected, what's Normal.
YOU can walk away rolling your eyes, but you seem like a Natural Eye-Roller, someone who thinks they are the arbiter of what everyone else should take from their experiences, while people with much BROADER minds than you, enjoy the adventure of thinking in new ways.

reply

I'm just engaging in stimulating dialogues over a movie with interesting themes, bruh. Isn't that what this site is all about -- sharing what you like and don't like about film? I don't remember arbitrating to anyone what they should think. I merely shared my experience to inspire discussion.

reply

That's what's so great about MovieChat. People are free to be wrong! 😉

reply

Even though I'm "wrong" in the eyes of fans, at least I acknowledged the movie's attributes.

reply

Hat tip: Wuchak! 🙂

reply

What's going on? Everybody on movie chat is being a bloody gentleman tonight! And on the 'fight'club board nonetheless.

reply

Yeah, we're being too nice and respectable here! (lol)

reply

As a big Fight Club fan for decades, I was totally nevertheless on board with your analysis up until the final sentence about Pulp Fiction. :D

reply

IMO, it IS one of the greatest films of all time. The problem is that because it's dealing with an esoteric subject--psychosis--it's inaccessible to most people.

reply

I think you're right. You kinda have to be a bit unhinged yourself to fully appreciate this flick.

Sorry if that's not what you really meant.

reply

The problem is that because it's dealing with an esoteric subject--psychosis--it's inaccessible to most people.


I don't have a problem with this and generally like such movies; I just thought the second half was uncompelling and couldn't wait for it to end. I do enjoy the interesting interpretations though.

reply

How many times have you watched it? Just the once?

reply

Yeah, last night. While I knew about the fight club plot, I didn't know any details, like the humor or the twist.

Unfortunately, I found the second half so tedious that I have no interest in watching it again anytime soon; maybe in 7-10 years.

I do respect the themes and various interpretations though.

reply

You are absolutely aloud to not love this movie. You may have gone in with expectations also. When a movie is as revered as this one it's easy to find yourself disappointed with the end result.

reply

True. I admit that I watched it in part because of all the 10/10 or 9/10 reviews.

reply

So just so I can get a barometer on your style, what's your favourite movie at the moment?

reply

Apocalypse Now is my all-time favorite, followed by movies like Runaway Train, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Pulp Fiction, Last of the Mohicans, many of the Star Trek flicks, Watchmen, The Mothman Prophecies, Magnum Force, Dances with Wolves, etc. I could cite a hundred.

reply

I love runaway train. Makes me wish Eric Roberts had more watchable movies.

reply

If you're looking for a movie with no hype around it and general low expectations, you can't go past Gigli (2003). It is supposed to be one of the worst movies of all time. I love it in a totally unironic way. Check it out.

reply

I will, thanks.

Everyone was bad-mouthing "Instinct" and I loved it. One critic claimed it tackled too many subjects but neither my wife nor I ever got that impression.

Anyway, I was working out and "Fight Club" suddenly 'clicked' for me, so I upped my grade and edited my original post on this thread.

I still think the second half is weak story-wise, but metaphorically the movie is genius.

reply

I think you're right. You kinda have to be a bit unhinged yourself to fully appreciate this flick.


Or...you could have an extensive knowledge of both Jungian and Freudian analysis =or= know someone who's developed a severe mental illness (schizophrenia, dementia, etc.) to fully appreciate the movie: https://filmsdeconstructed.wordpress.com/2019/01/28/the-psychology-behind-fight-club-1999-explained/.

reply

I don't have extensive knowledge (or any really) in any psychology/psychiatry stuff. I do though, for sure, have experience dealing with the mentally ill. Hey! Some of my best friends are so disposed. But yes schizophrenia is a fucked up thing. One of my best mates, now I guy I never see, lost the plot. He exacerbates his condition by smoking meth as well. It got to the point where it was impossible to talk to him, his paranoia was out of control. His delusions became unsafe for my health and the health of my family. Last time I saw him he was in my backyard randomly threatening my mum with a machete. He needs to be locked up or medicated.

reply

[deleted]

I don't believe the explanation or appreciation of Fight Club demands extensive knowledge of Freud or Jung.


But it does. The reason why I say that is that the movie plays out psychosis perfectly. It does it so well that if you studied psychology or have experienced someone who's going through psychosis, you can see it mirrored exactly in The Narrator's behavior and thought process. For example, lack of sleep/insomnia is a classic symptom of mental illnesses like dementia and schizophrenia.

There are constant other clues throughout the movie that show that it's a character study of someone having a mental breakdown that I talk about in my blog: https://filmsdeconstructed.wordpress.com/2019/01/28/the-psychology-behind-fight-club-1999-explained/

Even the end credits song drops a major clue--the movie ends with a song, "Where is My Mind."

When you're not familiar with all of this psychoanalytical stuff, you can only experience the movie in the way a colorblind person can experience a technicolor painting. You can see the colors, the linework, everything, but a lot of the psychology that the movie is based around is missing.

I read several of Chuck Palahniuk's books and once I learned he is a gay man...


Maybe he is gay, but the story/movie is not about a gay man. It's about a straight man feeling conflicted about a woman he is attracted to and then having a mental breakdown because he is too shy to be with her, as well as too scared about how she might change his life.

reply

[deleted]

Interesting and perhaps valid, however I contend that the phallic symbolism, references to castration, and Jack's overall repressed masculinity are not so much indicative of homoeroticism per se, but of homosociality and an antithesis to the "crisis of capitalism."

The film highlights the extremes of domestic femininity and feral masculinity. If Jack represents the crisis of domesticated masculinity through consumerism as a surrogate for identity, then Tyler represents the antithesis to this "repackaged crisis" through violence, revolt, and anarchy. The violence which fight club represents is the antipode to Jack's anesthetized and anhedonic life.

Tyler Durden tells Jack after he has poured an acid solution on the latter's wrist, thus implying a conflation of the particular mode of pain and the general mode of existence
(Grønstad, 2003).

Penetration, then, is nothing but another form of pain, from which Jack develops himself. Here we note Gilles Deleuze:

The body is no longer the obstacle that separates thought from itself, that which it has to overcome to reach thinking. It is on the contrary that which it plunges into or must plunge into, in order to reach the unthought, that is life. Not that the body thinks, but, obstinate and stubborn, it forces us to think, and forces us to think what is concealed from thought itself, life. (189) (13)

The phallic symbolism (penetration), the castration (pain), Bob's breasts (physical alteration), and the literal/metaphoric death in the end (bullet entering body) can be interpreted as a transformative process (from boy to man; from domestic to feral).

In the end, Fight Club states that while domestic life offers no deeper meaning or purpose, Tyler is merely the commercialization of an alternative, who himself offers no deeper meaning or purpose, because purposeful solutions cannot be found in extremes.

reply

[deleted]

Good point and I agree, a good art medium has multiple interpretations.

The way he sleeps is symbolic of a boy sucking on his thumb; his surroundings are a symbolic gesture of maternal comfort; his symbolic father is his boss; the firm he works for is the family that feeds him; and his house, which he furnishes with feminine accoutrements, is the womb.

When he is in pain, he seeks prescription from the doctor in order to numb himself and prevent growth. According to the APA, ~16% of women take antidepressants, compared with ~9% of men. Jack's willingness to take medication is yet another testimonial to the world viewed from a feminine paradigm which he inhabits.

Additionally, here we can see Jack's plight as that of a boy breaking away from the maternal influence and attempting to become a man.

reply

[deleted]

This movie was quite the surprise back in the day. It wasn't popular at the time and didn't have the cult following it does now. It wasn't like Pulp Fiction, where everyone was talking about it and hyping it up from the get-go. You really didn't hear much about Fight Club. Going by the trailers, a lot of us didn't even watch it at first because we thought it was just some brainless, Fast and the Furious-esque movie about fighting.

I was admittedly pretty young, but when I first came across it on PPV I was blown away. It was so unexpected. The dark humor, the grungey look, the whole anti-establishment vibe (don't judge, I was a kid lol), and the repeated discussions about consumerism and how so many of us waste our lives being preoccupied with trying to look the part of a successful, happy person (in work, relationships, material possessions, generic life goals, etc) without actually being happy at all. A lot of this stuff rang true to me (and I'm assuming others). It was massively appealing.

As far as the actual fighting goes, I saw it as the most basic, ground-level version of those larger themes. They just wanted to experience something that felt real. Like adrenaline junkies who only feel alive when they're facing death or experiencing pain. I don't think they cared much about appearance or long-lasting effects of fighting. They only seemed to care about feeling alive in the moment and not having those concerns control them (i.e., "letting go"). And, of course, they enjoyed being part of something that they felt gave their lives meaning, rather than remaining cogs in a wheel.

And that twist was a complete surprise at the time. You have to remember that while the "they were the same guy all along" schtick is the first thing that pops in our heads for a movie nowadays, back then it wasn't quite the trope it is now. Yeah, it had happened before (even in a previous Edward Norton movie) but it wasn't you saw often. Every hack thing was original at some point, haha.

reply

Yeah the movie was badly marketed. I mean it is a hard movie to market.
My dad only just recently watched it. He steered clear for so long cause he thought it was just some fighting movie. I told him to just fucken watch it. He loved it and was blown away.
The 90's was the decade of the twist movie. And it is impossible to have ones mind unblown. Very easy to look back with hindsight and call twisty movies predictable, cause they have entered the zeitgeist and been ripped of extensively.

reply

I think the best way to go into it may very well be just thinking it's some fighting movie. Granted, that's not good for baiting people into watching it. But those shallow expectations can result in quite the holy sh*t moment when you actually see what you're in for haha.

reply

I agree. Low expectations are a near guarantee for a good time.
I recently watched The Godfather for the first time. I went in with the highest of expectations, I was extremely disappointed. I'd go as far as saying I don't think it's a good movie. I will never watch it again. Might be cause I've seen so many movies that rip parts from it, but yeah, not a fan of the godfather.

reply

Haha While I can't say I agree with The Godfather, I have had similar experiences with others like that. Star Wars, for one. And that used to be an almost chronic problem with older films from the 1940s and 50s with me. Although, I'd always sit through them anyway trying to force myself to enjoy them haha. So many were known as classics that I felt like I was being somehow dense for not getting it.

Which maybe I was, I don't know. I realize taste is subjective (to an extent) but I think my issue had more to do with comparing things from the past with the things of today, and deriving my expectations from there. I do know that my experience changed over the years, though, with the more of them I watched. I think too often we forget to get in the right headspace before watching certain things.

reply

There is another user on moviechat who put it quite eloquently as in - a lot of movies we feel we have to watch because they are supposed to be good. He likened it to eating your vegetables, something you have to do but not necessarily enjoyable, that's how I felt watching the godfather.
I agree wholeheartedly on about being in the right headspace to watch a movie. Makes a huge difference.

reply

To me, these are all excellent points. There is very little I take from this movie as being a reflection of Reality, except just to gull us into it's world. It's a Fun House Mirror to our experiences, distorted and not true.
Yes, the fighting IS a metaphor for wanting to get to Real Feelings, not be a cog in the machine where we sell soap for our livelihood. Soap, where we cleanse ourselves of the the grime of real life, smell good, and continue on the path of banality.

And I still wrestle with the notion they were always the same person wrestling with their personas. That's tricky for my small brain.
And the homosexual angle is sorta insightful. Who wouldn't be attracted to HBC? (Although, she wasn't attractive in the Girl-Next-Door-Doris-Day manner.) I know I'd be intrigued by her, (I think, I'd have to re-watch the film), and not dismiss her that easily.

reply

Personally, I always enjoyed the split-personality thing. Aside from the surprise of it (which I loved), there was also the interesting meta tie-in to the fact that the character is played by Brad Pitt. We notice, earlier in the film, Tyler pointing towards a Calvin Klein (or Tommy Hilfiger?) poster and the characters scoff at the perfect body of the model and these unrealistic goals that men are being told to achieve (my interpretation, admittedly). Meanwhile, this model had the near exact body of Pitt. We hear Tyler directly stating things about how we're not going to be millionaires and movie gods; Pitt, the actor, being the epitome of both. And how, generally speaking, Brad Pitt is sort of the perfect embodiment of an unrealistic goal that other men wish they could be.

Watching the movie for the first time, these comments made by Tyler can seem kinda funny coming from Brad Pitt. Hearing him trash all of the things this real-life actor is/represents. But then it turns out the joke is on us. Tyler really IS an unrealistic goal. He's not real at all. He's just a shallow manifestation of what the Narrator wishes he was. He's just like that put-on clever personality the Narrator exhibits on the plane. Or the false image of completeness that he wanted his condo to give the appearance of. Tyler, looking like Brad Pitt, is just the last phony image that he's holding onto.

If all of this was intended, I don't know. But it's kinda how I saw it. Interestingly, Pitt may even be real in this universe. You actually see Seven Years In Tibet playing at a theater in one scene.

As far as the homosexual stuff goes, I was never really on board with that. I realize the writer was gay, but I don't think anything gay was meant to be implied with the characters. I can't remember what was said on the DVD commentaries (it's been a while) but it even seems like this fact may've been addressed by either Fincher or Palahniuk. Again, though, it's been a while. Maybe I'm remembering wrong.

reply

Jesuz Christ, your gratuitous slap at "antifa thugs", is so deluded when it's all the well-organized Proud Boy / KKK groups that define "lawless revolutionaries."
Just when I want to give you some credence for trying to be thoughtful we are served up with this pig-shit. Eff off with your stupid politically biased take on films. Absolutely hopeless and a waste of everyone's time, Tucker !

reply

The fact that you see ANTIFA members as anything other than thugs of the lowest order is telling. What's ironic, is how grossly fascist the organization is.

I've never met a KKK member in my life and am radically against any hate group, Left or Right. The KKK was actually started by Democrats, by the way, as well as reignited by them in 1915 for the next couple decades. Not to mention Dems supported Jim Crow Laws, Segregation and the internment of American Japanese during WW2 (Republicans opposed all of these). These are historical facts, which Dems/Libs understandably want to change or hide.

Tucker has the gonads to speak the truth amidst the LIEberal fascism we're currently enduring in America. Remember what Reagan said, "If fascism ever comes to America it's going to come in the name of Liberalism." And it has.

PS Congratulations: Until your post this thread consisted of respectable exchanges on a movie. But, it's okay, I understand how petulant radical Lefties are.

reply

What exactly does "radically against any hate group" mean? Are you infiltrating hate groups and taking them down from within? lol
I doubt that you are even actively against hate groups, never-mind radically. Also, i pickup on hate in your own response. Why point out that democrats started the KKK (a misleading statement and not fit for this message board)? It's completely irrelevant to today's' politics. Attempting to identify the democratic party today by actions in the 1800's is irrational at best and propaganda at worst. To label liberalism as fascist is just more hate. For someone so radically against hate groups you sure seem comfortable with some of their rhetoric.

I don't think ANTIFA, Proud Boys, or KKK are groups that anyone should be aligned with, all of them radical in their own ways.

Also, to bring this back around to, I don't know....Fight Club, it's pretty clear at the end of the film that Norton's character rejects Tyler's philosophy.

reply

Yes, I agree that he rejects Tyler's idiotology.

As far as the political stuff goes, I didn't bring it up; snepts did. All I said was that the terrorist revolutionaries in the film are reminiscent of ANTIFA in the modern day, which is perfectly relevant. Since snepts brought politics up, I replied. Other than that, I agree that politics don't belong in this discussion.

My statement that I'm "radically against any hate group, Left or Right" means exactly that. However, this doesn't mean I'm against speaking the awful truth; it's called tough love. Remember, only the truth (reality) can set people free.

Liberal politics is all about lying and slandering to maintain power, which explains why I used the term LIEberal. For instance, lately Dem leaders have been claiming in response to the significant increase in crime in Dem-run big cities that Republicans were the ones who called for defunding the police. Wow, it's hard to believe they can say that with a straight face. You can't make this crap up! Meanwhile the sheeple believe their BS.

As far as your other political comments go, we can discuss it on the political board if you'd like. Again, I'm not the one who needlessly brought up politics here.

reply

Your feelings towards the second half of Fight Club mirror my own towards the second half of your response. You're bringing up even more political opinion in your response. This isn't the place for that. You don't need to explain your beliefs as it's already obvious that your on the right. Leave it at that. Lying and slandering happen on both sides.

reply

I'm generally Conservative, but technically Independent, my friend, so I agree with your point about lying happening on both sides; it's just that with the Dems it's to the nth degree and veritable way of life. RINOs like McCain and Romney are (or were) pretty weak, sometimes pathetically so.

If you're interested, I added to my above post in response to your point that the Dems' shameful history occurred in the 1800s and isn't relevant to more recent history.

Okay, no more political comments from me on this thread. I appreciate your peaceable, honest spirit.

reply

One thing I completely agree with Wuchak on is that exchanges were respectful before your post. While I do not agree with his response, what were you expecting? Wuchak compared "antifa thugs" to what the fight club turned into. There wasn't even a direct equivalency made. The OP simply said "too reminiscent of ANTIFA thugs".

I can see the comparison, I'm not offended and, full disclosure, I'm a Democrat. Wuchak's response to you did offend me, but you invited it with insults and hate. One thing that all hate groups lack is tolerance. You should embrace tolerance, before you become the opposite side of the coin you claim Wuchak to be.

reply

Thanks Abed. My two older brothers usually vote Dem, but we get along just fine with lotsa laughing. Sometimes we debate the issues and disagree, but we still respect each other as human beings with the right to choose.

reply

So easily triggered...

reply