Tyler was not trying to get Raymond K. Hessel to live _Tyler's_ way. He was trying to get Raymond K. Hessel to live _Raymond K. Hessel's_ way.
Tyler was not trying to get Raymond K. Hessel to live _Tyler's_ way. He was trying to get Raymond K. Hessel to live _Raymond K. Hessel's_ way.
i agree completely! (with your very vague comments)
im 21; was 19 when i saw it.
not rebelious or anti-establishment (well a little)
18 here.
Durden- If you could fight anyone in history who would you fight?
Norton- Ghandi
Nuff said. I was rolling on the floor after that one
Durden- If you could fight anyone in history who would you fight?
Norton- Ghandi
Nuff said. I was rolling on the floor after that one
Easily my favorite movie, been waiting for a while to get the special edition DVD. In fact, half way through this thread I
went to ebay, sniped it in an auction and won.
If all your argument is based on the surface level dialogue and "graphic violence"
then you missed out on a what made the movie unique. A lot of you who disliked it for
its anti-social/anti-establishment message missed the glaring contrast with how 'punk' Tyler
was yet how sheik and physically honed he was. It wasn't so much about not being part
of the consumer/mainstream crowd as it was about NOT chasing one crowd after the other, based on
their various gimmicks. In the end Norton only has marla and has no idea where to go next, he's got nothing
to follow and has to make it up, whereas before, with either choice, Tyler or his Ikea habit, he
just mindlessly plowed through life following something.
As for the violence, I thought the shots were done brilliantly, almost modern
dance, the movements were fluid it was about the sound the motion, the reactions
the experience, not so much as filler a$$ kicking. There was a purpose in the basement
scenes.
Plus the movie had several outstanding effects that I thought were innovative, the catalogue walkthrough,
the marla sex scence, and the film warping.
I don't particularly care if that's a sufficient counter point, that's not the sum of what i enjoy about the movie,
it's odd ball, clever, quirky, dark, full of detail and things going on in the background, the actors are some of
my favorites, the director too. i like the way the message was presented they certainly could have done a lot
worse.
i'm 21, first saw it when i was ~17.
~bulls
went to ebay, sniped it in an auction and won.
If all your argument is based on the surface level dialogue and "graphic violence"
then you missed out on a what made the movie unique. A lot of you who disliked it for
its anti-social/anti-establishment message missed the glaring contrast with how 'punk' Tyler
was yet how sheik and physically honed he was. It wasn't so much about not being part
of the consumer/mainstream crowd as it was about NOT chasing one crowd after the other, based on
their various gimmicks. In the end Norton only has marla and has no idea where to go next, he's got nothing
to follow and has to make it up, whereas before, with either choice, Tyler or his Ikea habit, he
just mindlessly plowed through life following something.
As for the violence, I thought the shots were done brilliantly, almost modern
dance, the movements were fluid it was about the sound the motion, the reactions
the experience, not so much as filler a$$ kicking. There was a purpose in the basement
scenes.
Plus the movie had several outstanding effects that I thought were innovative, the catalogue walkthrough,
the marla sex scence, and the film warping.
I don't particularly care if that's a sufficient counter point, that's not the sum of what i enjoy about the movie,
it's odd ball, clever, quirky, dark, full of detail and things going on in the background, the actors are some of
my favorites, the director too. i like the way the message was presented they certainly could have done a lot
worse.
i'm 21, first saw it when i was ~17.
~bulls
It's the fact that through the whole movie you believe that they are seperate people, it's the struggle of one man's life who is dealing with their self consious/split personality, and realizing at the end that Tyler Durden was never actually existant.
The idea of recruiting an army, what's so wrong with that? It happens all the time, gangs, mafia, etc.
I'm 18.
The idea of recruiting an army, what's so wrong with that? It happens all the time, gangs, mafia, etc.
I'm 18.
Oh, btw, watch the movie Boondock Saints. Best. Movie. Ever. Just pay attention to it, you can't miss any parts of it. And if I told you what it were about, it'd ruin it.
I'm 22 and enjoyed it.
It's more of an abstract presentation of ideals than anything to be traken seriously, though, imo.
For example, do you see Edward Norton and Brad Pitt burning the fortunes they made in royalty from the film?
34 now. Saw it in the theatres. Don't remember when it came out. So figure 30 YO?
Thought the movie sucked. Wanted hard to like it too.
Thought the movie sucked. Wanted hard to like it too.
IMO, David Fincher + Chuck Palahniuk = kick@ss. Technically, the movie is very well made, and it does have a very interesting message about our society (being accustomed to Palahniuk's style helps with this some). However, this movie's no different than anything else in that some people will like it, some won't. Can't please everybody...
Boondock Saints is pretty good, but doesn't match Fight Club in any respect. (IMO again)
Boondock Saints is pretty good, but doesn't match Fight Club in any respect. (IMO again)
HendrixFan
Diamond Member
- Oct 18, 2001
- 4,646
- 0
- 71
I think it is one of the best movies of all time. It is easily the best put together movie I have ever seen. Its a beautiful marriage of everything a movie needs; drama, humor, music, visuals and depth. I thought the movie would suck from the trailers, but heard from trusted people that it was one of the greatest movies they had ever seen. So I saw it. I was completely shocked to see the first 30-40 minutes have absolutely no fighting. Just dark humor and an interesting storyline. I had no idea where things were going, but I was enjoying it. Then being taken for a huge loop and left with a satisfying ending. Wonderful cinema.
Other people have touched on some good points, and Id like to reinforce a few. First off, alot of people dont "get" the movie, and I dont want to sound elitist as I say that. For all the anti-consumerism that is in your face (IE - nobody misses that), the subtle part of the film is to show that anarchy isnt the answer. The "mindless drones" that follow pop culture continue to be "mindless drones" as they chant "His name is Robert Paulson". They went from one blind following to another. They had no great understanding of life or themselves. They just did what felt natural, be it fitting in by conforming to society, or by venting their aggression through violence. THe movie clearly is anti-violence, otherwise the last 30 minutes wouldnt be included. Its amazing to me how many movie critics missed out on that very important part.
The Raymond K Hessel scene was very well done. You are supposed to feel disturbed, you are supposed to hate Tyler for his actions. The narrator reinforces that by very clearly stating as much. If the audience hadnt already clued in to feeling "sick" about the scene, the narrator puts in in their face. But Tyler's response to the narrator is the response to the audience. The audience is told to confront the fact that it took the threat of death to make this man chase his dreams. HIS DREAMS! This is something he should strive for, for his own personal happiness. Instead, he completely vacates his dreams, and falls into a senseless and shameful (as was made clear by pointing out he was a)working the night shift at a convienence store b)living in a sh!tty basement apartment) life with no hope. He had no reason to live, and he made no effort to "live". And of course you cant ignore the fact that the gun wasnt loaded. Tyler never intended to harm Raymond. Only to help.
One of the huge plot holes that seems to be common here is the fact that he started fight club by fighting with himself. Remember, this is outside a bar. I dunno about you, but when I go to bars, people get pretty aggressive and violent after drinking hours are through and everyone leaves. I can certainly see a situation like that unfolding at 2AM on a Saturday around these parts.
Other people have touched on some good points, and Id like to reinforce a few. First off, alot of people dont "get" the movie, and I dont want to sound elitist as I say that. For all the anti-consumerism that is in your face (IE - nobody misses that), the subtle part of the film is to show that anarchy isnt the answer. The "mindless drones" that follow pop culture continue to be "mindless drones" as they chant "His name is Robert Paulson". They went from one blind following to another. They had no great understanding of life or themselves. They just did what felt natural, be it fitting in by conforming to society, or by venting their aggression through violence. THe movie clearly is anti-violence, otherwise the last 30 minutes wouldnt be included. Its amazing to me how many movie critics missed out on that very important part.
The Raymond K Hessel scene was very well done. You are supposed to feel disturbed, you are supposed to hate Tyler for his actions. The narrator reinforces that by very clearly stating as much. If the audience hadnt already clued in to feeling "sick" about the scene, the narrator puts in in their face. But Tyler's response to the narrator is the response to the audience. The audience is told to confront the fact that it took the threat of death to make this man chase his dreams. HIS DREAMS! This is something he should strive for, for his own personal happiness. Instead, he completely vacates his dreams, and falls into a senseless and shameful (as was made clear by pointing out he was a)working the night shift at a convienence store b)living in a sh!tty basement apartment) life with no hope. He had no reason to live, and he made no effort to "live". And of course you cant ignore the fact that the gun wasnt loaded. Tyler never intended to harm Raymond. Only to help.
One of the huge plot holes that seems to be common here is the fact that he started fight club by fighting with himself. Remember, this is outside a bar. I dunno about you, but when I go to bars, people get pretty aggressive and violent after drinking hours are through and everyone leaves. I can certainly see a situation like that unfolding at 2AM on a Saturday around these parts.
i am 18, i love fight club, one of my favorites, never did find the hidden messages you are talking about, but the whole movie in my opinion is about this insomniac who totally starts to whig out and thinks all this stuff is really happening, alter egos, and stuff, but in the end, if any of that stuff really happened, even the buildings blowing up, you would never know, the guy is not crazy, but he is insomniac. studies prove that if you stay awake for like 7 days straight, you will start to see things, and you will start to imagine things, like this guy on a radio station did it for ten days, and by the end he thought there was people trying to assasinate him in the radio studio... so anyways, thats waht the movie is about in my opinion, its just a story anyways, not meant to go live your life around, people who do that are really crazy
Originally posted by: pulse8
It's not supposed to be taken literally.
Fincher had to portray multiple personalities without giving away that they are the same person. You have to suspend your disbelief of what you had watched previously and not delve too far into the way it was made in the movie but rather what it meant to the story.
Something like this is VERY hard to portray in a movie and I think Fincher did a brilliant job of doing it.
it's based loosely off of joseph conrad's "the secret sharer." basically this guy gets to know himself through this experience. at the end his two selves are merged. cool huh. i'm 21 and i love it. its my favorite movie.
I'm 25 and I liked it.
I didn't read all ofthe posts, butI read most of them. Has anyone ever heard of the Landmark Forum or Est? Est was the first
incarnation of it and it eventually evolved into the Landmark Forum. It's a long ass seminar. Kind of a self improvement
kind of thing. I went through it. (A music teacher was an avid fan of it and she paid for me to go. I figured "what the hell")
Well, the writer of the book that the movie was made from attended this seminar. It changed his life. The first thing
he did was go and write this book. The movie is basically a cinematic version of what the seminar preached.
I'm not promoting this or anything (some people love it, some think it's a crock o' sh_t) it's just what the movie's about.
If anyone has been in this seminar or if you read enough about it, every scene and message in the movie is a metaphor
for some part of this seminar.
I didn't read all ofthe posts, butI read most of them. Has anyone ever heard of the Landmark Forum or Est? Est was the first
incarnation of it and it eventually evolved into the Landmark Forum. It's a long ass seminar. Kind of a self improvement
kind of thing. I went through it. (A music teacher was an avid fan of it and she paid for me to go. I figured "what the hell")
Well, the writer of the book that the movie was made from attended this seminar. It changed his life. The first thing
he did was go and write this book. The movie is basically a cinematic version of what the seminar preached.
I'm not promoting this or anything (some people love it, some think it's a crock o' sh_t) it's just what the movie's about.
If anyone has been in this seminar or if you read enough about it, every scene and message in the movie is a metaphor
for some part of this seminar.
First off, I did enjoy the movie, I thought it was very well done. Was it one of the best movies I've ever seen? No. Yes, it had some great messages that I happen to enjoy. I'm a bit anti-corporate and rebellious myself, but my bottom line to anyone saying only intelligent people get(or enjoy) this movie, or the fact that its a stunning piece of artwork for its message, etc.. The movie was supposed to send this message of anticorporatism(word? 
), antiestablishmentism? etc.. but yet it's produced by a major corporation (20th Century Fox), with VERY mainstream actors who don't chose movies for their individual appeal (an argument could be made for Norton, but Pitt.. nah) then packaged by the 'corporate machine' and distributed to the world. I just don't see how you can feel so intellectual and upper level by saying you're totally with the message of this movie when the movie itself is contradicting the message.
), antiestablishmentism? etc.. but yet it's produced by a major corporation (20th Century Fox), with VERY mainstream actors who don't chose movies for their individual appeal (an argument could be made for Norton, but Pitt.. nah) then packaged by the 'corporate machine' and distributed to the world. I just don't see how you can feel so intellectual and upper level by saying you're totally with the message of this movie when the movie itself is contradicting the message. 
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter