Fight Club [2-Disc Special Edition,Old Version]

I completely understand and realize the reasons for "Fight Club" to receive a not-so-great review here at DVDTown, but I suggest to people who were turned off by that review to see the film anyway. It is one of my top 10 or 20 favorites of all time and is actually extremely intelligent, entertaining, action-packed, and thought-provoking. There aren't many movies that can have all of those qualities.

I won't explain or run through the whole plot of the movie, but I would like to discuss some important points (SPOILERS AHEAD): Jack (Edward Norton) works in automotive insurance. His job consists of flying all over the world to take pictures of horrifying traffic accidents that were usually caused by a defect in the car that was his company's mistake. Jack is also an insomniac, and he feels that no one truly listens or pays attention to him. He begins to go to grief groups and support groups for diseases and conditions he doesn't have, like testicular cancer and tuberculosis. No one really listens to Jack until they think he is dying, and with his new feeling of acceptance he can finally sleep well. But then a woman named Marla (Helena Bonham Carter) shows up at all the same groups and Jack knows she isn't sick either. Her lie reflects his lie and once again he cannot sleep. Jack is totally fed up with everything wrong in the world (materialism, big business, falsity in advertising, etc.) and creates an alternate personality named Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt) that acts out his anarchistic self-destructive fantasies. If you watch the movie closely you can see little flashes on the screen of Tyler before Jack and him actually "meet", because Tyler was a part of Jack's psyche all along. Jack and Tyler beat each other up all the time in order to get out their violence, sexual frustration, and natural male anger. When this idea catches on and attract other men with similar backgrounds, the fights are done weekly and it is called Fight Club. The members of Fight Club also receive missions that reflect Tyler's anti-social attitude. Tyler's ideas and philosophies are well-respected and he achieves a cult-like status. Fight Club eventually evolves into Project Mayhem which is far more serious and dangerous. When Bob, a man Jack met at the testicular cancer support group gets shot and killed on a mission serving Project Mayhem, Jack gets his first wake up call. His and Tyler's foolish little missions have resulted in the death of a man. Jack begins to realize his "friendship" with Tyler is disintegrating as Tyler takes control and kind of leaves Jack behind. Tyler's "empire" of Project Mayhem begins to spread all over the country and Jack realizes that it needs to be stopped before the anarchistic behavior takes over. He confronts Tyler and they literally fight each other for the dominant personality. Jack eventually rids himself of Tyler-- with a bullet to the head. Jack doesn't die, but the shock of the bullet to his head destroys his alternate personality. Jack knows that it is only natural to have evil thoughts and ideas, but to act them out physically harms other people and threatens their right to live.

"Fight Club" is an amazing film that provides great questions to the viewer. While some viewers may not agree with all of it's ideas and philosophies, I would reccomend it to everyone. Also check out the book of the same title, and if you decide to buy it try to find the out-of-print 2-disc special edition that has been reviewed here. It's one of the best DVD's I own and is comparable to Criterion collection movies.

Thanks, TGP, for your comments. It certainly isn't our intention here at DVD Town to turn anyone away from a film they might enjoy, and "Fight Club" has an enormous following who enjoy it.

Of all the films I didn't care much for, this is the film I got into the most trouble with from my film classes a couple of years ago. Mainly my male students, understandably, couldn't see why I didn't think it was the best movie of all time. But I'm glad they and you understand, TGP, that not every film is for everybody.

John

"It is one of my top 10 or 20 favorites of all time and is actually extremely intelligent, entertaining, action-packed, and thought-provoking."

I disagree. The movie makes an asinine point about the de-masculinization of men by claiming that men are men only when they are involved in physical fights. The movie's solution is for men to pick random fights with each other. I don't think that the movie is irresponsible (I don't hold art/entertainment to that high of a social standard), but I think that it is thuddingly stupid, reductionistic, and simplistic.

Also, the movie's treatment of multiple-personality disorder is laughable. You don't cure yourself of it by blowing a hole in your head.

I think that perhaps some took the film a little too literally. Having played aggressive-type sports for a while, I actually resonated with part of the film, where it asserts that everything has been diluted to the point of meaninglessness in the name of safety and public good and so on, the "generation of men raised by women" bit. There's something very vital, I think for men and women, with taking on real, dangerous activity to gain glory and the admiration of your peers. If you haven't been involved in something where your personal honor, integrity, and your physical well being are really on the line, not a game where you can just hit reset and go home, you haven't really lived. You won't believe that until you actually do something like hockey or boxing or free rock climbing, but once you do, you can't deny it. There's a reason so many dangerous sports like that have such a fanatical following.

Having said that, the book did a better job of getting that message across, in my opinion, and obviously could not revel in the physical spectacle like the movie has been accused of doing.

Yeah, but Olen, you're assuming that everyone has to come close to dying, losing a body part, or becoming physically hurt in some manner in order to "feel alive". I've been in bad scrapes (both of my choosing and not), and none of those bad scrapes ever made me feel more alive than I already did.

What you have to realize is that some activities foster a strong primal sense of "being", but reassuring yourself of your existence is very different from living a full life.

"The movie's solution is for men to pick random fights with each other."

Eddie, did it ever occur to you that the movie might also be saying that it is ultimately stupid to regain masculinity in the way Tyler and "Jack" did? What was resolved by the end of the movie? Nothing much, but perhaps "Jack" realizes that all his pent up anger and the fight club amounted to nothing and what he really needed was a woman he relate to and love.

I personally think you are taking the movie too literally, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

Jack/Tyler did not make ANY realizations about men-women relationships. His link with the Helena Bonham-Carter character is very unhealthy. If anything, the movie only discusses certain males' inability to relate to women at all except for sex.

"...perhaps "Jack" realizes that all his pent up anger and the fight club amounted to nothing..."

The movie gives no indication of this during the finale, and even if that were the case, then his realization is an empty, hollow one that any intelligent viewer could've told him within the first 30 minutes of the film's running time.

The movie has nothing but surface material. All the "subtexts" that the film's fans see are unsubtle, thereby making them surface and superficial matters.

Eddie,

Fight Club is definitely a love it/hate it movie. In your case it seems to be the latter. However your description of the movie seems to indicate that you REFUSE* to see the movie for anything more than what it was hyped for and neither are you the type who enjoy this movie's flavor of black humor.

You say Jack and Marla's relationship in the movie is unhealthy. Well hell yeah, that was about as obvious as it goes. But the thing is Jack was messed up for the most part of the movie, so whatever ideas the movie sent was also skewed in the manner of Jack's thoughts.

Jack was frustrated by the pettiness of mass consumerism etc and he handled it badly. The movie was a hypothetical peek at men who go haywire in the modern day jungle. And their way of redeeming themselves was to "lose everything" and destroy civilization as we know it - go back to zero. But by the movie's end, do you REALLY think that was the real message behind it all?




-------
* "The movie has nothing but surface material. All the "subtexts" that the film's fans see are unsubtle, thereby making them surface and superficial matters."

This very statement shows how dead set you are against Fight Club. If I had to make a wild guess, I'd say you made your mind about the movie before you even watched it.

Anyway, that aside, you really can't deny there were "clever" bits in the movie. Didn't the idea of a "single-serving friend" strike you as true? Didn't the portrayal of a hopelessly empty consumer ring true in the least? Just think, people are slaves to brand names. The movie makes a lot of statements about society, though the way they are made may turn off some viewers.

Fight Club is somewhat like a semi-drunk friend - he's brutally honest, and he makes a good point, but his mind is skewed. It might not be the Great Movie of the 20th Century; yet calling it an empty barrel seems to do it utter injustice. I could go on, but I don't think you would allow yourself to see the other side of the fence.

I doubt that Eddie had his mind made up before seeing "Fight Club." The film had already made high critical acclaim before its DVD release and I'm sure he looking forward to seeing it as much as I was. I, too, was not as impressed with "Fight Club" as many others were. Sure the film may have been interesting enough to spark debate but I have to agree with Eddie that it was a lot of surface material. So Jack had a skewed view of society and his way of dealing with it was the "Fight Club," big deal. I think everyone at some point in life has issues with the world around them. Some people may deal with them more violently while others are a bit more conservative about it. Take me for example, I deal with these issues with beer, ice cream, and pizza. I call it "Fat Club!"

You know, when you really think about it, it's quite silly that we're debating over a movie.

But then again, I guess if one were pessimistic enough, anything can be viewed as pointless in the big picture. And that would mean life had no purpose and we wouldn't be here either!

Discussion is healthy. Without it, we'd all be the same, clones thinking alike. And films appear to have taken over some of the discussion areas reserved for politics and religion in earlier days.

I'm delighted to see that "Fight Club" can still engender strong feelings in people, for and against. The test of time will be to see if the movie can continue to provoke such emotions fifty years from now. If it does, we might have a genuine classic on our hands.

John

I saw the movie in theatres a few weeks after my similarly college-aged friends recommended it to me with high, high praise. I was a fan of Brad Pitt, Edward Norton, and David Fincher before I saw the movie. Therefore, I wanted to fall under its spell just as so many others had.

I wasn't against the movie nor against the subject matter before I saw it. There are plenty of bleak movies that I love, and there are plenty of movies that cover the same territory as "Fight Club" does--to much better effect.

The points that you say the movie makes are there, yes, but it doesn't offer any substantive commentary on them. Sure, slavery to brand-name consumerism/materialism is "bad", but what's so bad about it? The film doesn't say, nor does it offer any discussions beyond "this-or-that is bad because it has taken away our masculinity".

To me, the characters in this movie responded to physical violence not for the sake of violence itself and not to find their masculinity in it, but because they had become so desensitized to the world that they felt nothing anymore.

It was apathy to the greatest extreme. They felt like consumers. They felt pandered to. They felt categorized, packaged, and processed. Ultimately though, they felt nothing. Therefore the resulting pain from the fights gave them something to feel. They had gotten so low, so numb that the only thing they were even able to feel was pain, and they latched onto it.

This movie is definitely metaphor above all else. It's not about men finding their masculinity through brutality. I don't think it's about regaining masculinity at all. The only reason fighting and masculinity are such a focus in the movie is that these are guys.

The overall metaphor speaks to the necessity that every one of us, man and woman, must find the thing in life that makes us feel, our passion; it transcends gender. Granted, the passion displayed in the movie is inarguably misguided, but the metaphor is solid: we all need to find our passion in life and follow it.

Sean (I really know I'm alive when one of my kids accidentally kicks me in the crotch...)

Sean,

You're giving the movie too much credit. What do the characters do in this movie? They beat the shit out of each other and blow up buildings so that society can start from scratch without old financial credit records. The film is about anti-social behavior by people unable to deal with "de-sensitivity" in a healthy manner. Being able to make a point isn't greatness; being able to make a point and doing something constructive with it is greatness.

Eddie

Eddie,

Where is everyone at the end of the movie? They are at square one. Not just financially, but as individuals.

If the movie is taken as metaphor, then we're talking about destroying the things in our lives (money, media, etc.) we let rule, distract, or numb us. I don't feel this movie has as much to do with what goes on in the real world as it has to do with what goes on within ourselves.

In the end, we allow ourselves to be numbed, categorized, desensitized. We have to wake up to our own self-destructiveness, as Jack wakes up to Tyler. Is everything hunky-dory? No. Is it a place to start over? Yes.

Perhaps the anti-commercialism aspect was played up too much. That's certainly oxymoronic in a big-budget Hollywood movie, but that's not what stuck with me. It flowed right over, whereas the metaphor lingered.

Maybe I'm getting too existential, but that's what the movie holds for me. The metaphor I read into it resonates to this day.

Sean (jedi mind trick: eddie, you will think like me...)

Sean,

Okay, so there's something within us that's decaying or already dead. Again, so what? The movie fails to go beyond identifying a problem. It doesn't even attempt to present a viable solution. Instead, it chooses to shout at the top of its lungs that we have problems. No shit, Mr. Fincher and Co.

Eddie

P.S. I know that I come across a bit strong, but I'm not angry or whatever.

You might be angry, Eddie, but unaware of it. There might be a problem you do not suspect within yourself. The solution is going to bars and picking fights, and don??t forget to burn your CK stuff.

The movie is in my collection. It was a gift but I would rather have Bath and Body Works shampoo, to be perfectly honest. Shame on me for wanting stuff I do not need.

Sasha

*in the best wildlife film voice I can conjure*

Watch how Sean retreats: he cowers in the corner. He wants to say something to Eddie, but he knows that one more jab could send him down for the count. The question goes through his mind: do I reply or not? His hesitation is obvious. Then...he makes his move...

Don't worry Eddie, I completely understand where you're coming from. We are basically at antithetical sides of the issue. For me, lack of resolution in the film shows where many of us are: we identify our problems, but we don't actually seek a solution. This is, of course, inherently fruitless in our lives, but human nature tends to lean toward hoping things work out on their own. I, as I'm sure you do, know that inaction simply breeds more problems. If Jack just continues on the same path of destruction, then the movie and its metaphor are pointless.

But I think Jack does realize at the end that everything that came before was misguided. It's too late for him to stop what is happening, but he sees that he can move on from here. His world has crumbled, and now he can start anew. Just dump the Marla chick!

This just seems like a situation where folks agree to disagree, or disagree to agree, or disagree to disagree...I don't know.

I like it, you don't. That's cool...

Sean (don't guess the jedi mind trick worked...)

Sean,

Huh? He holds Marla's hand at the end of the movie! Ain't no dumping in sight, lol.

Eddie

Eddie,

I'm hoping that he further came to his senses after the credits rolled. That gal is bad news! ;)

Sean (not as bad as the bad news bears, but bad news anyway...)

Eddie,

Who says the movie has to offer a solution? A lot of my favorite films are simple character studies that look into the twisted psyche of a human being. Read some Camus, his existentialist philosophy offers no solution but instead just is. You could take it as an enthemymatic call to action for the viewer, but as in the Palahniuk novel, there isn't anything to solve, really, since the entire movie is an internal strugle of a percieved societal issue. Some view it as a problem and have a different, almost postmodern experience from those who do not view societies obsession with things as an issue to be addressed.

Honestly, the movie is one of the most faithful adaptations I've ever seen. The book was praised for everything that detractors of the film criticized. As a lover of Camus and existentialism, at least as much as anyone can say they love existentialism (since it's essentially an oxymoron), I adored this film and what it stood for, what it meant.

Plus it had a neat story, a great twist, and some killer acting by two guys I adore, in Pitt and Norton. (That's for everyone who didn't understand a thing of what I wrote earlier.)

I loved Fincher's "Se7en," where the violence and dark ugliness served the story. In "Fight Club" the violence seemed to serve only the blood lust of the audience, but it was included under the guise, the pretense, of serving some existential, as Justin calls it, philosophy. Sorry, the point could have been made with far less brutality if the director had truly been interested in offering a serious message or theme and not in simply titillating his viewers.

And whether the movie follows the book or not is beside the point; the point is whether the book makes a good movie, and to me it did not. The shifts from lighthearted satire to gross barbarity to silly farce seemed arbitrary and disconcerting, to say nothing of the oddball ending you folks have been arguing about. Who needs it. Get the double feature of "Brazil" and "Se7en" and have a better time.

John

Justin,

Again, faithfulness to a source doesn't make a movie good or bad. Rather, faithfulness is simply following what a source says "happens". In the case of "Fight Club" the movie, I don't care about whether or not it made changes to the book. Rather, I care about whether or not it's a good movie. Frankly, it's not.

Existentialism is a philosophy of defeatist minimalism. Camus was basically saying, "Okay, here I am", and that's all he said. You read "The Stranger", right? The protagonist was so blah that he might as well have self-terminated and saved everyone the trouble. However, he was so obtuse that he behaved selfishly without even realizing how idiotic he was.

"A great twist"? Schizophrenia in films has been around since at least Hitchcock's "Psycho", and such "slap-in-the-face" endings have been around in literature for hundreds of years.

I didn't say that all movies had to offer a solution. However, this one raises questions and points fingers at problems, but it doesn't have anything substantive to say about these questions and problems other than "oh, man, life sucks". I like a lot of European and Asian films with open/loose ends, but they're not made along the lines of the Hollywood narrative as this one was.

Eddie

P.S. All of the above was written with a smile.

John J Puccio wrote:

"In "Fight Club" the violence seemed to serve only the blood lust of the audience, but it was included under the guise, the pretense, of serving some existential, as Justin calls it, philosophy. Sorry, the point could have been made with far less brutality if the director had truly been interested in offering a serious message or theme and not in simply titillating his viewers"

My goodness, is there an extreme personal bias here or what?

So just because the movie could have been made with far less brutality means it should? Why is it that explicit blood and gore in the movie is seen by some as a "pretense" or "guise"? Can you not offer a "serious message" and titillate at the same time?

In some ways, I believe Fight Club is about being extreme and having nothing resolved so approaching the material in a gentler, "subtler" way kind of goes against the theme. Those methods might work with many different films, but I think Fight Club's intentional, ironic in-your-faceness works to its advantage (heh very subject to personal preference)

Eddie wrote:

""A great twist"? Schizophrenia in films has been around since at least Hitchcock's "Psycho", and such "slap-in-the-face" endings have been around in literature for hundreds of years."

Man that's nitpicking just for the sake of it. Tell me, not including movies about cyber-high-tech-wachamacallit, how many movies within this 20 years have had COMPLETELY original twists?

-----------
Eddie also wrote:

"I didn't say that all movies had to offer a solution. However, this one raises questions and points fingers at problems, but it doesn't have anything substantive to say about these questions and problems other than "oh, man, life sucks". I like a lot of European and Asian films with open/loose ends, but they're not made along the lines of the Hollywood narrative as this one was. "

I found Lost In Translation to offer nothing really substantive to say about the questions and problems raised in the process of revealing the lead characters. It was a window to basically two sad people in an unfamiliar place. I don't remember anything really resolved by the time the credits rolled. And yet the movie grabbed me by the end. Why? I don't know. Do I have justify my liking by believing that the movie was, among other things, artsy and subtle therefore deserving of my critical praise? No.

Similarly, Fight Club is like that, only amped up so it ALSO offers absurdity and immediate gratification. And some meaning if you choose to see it. Somehow I feel the unique mix of tongue-in-cheek, violence, and we-are-not-going-to-answer-any-questions attitude of Fight Club refreshing. But at the same time I guess all that makes Fight Club lose its credibility in the eyes of some.

YCH Wrote:
...how many movies within this 20 years have had COMPLETELY original twists?

-------------------------------------------------------------

You're kidding, right? I guess it depends on your idea of "original" twists. I feel plenty of films have their twists, or "shock value" or whatever you want to call it. In recent times I might mention. . .

The Sixth Sense
Unbreakable
The Others
Mulholland Drive
Donnie Darko

. . . just to name a few. Even Fincher's "Se7en" had an unexpected ending which would certainly constitute as an original twist, and one that was more shocking in the entertainment value than "Fight Club" could ever dream of having.

I'm sure plenty of us around here could name even more films within the past 20 years that have their fair-share of original twists. Hell, even the past 50 years! Even Eddie's recent review of "Wild Things" is a film with a plethora of twists that never seem to end. Maybe that's a bad example of original twists for your taste, however, the point was that they were at least entertaining.

I really don't see where "Fight Club" was something "completely original" when it comes to twists. Then again, like I said, it's all a matter of opinion on what YOU think is original. "Fight Club" may have had a twisted ending, but its value to shock was dull and void of ture impact. What point it even tried to make was nothing new or refreshing to life in general. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that life is tough, full of challenges, full of idealistic control and down-right sucks sometimes. So, in all honesty, where is the "original twist" in that?

Hey Tim,

Haven't seen all the movies you listed there, but I suppose the "twist" you are talking about is based on the fact that the viewer didn't suspect the situation was [insert twisted situation]. Actually I've only seen Unbreakable and Sixth Sense . But I can tell you the SS twist does nothing for me; first of all it was not at all plausible that Willis' character was dead all this time without knowing it. And Unbreakable's twist also not THAT original...it was the "good guy turned out to be the bad guy" twist.

Sure schizo may be a "common" plot device for some, but I think the filmakers did a great job keeping the fact that Tyler and "Jack" were the same person till the last quarter of the movie when the truth was revealed. So while the schizo twist isn't completely original, had you not known anything about Fight Club in the first place would you have suspected the twist from the start?

YCH,

When Justin mentioned that "Fight Club" had a "great twist", I responded by pointing out that other movies also used the device. What I should have written was that other movies used such a twist to BETTER effect. Actually, originality is not that important in my book because someone can be the first to do something, but if he does it badly, then no one cares. However, when someone does the same thing well later, then people get to see why that thing is so important.

The twist is actually one of the film's weakest points. If the two characters are actually one person, then many of the movie's happenings could not have taken place because it's physically impossible for one person to be in two places at the same time! The worst instance of this huge fault is when Norton and Pitt are in the hotel room, and Pitt knocks out Norton. When Norton wakes up, he realizes that Pitt had gone out to do a lot of things. I'm sorry, but even if you say that Norton woke up and did the things that Pitt did before going back to the hotel and falling unconscious again, none of this works. You don't punch yourself out only to wake up--it's medically impossible.

"Lost in Translation" did not use a Hollywood narrative; it is an art-house film using art-cinema narration. This is not to say that either Hollywood or art-house movies are better than the other. Each type of narration offers great films, and each type of narration offers its share of bad movies. However, comparing the two is like comparing, to use the cliche, apples to oranges.

Eddie

Well, as I said, it's all a matter of how you view your taste in twists. I kind of had the whole alter-ego thing figured out ealry on in the film, and I know this is not the first film to ever explore that avenue. I guess I just was not impressed with the way Fincher presented this type of theme.

Funny how you may not like The Sixth Sense or Unbreakable and I have nothing to say. However, as soon as "Fight Club" comes up for discussion and it's "get in the ring, buddy!!" Makes it kind of ironic that the film is named "Fight Club", no?

;)

Gee, I just wanted to rekindle the flames, not burn down the mountain.

Anyway, I didn't hate the film, but look: If you took away the blood lust from the story, toned it down to a PG-13, say, would we even be having this discussion years later? I believe it's the violence for its own sake that sold the film to most viewers in the first place, not its philosophical points or twist ending. At least Tarantino had the good sense to sell "Kill Bill" as a violent tribute to violent films, plain and simple. "Fight Club" seems pretentious to me in implying something more and then delivering only bits and pieces of stale philosophy.

But everyone comes at films from a different angle, and I have nothing but admiration and respect for people who like something for reasons they can defend. It's good to see DVD Town readers can argue a point so persuasively. Enjoy.

John

Timster wrote:


"Funny how you may not like The Sixth Sense or Unbreakable and I have nothing to say. However, as soon as "Fight Club" comes up for discussion and it's "get in the ring, buddy!!" Makes it kind of ironic that the film is named "Fight Club", no? "

I really like Unbreakable, but not Sixth Sense. But to me twists don't factor in too much in my enjoyment, which is why eventhough I found Unbreakable's "plot twist" to be okay (not highly original), I still enjoyed the movie!

Sixth Sense, like I said, to me, was just not plausible.

The Puccio wrote:

"Anyway, I didn't hate the film, but look: If you took away the blood lust from the story, toned it down to a PG-13, say, would we even be having this discussion years later? I believe it's the violence for its own sake that sold the film to most viewers in the first place, not its philosophical points or twist ending."

Like I said, the movie is not an artsy fartsy film, and it has its share of violence, and it CAN be just a brainless flick if it has to and therefore it will appeal to a larger audience. But to say that the film is remembered only mostly because of its hyped up violence is just unfair.

I really don't care too much for the violence (and seriously, there isn't REALLY that much violence if you think about it - just a few scenes of punching, a few gross out ones that's it), and had the movie still maintained its edge and tone, yes, I *probably* (there's no way to tell) would still like the movie. I'm surprised you came to this conclusion, really. I'm not the kind of person who likes to ponder "had this been..." because that's usually futile. You can't accurately predict the outcome of something that never happened.

That said, a lot of people who dislike Fight Club seem to discount people who like Fight Club on the basis that they're mainly attracted to the violence and gore. From people I know who like Fight Club, it wasn't the "violence and gore" that made them love the movie; rather it was the movie's twisted story, naked truths, attitude etc ...the total package so to speak. We like how the movie is disjointed the way the nameless lead's mind is. We like how it provides no answers. I could go on, but I suppose viewers on the other side of the fence will always see us as appreciating a shallow, violent-for-kicks movie.

*BTW, it's too late the mountain had crumbled! Millions die in the aftermath!

YCH,

Well said, and fair enough.

John

YCH,

Actually, I agree with you that the film isn't as overtly or continuously violent as some people remember it to be, but that's the thing--the film's attitude towards violence is such that people remember it for being a violent movie. On the other hand, "The Passion of the Christ" is a much more overtly and continuously violent film than "Fight Club", but that's not what people are getting out of "The Passion" because it has a different attitude and a different message.

Personally, my gripes about the film have nothing to do with its violent content but with everything else. (Re-read my posts in this thread.)

Eddie

Yeah dudes (John, Eddie, Tim) I don't really agree with you guys but that's okay! That's what the word "controversial" is for

YCH,

Your opinion is always well appreciated and respected here at DVD town. If all of us agreed and thought the same it would be pretty boring around here.

Look! It's the best dvd ever made! Maybe you guys need to step back and look, because the film is crap, but the dvd is cool. Laid-back, and still punching, I got this new too for $20, cut the slits so as to keep the plastic covering on the dvd, while still enabling me to slide the dvd out and enjoy. Saw the film on it, but never the extras. Didn't see Brad Pitt pissing into clam chowder. Healthy! :@ (Notice the numbers on these special editions? Anybody got a full list of them?) Just asking .........

my copy doesnt have the number on the spine (one of the last copies i found at best buy). and why didnt you like the movie? i loved it and just started reading the book. but about the numbers, i started a board about those, but havent gotten any replies.

heres the link:

http://www.dvdtown.com/messageboard/topic/3/6572/

"It's the best dvd ever made! Maybe you guys need to step back and look, because the film is crap, but the dvd is cool." --Poseur

Yes, I think that's what I said in my review, giving it 10's for picture and sound quality and a very high 8 for extras. I didn't care for the movie itself as much as other people did, but there's no denying it's a great DVD package.

John

Best film of 2000. Debate me all you want. I look forward to it.

i completely agree. and the book is awesome too.

have you read survivor (by the same guy)? It's not as good, but still worth the read (not the price though)

no, but ill be sure to check it out

thanks for the tip

Onijay wrote on 08-14-2004
Best film of 2000. Debate me all you want. I look forward to it


Well, that's great... but this movie came out in 1999.

This movie has not been made yet...it's all in your head!

Oh, for the love of St. Peter! The "Fight Club" discussion has been rekindled! Yikes! Count me out, I'm going to bed.

I personally think the movie is gay. and why do I think it's gay? Well, take boxing for example. Boxing is gay, and I can prove it. It's the only sport where two men fight over a purse and a belt.

Tim