Directed by:
David FincherScreenplay:
Jim UhlsCinematography:
Jeff CronenwethComposer:
The Dust BrothersCast:
Edward Norton, Brad Pitt, Helena Bonham Carter, Meat Loaf, Jared Leto, Zach Grenier, Holt McCallany, Eion Bailey, Richmond Arquette, David Andrews (more)VOD (3)
Plots(1)
In this adaptation of Chuck Palahniuk's 1998 novel, Brad Pitt stars as Tyler Durden, a sociopath filled with anarchic rage, who organizes an underground organization of "fight clubs". These clubs, in which young men with white collar jobs engage in no-holds-barred bouts, spread across the city. But Tyler has far more insidious plans - he enlists the aid of his unassertive friend, Jack (Edward Norton), to destroy conventional "society" through a deadly series of bombings. When Jack realizes the nightmarish and shocking truth, he fights to bring Tyler down. (Criterion)
(more)Videos (3)
Reviews (11)
The genius directing by David Fincher plays the main role in Fight Club, being able to keep up with the anarchically crazy literary manifestation by Palahniuk against the current lifestyle of western society. Someone else who contributed a lot toward the excellent result was Jim Uhls, who adapted the book into a screenplay that could be used to make a movie. Unarguably, the book is a stronger experience, but the movie also has much to offer, thanks to the actors, the technical side and, primarily, Fincher’s playfulness. On the other hand, the original book isn’t one of the best things ever to have trickled out of Palahniuk’s sick mind.
()
Cult. Technically without hesitation (as it’s typical with Fincher), staying always one step ahead of the viewer, and always fun, original and solid. Maybe you’ll guess the twist, but even knowing it doesn’t affect the amazement at the ingenious deconstruction of the film space and the interpretive ambiguity. An excellent Norton and an equally good and inimitably cool Pitt. It’s impossible not to break the first rule – you don’t speak about Fight Club. 95%
()
An undisguised anarchist tinge of unapologetic shitting on the system? A satire on the emergence of terrorist groups seemingly based on good intentions? The hidden desires of a young man who wants to be something he can't be? Maybe none of it and maybe all of it together? In this case, I don’t care. The fact is that this is a brilliant piece of filmmaking with lots of great moments and food for thought. Fincher kicks ass.
()
David Fincher demonstrates an incredible mastery not only in how well-crafted the entire story is, but especially in how it is filmed. The fact that the acting performances are stunning is expected, but what stands out is how film techniques are utilized: various camera swoops, the insertion of seemingly nonsensical flashes, and a mosaic of dreams and reality. David Fincher is the king of dark psychological thrillers, and he proves it with essentially every one of his films.
()
This is the richest interpretive film I know. Is it a critique of consumerism, a satire on the far-right and anarchist associations at the same time, or just a provocative thriller about the need for violence? Maybe all of it. In any case, it takes a good bit of genius to make it not look, through its shiny facade, like an angry young generation that wants to save the world with rocks in their hands, but rather like a serious ancient philosopher who has it all figured out to the last detail. It was a breakthrough life film for when I was in my 20s, and a decade later it’s (only) a fantastic cinematic ride without compromises, reflecting the end of the 1990s like few other things.
()
Ads