Fight Club

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% (11/05/2020)

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. (13/04/2003)

David Fincher showcases an incredible game, which is not only about how well the whole story is crafted, but especially about how it is shot. It is expected that the performances are mesmerizing, but the way film techniques are utilized, various camera attacks, the insertion of seemingly nonsensical flashes, the mosaic of dreams and reality. David Fincher is the king of dark psychological thrillers and he proves it with essentially every film he makes. (25/09/2014)

At the age of eighteen, when I was angry at the system and I liked the Doors (the band) and Pulp Fiction, Fight Club would have been the movie of my life. But today, I don’t think I could be a movie star even if I really wanted to and did everything necessary to achieve that. And I've learned to get by in the system. Which is sufficient reason for me to think of this movie as just very spectacularly filmed bullshit. (23/02/2003)

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. (16/03/2022)