*FIGHT CLUB* has the CRAZIEST twist EVER!! (Movie First Reaction) 

Tyler IS the name of the narrator, or rather the narrator is the alternate personality of Tyler, as Tyler has documentation. License. Papers. The narrator does not. No name. No identity. The twist gets twistier every time you watch this movie. I was impressed they did what sixth sense pretended to do by telling you the twist up-front in a way you won't get it until it's revealed near the end, but then watch again and you discover, it's not just Brad Pitt's character that is a figment of his imagination, but also Marla Singer. Watch again and... OMG! Bob too! Even paper street doesn't exist. The term paper street is in reference to city plans in which the location is just an idea that exists only on paper, and not in the physical world. Every major character is just another persona from the narrator's fractured mind, and it's messed up, and tragic, and clever, and beautiful, and sick, all at once

My favorite writer 😅

notice Brad Pitt has a buzz cut like his transforming in Adrew Tate.

Seen this when it first came out but a little later on back in 2000 a few months after release what people pointed out for the "genius" of the movie is the car scene. because the Dialogue has to work in 3 ways Edward Norton -> Brad Pitt Brad Pitt -> Edward Norton AND Edward Norton -> Project mayhem members in the back seat All 3 conversations are happening at the same time, and if you remove all of Brad Pitts dialogue it works out to Edward Norton asking rhetorical questions to the guys in the back seat daring them to grab the wheel asking them essentially "Why are you here" "ILL TELL YOU WHY!!!".

Anytime there’s a scene where the lighting is dark zuff always asks “who is that??” 😂 sends me everytime

nah, they'd be dead lol

You want a good drinking game watch "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back" and drink everytime they swear. Me and 3 friends drank 2 30 packs. It was fun time.

​@@edittheworld-ct5yubest actual drinking game is Withnail and I'. You have to copy everything they drink throughout the film, but that does mean downing a can of lighter fluid(don't do that!😂) And a £500 bottle of wine(do that) amongst all the rest!😁

He had a nice save though.

Smh

he did that on purpose

Cult classic? This is a classic, period.

Love it when clever artists get fun!🤍🖤🤍🖤

“Ketchup and eggs ketchup and eggs.”😂

Apparently it takes even more watches to realize it's about none of those things.

@@spacemonkeyentertainment6413wait what

@@BaulFoodmanedits what exactly confused you ?

@@spacemonkeyentertainment6413 well its for sure taking the piss out of capitalism/consumerism and learning to stop giving such a fk about everything not sure about the other two things he pointed out but what big conclusion have u come to if u think its about none of the above when the author has pointed out those are some of the main points?

@@valto5477 Consumerism yes, capitalism no. And while those are linked to an extent, the destinction is important, because somehow people talk about it like the movie promotes anarchy/nihilism and somehow even communism, when Pitts character is the defacto villain of the story. Neither extreme is shown in a positive light, yet people run with it, imo preventing them to see the search for meaning among other things. Now, "toxic masculinity" is a vapid term anyway, because it can be filled with anything a man does that one disapproves of, but it also comes from a simplistic view of the world, that i think Palahniuk would disapprove of. He himself pointed out that it was partly about "male empowerment" in the sense that it is about finding purpose and dealing with life, a message completely lost on people who think along the lines of "men bad, fighting bad". And lastly, Palahniuk isn't exactly the most exact writer, by which i mean he sometimes cares more about the shock value and just going "look at this mess, how did we get here" than having a real lesson that he wants to hammer home. The thought provoking is more important than the teaching so to speak. So i think it's fair to say that he doesn't really offer that many answers to the questions he points out himself.

​@@Derpng​ Respectfully disagree: Zuff is whimsical and fun and one of the reasons a lot of us come back. Not everyone reacts to things the same, otherwise reaction channels wouldn't be so popular. If I wanted everyone to think and consume media just like me, the world would be very boring.

Relevant? Ok

@@danielwalker1538 definitely relevant to U.S. racial politics today, almost to the point of "goddammit, nothing has changed"

​@@danielwalker1538extremely relevant. It could have been made today

And why is that?

@@danielwalker1538 Act dumb and clueless all you want.

Hey man, you should join our club..

The first time Zack Braff met Arnold Schwarzenegger, it was in a gym, and Arnold asked him "What are your workout goals?". Zach said in that moment, he forgot all the answers he'd come up with, and just said "Did you see Fight Club?" Arnold smiled and said "Brad's abs? That's all diet. Eat a lot of carrots."

The PRESTIGE!

Interesting fan fiction, and might be better than the actual movie.

@@jowbloe3673 isn't that in the book tho?

is this confirmed or just a fan theory? I could definitely believe those characters symbolize those things you mentioned, but wouldn't say they're definite manifestations that live in his head. Also, I never read the book, so if that's confirmed or alluded to in there, i wouldn't know lol

@@lavenderllamamusic it's a theory I heard but when I've watched it since it feels like it holds together. Nobody speaks to Marla except the main character. I'm not sure what the authors intentions were but it definitely doesn't seem to me to be "Tyler Durden is the answer to men's feelings of alienation" which seems to be a lot of people's takeaway.

@@andrewmarkland4231 What about the last scene where one of the cultists brought Marla to Ed's character? Do you think that was real narrator's body with Marla in it and narrator/Tyler scene was imaginary? Or is whole "imaginary Marla" also a trick with final reveal at the end? That said I like your (or any other) and mainstream interpretations. Makes you see this film differently each time.

I'm a millennial and was 18 when this movie came out. What I find interesting is that the character of Tyler Durden is reprehensible and toxic, which is clearly the director's vision, and which these young men recognized, while a strange subset of the original audience took this movie as a foundational work in the "Mens' Rights" movement. It's a movie about a dissatisfied man's descent into villainy, but too many of the Gen Xers thought he was heroic, and to be emulated. I remember that when I saw it when it came out, it resonated with me in re: the anti-capitalist, anti-consumer themes, but, like these guys, not vibing with that turning into violence and destruction. "You are not [what you buy]" is an important lesson, but it was directed into something nonsensical and debased.

I find it more interessting that the Gen X apparently more often misuderstod the actual intention + message of the movie(and book, but to be fair it's more obvious in the book) than later generations.

@@eschatological Exactly.

​@@eschatological i just keep thinking how office job boredom and apartment furnishing options are impossible to relate to as major social ills.

@@samgradyfilm The 90s was such a decade of excess/success that "boredom at an office job" became kind of a proto-meme. Fight Club, Office Space...it was the height of popularity for Dilbert too.

It is not. The narrator has no name.

No, even in the book, the narrator is never named. He only refers to himself as Jack ("I am Jack's complete lack of surprise") in reference to the Reader's Digest article ("I am Jack's colon").

He doesn't have a name in the first book but in the sequel it's revealed his character's name is Sebastian

Who knew Bryce had a hawk eye?

Holy shit, that is bleak.

You should be worried about women who aspire to be cardi b and onlyfans models.