The MoFo Top 100 of the Nineties Countdown

→ in
Tools    





Can people please tell me why they voted Eyes wide shut so high? Just curious more than not agreeing as I just saw it for first time.
Check my Top 50 thread.
__________________
"Puns are the highest form of literature." -Alfred Hitchcock



28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
I prefer Se7en to Fight Club, but it's nice to see the top films so close with the points.
__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews



I prefer Se7en to Fight Club, but it's nice to see the top films so close with the points.
Fight Club has a 55 point lead over Seven so it's not that close. However, #4-8 were all within 10 points of each other. Now these last two films are a whole different story, but we'll get to that tomorrow.
__________________
"Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."



Thursday Next's Avatar
I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
I’m not really sure where all the Fight Club backlash has come from. I think some people’s problem with Fight Club is simply its popularity – in breaking the imdb top 10 it lost its cult cred, or something.

Or is it that people feel that people like it for the 'wrong' reasons, like Scarface?

Anyway, Fight Club was #7 on my top 25. I think it's great.

It’s a good adaptation of a good book. It’s smart, it’s funny, it looks great and has one of the best ending scenes I’ve seen, complete with Pixies music. It may, along with The Sixth Sense, have been partially responsible for the rise of ‘twist’ movies in the early 2000s, but unlike many of the imitators, it doesn’t rely on the twist. It’s still a good movie even if you know exactly what to expect.

Ed Norton is great as the insomniac protagonist, Helena Bonham Carter gives a performance that isn’t just the ‘crazy hair, crazy costume, crazy eyes’ of the last decade, and Brad Pitt embodies a particularly memorable screen character in Tyler Durden. Looks great, sounds great, entertaining and thought provoking.

A stylish and cutting satire with an apocalyptic, fin de siècle vibe to it, definitely one of the best movies of the 90s.



So one interpretation of Fight Club is that it is a story of a closeted gay man, in conflict with the part of himself that desperately wants to be straight.

Of course that is one interpretation. One of many. It is does not prove or disprove other interpretations. But it does make the movie a lot more interesting to me.
That interpretation sounds absurd to me. I don't think there's a single scene in Fight Club that implies homosexuality. I always saw it as a movie about a depressed, lonely character who suffers from mental illness and feels alienated from the world. That's what the movie is about. This interpretation sounds a lot more logical, and to me the movie will always make perfect sense that way.



That interpretation sounds absurd to me. I don't think there's a single scene in Fight Club that implies homosexuality. I always saw it as a movie about a depressed, lonely character who suffers from mental illness and feels alienated from the world. That's what the movie is about. This interpretation sounds a lot more logical, and to me the movie will always make perfect sense that way.
Never said your interpretation is wrong. Just that it is one of many. More then a few critics interpret some homo erotic subtext from that has carried over from the book.

Kind of what makes film great. Every movie is different to every person.



The interpretation and meaning of the relationship between Tyler and the Narrator... is explained by Brad Pitt at the end.


WARNING: "Anyone Who Hasn't Yet Seen Fight Club" spoilers below

The Narrator is a depressed and held back character, bound by the rules of society and commercialism, law and morality... and deep down in his subconscious, he hates it.

Tyler is the opposite of Norton. Subconsciously Pitt is everything the Narrator wants to be. The Narrator's mind breaks and splits into two parts... his real self, and the side of his character that his real self didn't have the guts to be.

What's more interesting, is that Norton is never referred to by an actual name, the closest is when people call him "Sir"... yet it still comes as a shock when he suddenly gets referred to as Tyler Durden by Marla.


The interpretation for me was discovering who the Narrator actually is. Is his name actually Tyler and his real personality really is Pitt, that had been hidden away in the subconscious.
This would mean the "real Tyler" was unleashed, had a few months in the open so the Norton Tyler could get his life together?
Or is it exactly as Pitt says... he simply just is all the things the Narrator wants to be but didn't have the guts to do those things so basically broke down and fabricated a character called Tyler Durden so he could be what he wanted to be? And we just never get to know the Narrator's name.

Or a mix of the two.

I tend to go with Pitt's description. Psychologically, the Narrator was in a bad place and even started attending cancer groups etc.

It's an open ended film really. It's left for the viewer to decide, which is why the film is as good as it is... it plays with the viewer and everyone can take something different away from it.



That interpretation sounds absurd to me. I don't think there's a single scene in Fight Club that implies homosexuality. I always saw it as a movie about a depressed, lonely character who suffers from mental illness and feels alienated from the world. That's what the movie is about. This interpretation sounds a lot more logical, and to me the movie will always make perfect sense that way.
Ok whatever you say Guap



The interpretation and meaning of the relationship between Tyler and the Narrator... is explained by Brad Pitt at the end.


WARNING: "Anyone Who Hasn't Yet Seen Fight Club" spoilers below

The Narrator is a depressed and held back character, bound by the rules of society and commercialism, law and morality... and deep down in his subconscious, he hates it.

Tyler is the opposite of Norton. Subconsciously Pitt is everything the Narrator wants to be. The Narrator's mind breaks and splits into two parts... his real self, and the side of his character that his real self didn't have the guts to be.

What's more interesting, is that Norton is never referred to by an actual name, the closest is when people call him "Sir"... yet it still comes as a shock when he suddenly gets referred to as Tyler Durden by Marla.


The interpretation for me was discovering who the Narrator actually is. Is his name actually Tyler and his real personality really is Pitt, that had been hidden away in the subconscious.
This would mean the "real Tyler" was unleashed, had a few months in the open so the Norton Tyler could get his life together?
Or is it exactly as Pitt says... he simply just is all the things the Narrator wants to be but didn't have the guts to do those things so basically broke down and fabricated a character called Tyler Durden so he could be what he wanted to be? And we just never get to know the Narrator's name.

Or a mix of the two.

I tend to go with Pitt's description. Psychologically, the Narrator was in a bad place and even started attending cancer groups etc.

It's an open ended film really. It's left for the viewer to decide, which is why the film is as good as it is... it plays with the viewer and everyone can take something different away from it.
As I said, one of many. It is open ended as you say. I just think the interpretation I subscribe to is more fun.



Ok whatever you say Guap
You shouldn't expect to agree with everybody on an internet forum. People have different opinions. Get used to it.



You shouldn't expect to agree with everybody on an internet forum. People have different opinions. Get used to it.
Yeah..that wasn't the point. You were stating your opinion as the only truth. Not really an option in this case, get used to it.



Yeah..that wasn't the point. You were stating your opinion as the only truth. Not really an option in this case, get used to it.
It is the only truth according to BlueLion, because it was BlueLion who posted it. Again, this is what forums are about.

Welcome to the internet.



It is the only truth according to BlueLion, because it was BlueLion who posted it. Again, this is what forums are about.

Welcome to the internet.
Woo let's just stay close-minded about other views on art because it's teh internets. Who needs progress anyway, that's gay, or something.


Yeah, you shouldn't have to end every post with "in my opinion." Just because somebody says their opinion as a statement, it doesn't mean they think it's a fact.
It's a little different when you say "THIS IS THIS GOT IT?"



Yeah..that wasn't the point. You were stating your opinion as the only truth. Not really an option in this case, get used to it.
In terms of art it should be given that the individual's subjective perception of the work of art should be his objective opinion about the value of such a work of art. So it's a given that when talking about films individuals should talk in absolutes about their subjective opinion about movies: when I said that movie X is better than movie Y that means that the film X's effect on me was greater/more positive than Y's. That's all there is, I may try to rationalize why the film X had such strong effect on me relative to Y but another person rarely fully shares the exact same relative feelings about the pair of films.



The Brave Little Weeman Returns!
Woo let's just stay close-minded about other views on art because it's teh internets. Who needs progress anyway, that's gay, or something.


It's a little different when you say "THIS IS THIS GOT IT?"
Calm down pal
__________________
"This aggression will not stand, man" -The Big Lebowski

Reviews





My blood pressure is at an all time low, I'd consider that calm. I'm just pointing out fallacies. It's like if I were to say "Durden is gay, just accept it, your other views are ridiculous because I have presupposed thoughts." People would tell me I was being silly (I hope).



Fight Club is a very good film. But too many people love it for the wrong reasons, it works as a character study, satire, dark comedy etc. and has a very intelligent script, but most people just love the violence and such. It seems a bit different with people on the forum, but it's score on IMDB frustrates me.

+ maybe.

I hope Pulp Fiction wins. I don't get people wanting it to lose just because it's too popular or talked about, strange people, or the love for it is too much, it's the coolest and probably the best film of the 90s for me.