[FlyWf]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you think about the twist the entire movie falls apart, it's not real cleverness.

[/ QUOTE ]

how so?

[/ QUOTE ]

Other people's reactions make absolutely no sense on rewatching if there's just one person. They have conversations with each other in the same room as other people. Was the Narrator saying both sides or just one?

Think about the initial beginning of fight club. They are fighting outside a bar and other people gather around to watch and eventually join in. Who would gather around to watch a guy beating the [censored] out of himself?

Basically, I have a serious beef with any movie that shows us internally fictional material with no indication that what we are seeing could be a lie. Compare to another popular self-negating twist movie from the late 1990s, The Usual Suspects. Kint is telling his story to another person(not the audience, another character). There is a motivation for him to lie. Why does the Narrator lie to the audience in Fight Club?

For the easy gimmick of "ZOMG it's a twist!" That's all.

I'm not a massive Charlie Kaufman fan but I absolutely adored the part of Adaptation where the idiot brother explains his screenplay.

Donald Kaufman: I'm putting in a chase sequence. So the killer flees on horseback with the girl, the cop's after them on a motorcycle and it's like a battle between motors and horses, like technology vs. horse.
Charlie Kaufman: And they're still all one person, right?

That was Kaufman [censored] all over Fight Club.

Edit: How could I misspell his name with the quoted portion? I'm a moron.