It is a very powerful film (it didn't get a censor certificate in India because they thought it was too violent. I don't think they meant physical gore).Part of why I like the film is because I saw it first when I was in college, and was highly impressed/disturbed by it. Then I could, pardon the extreme cliche, relate to the protagonist. For a while I was a walking quote machine. Whenever I lied/faked something I would say "I'd like to thank the academy" :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by alwarpet_andavan
Jim Uhls screenplay kept the movie really tight (without being uptight, with great smilers thrown in, in the blackest moments). The freshness of ideas was maintained with as little pulpit-talks as possible. And even the ones that were there were dressed with the background. In fact, Fincher shot and later (wisely) cut-out some of the overtly didactic parts of the novel. The way the humour in the movie is so tacitly laced with the dark parts is perhaps the strongest point.
Technically, I think the movie stands out. The grim look, the (overemphasized) tracking shots and the sound effects were really good. I still remember the slushy punches in the fight where Norton pummels Jared Leto and the one in the Boss' office.I think they got nominated for the Effects (and lost to The Matrix). Even the music seemed to fit really well.
Brad Pitt was less than impressive.His performance, as always, was overrated. But Edward Norton and Helena Bonham-Carter were great in the movie.
Yes it gets melodramatic and ridiculously illogical (nearly pulling off an Anniyan towards the end). But what saves it all is the undercurrent of irreverence. Many people who didn't like it, didn't like its solutions. Many people found it pretentious and didactic. Somehow I found the presentation very fresh,crisp and leaving a lot for the viewer to fill up himself.
