Are the movie Fight Club, and Project Mayhem in it, buddhist? Is the movie Fight Club, and the Project Mayhem idea at all buddhist? Since it predicates detachment from material possesions there's a neat point. I believe in the end it's not, but wanted to ask here for a more argumented answer
I don't think so.

it predicates detachment from material possessions

That's not enough to call it Buddhist.


Buddhism might be known for what it is, rather than for what it isn't. Maybe Buddhism isn't material possessions, but, what is it?

That ("what is Buddhism?") is addressed e.g. in many other topics on this site, for example:


What teachings do all schools of Buddhism share?
New to Buddhism
How to explain what Buddhism is?


&nbsp;
I think that these topics describe elements of Buddhism, and that you'd find it difficult to identify any of these specifically Buddhist element in the movie ... not only difficult to show that the movie identifies these elements but even that it doesn't contradict these elements.
There are other (non-Buddhist) common belief-systems which de-emphasize or criticize material possessions -- e.g. communism, christianity, anarchy, and nihilism -- but these are not Buddhism ... which, is proof (a "proof by counterexample") that critiquing material possessions isn't even nearly sufficient to identify an ideology as Buddhist.
Buddhism isn't entirely or necessarily against material possessions, at least in lay society (and lay society is relevant to the topic, in that I assume you won't try to argue that the movie represents Buddhist clergy). I don't know a Zen example off-hand, but for example I'm thinking of the Sigalovada Sutta which talks about not squandering wealth, and about protecting and making peaceful and secure, etc.

There are books and essays you could read about the behaviors and attitudes recommended to Buddhist lay-folk, in summary I don't think I see these (generosity, non-violence) in the movie. I think that Buddhism was in many ways meant to co-exist with lay society, and not meant to destroy it (which, destruction, is I think more inline with what the movie is suggesting).


My impression is that the movie isn't written by a Buddhist nor written for a Buddhist audience, not intended to teach a Buddhist message. Furthermore I think it arouses passion in its audience, rather than arousing a dispassion (or compassion) which might be more characteristic of Buddhism.



To address some of the points you made in your other question ...

Narrator does bunches of haikus

Here is the haiku from the movie:


  worker bees can leave
  even drones can fly away
  the queen is their slave


Apart from anything else I think that this isn't a good, Buddhist haiku e.g. as described in What Makes Haiku a Zen Art (I mean, "yes it's a haiku but is it Zen?"):


  Haiku is an expression of direct experience, not an expression of an idea about experience. Possibly the most common mistake western haiku writers make is to use the form to express an idea about experience, not experience itself. A haiku does not present metaphors or try to explain meaning. It provides no concepts or opinions. It does not reflect on the past or anticipate the future. It is just this moment, right now. Plop! It is this directness that makes it a Zen art.
  
  So, for example, this is a really bad haiku:
  
  
    A rose represents
    A mother's kiss, a spring day
    A lover's longing.
  
  
  It's bad because it's all conceptual. It doesn't give us experience. Contrast with:
  
  
    Wilted rose bouquet
    Left in new grass
    By the gravestone.
  
  
  The second haiku is not great, perhaps, but it brings you into a moment.


The haiku in the movie is conceptual: the queen bee represents a slave, which represents the alleged slavery of the fictional character's colleagues, which represent human office workers, which supposedly represent the movie's audience?

This isn't just a criticism of the poetry, it's a criticism of the way in which the words are or are not used to connect the audience with reality (or unreality).

Narrator's home intends to be zen-like looking

Well now you seem to be making a religion of Ikea's minimalism, which is actually one of the things the movie complained about.

Car crash scene Tyler says Stop trying to control everything and just let go!

If it's true that there's a time and a place for everything, IMO that's inappropriate (even potentially suicidal or murderous) behavior for a car driver.

The phrase ("Stop trying to control everything and just let go") sounds interesting but I'm not sure that it corresponds to what Buddhist might know as Right Intention, for example:


  And what is right resolve? Being resolved on renunciation, on freedom from ill-will, on harmlessness: This is called right resolve.


I don't think the movie does teach renunciation; for example it advocates acquiring a harder body:


  A guy who came to Fight Club for the first time, his ass was a wad of cookie dough. After a few weeks, he was carved out of wood.


Nor is it, IMO, especially good at teaching freedom from ill-will.

Detachment is a major theme since first conversation between Narrator-Tyler

Yes the whole movie is about "detachment", which is arguably a psychological pathology ... see for example Wikipedia articles like:


Emotional detachment
Dissociation (psychology)
Dissociative identity disorder
Dissociative disorder
etc., etc.


I don't think this is necessarily "Buddhist".

Buddhism teaches non-attachment, which isn't quite the same thing (as "detachment"). The opposite of non-attachment is clinging.