Rating: 
Summary: A mediocre cut and paste job
Review: It would be impossible for a movie based on a book to include everything in the book, but this book-based movie views like a cut and paste job of non-related scenes instead of a thoughtful following of the plot from start to finish, not paying no attention to which scene came when, which characters were important, or leaving out very important events. It was interesting that they chose to start the movie as Yossarian is stabbed by Nately's whore and then have the entire movie be a flashback leading up to that moment, even though that's not how the book begins, but the flashbacks seem cut and pasted together, no regard for whether or not they happened in that order or in that way in the book. A bunch of important characters are left out or barely mentioned-where, for example, are Dunbar, Kid Sampson, Hungry Joe, Haverymeyer, or Clevenger? The two nurses are also barely given any screen time, as well as the mysterious man in the hospital, the one in the body cast. Important things like the Chaplain's struggle with his faith and Yossarian signing "Washington Irving" and "Irving Washington" to the letters he's censoring during his first stay in the hospital aren't even mentioned. Someone who hasn't read the book would probably have a hard time understanding what all's going on, and even for someone who has read the book, the movie looks like a bunch of disconnected scenes, none of which seem to bear any real relation to one another. A lot of the verbal humour in the book is lost in the screen version, and the constant flashbacks to Snowden's death, getting longer and more graphic as they go on, also seem meaningless unless one has read the book and understood their true importance (Snowden's secret, one of the most important parts of the book, isn't even dealt with). Things are developed and lead into dead ends, just in time for the next bit of this cut and paste job. Another example of something important being left out is that one of the primary reasons Yossarian goes awol in Rome is to try to find the kid sister of Nately's whore, since the whorehouse has been bombed and the occupants forced out, and he's worried about the twelve year old girl out alone in the eternal city. I was shocked to see that Nately's whore doesn't lunge at him with a knife again as he's running away at the end, the way it happens in the book. It's one thing to adapt a movie from a book, but entirely another to make it a shoddy cut and paste job that, while trying to get in most of the important bits, gives the viewer no real sense of their very importance.
Rating: 
Summary: A movie lost in the shadow of a book
Review: Its a shame that Catch 22 (the book) was so critically aclaimed and popular. Not that I don't believe it deserves it, it is certainly one of my favorite works! However, had it been an unknown, hidden book, I think this movie would have gotten a great deal more credit. This is without a doubt one of my favorite movies, and I can watch it over and over without feeling unsatisfied. Why so much backlash towards this film? Because it something it was not supposed to be. The book is excellent, the movie is excellent, but they are excellent in their own rights. They must be watched with great distance placed between each other, and to watch the movie and expect the book is a mistake. The casting and acting is excellent, the cinimentography is extraordinary, the transitions are brilliant, the plot is tight, the humour is high grade, the tone is masterfully manipulated throughtout, there is nothing bad I can pin on this movie. What is important to note is that the director is taking single concepts from the book and expanding on them. Thus, the movie is more focused than the book. This should make it neither inferior nor superior to the book, merely different. And different it is. The shift from humour to dark drama is so seamless, it intensifies the emotional impact of the events that take place. The artistic maneuvering of time is disorienting at first, but you'll soon wonder why more movies aren't done this way. Some dialogue scenes are so well done, they pick up a life of their own and will play on in your head long after the movie is over.
Rent this movie, and if its your kind of thing, buy it. And then, watch it over and over again... "Who is this man?"
"Major Danby!" "Danby. D - A - N - B - Y"
"Take him out and shoot him."
- Seth
Rating:
Summary: Excellent Movie
Review: Many people compare this to the book, but it really stands on its own as a truly wonderful peice of movie making. This ranks right up there with Dr. Strangelove. It is quirky, hilarious, and very well acted. If you liked Dr. Strangelove, you will like this movie. There are very few movies that stand up to expectations when comparing them to a book read and that is not really fair to this gem.
Rating: 
Summary: A mess.
Review: Mike Nichols' film version of the Heller novel was certainly one of the most anticipated movies of the 1960s. The novel was a favorite of every college student from the time it was published all through the Vietnam era. I still recall the glossy "Making of Catch-22" stories in Rolling Stone and other popular culture magazines of the time. Advanced word of the casting seemed promising. Arkin looked like a good choice for Yossarian. Orson Wells cut a fine figure as the pompous General Dreedle. And Norman Fell, who has probably played more deadpan army sargents than any actor on the plant, was excellent Sgt. Towson. Even Art Garfinkle, not the world's greatest actor, was passable as Snowden. The word was that this was going to be a great movie; tremendous attention to detail, one of the best directors in Hollywoods and a stellar cast. It came, then, as quite a surprise when the movie was released. The pacing of the movie was so disconnected that even those who'd read the book found it difficult to follow the story line. Huge chunks of plot and motivation were missing. It was a mess. There are some standout moments. The scene in the bomber where Snowden dies is powerful- but unfortunately lacks any plot coherence. The opening scene is a marvel of technical Hollywood filmaking in the pre-digital age, and does a nice job of setting the scene for the movie. But there's just nothing tying it all together. As the film progresses the plot gets looser and looser, and the viewer is left up in the air. Stick with the book.
Rating: 
Summary: Garbage - read the book instead.
Review: Most great books make bad movies (e.g. 1984). This film is no exception - bad acting, bad editing, sloppy "translation" of the book into a movie. The entire sarcastic brilliance of the book was lost in the movie. All of Yossarian's brilliant antics sound hollow and out of context, Milo's capitalist endeavors are depicted badly, the Generals' insanity is barely noticeable, and where is ex-PFC Wintergreen anyway?
Don't waste your time or your money - read the book instead.
Rating:
Summary: The book without the juice
Review: O.K. Anyone who has read the incomparable book by Joseph Heller cannot even begin to compare it to this film version with any sincerity. There is no comparison - period. The vast multitude of the nuances of the satire and their subtle quirks are lost in this less than stellar film adaptation. Although the cast is nothing short of a veritable all-star one at that, the less-than-thorough film leaves much to be desired. Alan Arkin is good as Yossarian and there are several other legit performances. That being said, I recommend reading the book a second time over watching this disjointed and convoluted effort.
Rating: 
Summary: Great book to good movie
Review: Overall, the book carried over nicely to film. There is obviously no way the movie could have the same scope and depth of the book, but it did a good job with what it had. I thought that Alan Arkin was perfect. He IS Yossarian. I was happy to see that a lot of important scenes from the book made the film. However, these scenes weren't always done what I felt was correctly, and this is why I gave it 4 stars. Call me spoiled since I read the book first. This is a great movie that ranks right up with MASH as the important anti-Vietnam War films. I thought this was a very good movie, and if I had seen the movie without reading the book I probably would have given it 5 stars.
Rating:
Summary: Did Mike Nichols even read the novel?
Review: Since this movie purports itsef as an adaptation of Heller's novel, I was eager to see it. Oh, what a letdown! Fans of Heller's wonderful dialog will want to punch out their picture tubes when they hear how it has been butchered and watered down. As for the actors, this film is only worth watching when Orson Welles is on the screen. Entire scenes in this film were fabricated out of thin air - adding nothing to the film's plot, only taking away from it. Some of the minor characters that were included are shown in scenes so trivial that the viewer gets no insight as to their importance to Yossarian or the plot in general. The multiple flashbacks to Yossarian and Snowden in the bomber are absent of tension, urgency, and meaning. Remember, Snowden's "secret" was the key to Heller's novel. Here, its played for a cheap and woefully ineffective surprise. And the ending, so triumphant and laden with meaning in the novel, is here a watered-down disgrace. Here's hoping someone will try their hand at doing this film over -the right way.
Rating:
Summary: catch 22
Review: This film is antiwar movie. The war turn soldiers who paticipate in World War II into abnormal people. Wars are enermy of human
Rating:
Summary: 'That's Some [Cold] Catch, That Catch-22'!...
Review: This film is now more than thirty years old, but its pertinence for our warrior present remains. I don't suppose a motion picture can truly alter a cultural perception any more than a popular novel can -- unless it is confirming a societal change rather than attempting to create it. So Joseph Heller's great 1961 novel stays in print and is read by new generations of high school and college students, and yet the reflexive embrace of war as an apt enterprise is still only questioned by a marginalized minority. Watching Mike Nichols' fine 1970 film adaptation, one can almost assume that director Nichols and writer Buck Henry (who also plays the part of the snide Colonel Korn) have resigned themselves to the inevitability of the real "Catch-22," i. e., that for the same reasons that everyone in the movie behaves insanely, the audience will realize (yet agree to) the very same insanity as soon as they leave their viewing experience behind. "Catch-22" the film is permeated by the world-weariness and desperate defiance of Captain Yossarian, the bombardier who doesn't want to bomb, played with a manic deliberation by Alan Arkin. The "catch" is that no matter that he realizes how capitalism and war are so madly linked (in Jon Voight's fascist businessman, Milo Minderbinder, whose "M & M Enterprises" is a literal representation of that infamous military-industrial complex), the only answer he can find is to flee. Orr, the other sane insane person (played with a kind of intense restraint -- or restrained intensity -- by Bob Balaban) succeeds in escaping to neutral Sweden, which is (or used to be) the emblematic democratic socialist state; so Yossarian finally follows because he can change nothing about the U. S. warfare state; indeed, he can only be co-opted by it: recall the repulsive Colonels Cathcart's and Korn's nefarious deal to "like us!" Today, even Sweden has been forced into "privatization" and a systematic erosion of its socialist vision. But Sweden's image during the Vietnam War (in the midst of which Nichols' film was resonately produced) was as another Canada, another blessedly humane escape from America's "endless wars." Now it seems that there is no place to escape to; the American behemoth strides the globe, much like M & M Enterprises. Remember the exchange between Marcel Dalio's "old man" and Nately, portrayed by an achingly boyish Art[hur] Garfunkel: the old man confidently asserts that "believing in everything (therefore, nothing)" will allow at least survival, but when Yossarian returns to the brothel (to inform Nately's [lady] that Nately has been killed in Milo's "just business" bombing of their own air base), he is told that even the old man is "dead." So believing in nothing but survival is no guarantee of survival at that. This is a very depressing film; it's meant to be. It has some very amusing scenes, however -- especially the ones featuring a querulous Orson Welles as General Dreedle, Austin Pendleton as his nerdy son-in-law/military aide, and the buxom Susanne Benton as Dreedle's WAC. And then there is the Olympian beauty of Olympia Carlisi as the object of Yossarian's gentle lust, the prostitute Luciana. (Nichols satirizes Stanley Kubrick's somewhat pretentious, otherworldly "2001: A Space Odyssey" by using the now-all-too-familiar opening notes of Richard Strauss' "Also Sprach Zarathustra" to announce her initial appearance.) A few gentle scenes between Arkin and Carlisi are this movie's most warming moments, for -- as the dying Snowden keeps repeating -- "I'm cold." Cold, indeed.
|
