M*A*S*H

This picture is quite interesting in its portrayl of how one can cope during the stupidity of war. There is no message in this picture, there is no strong narrative, no story. It's a barrage of jokes edited together perfectly. Altman's direction is quite unique, the strong zooms, the editing, over-lapping dialogue. The fact that there is no plot throws up challenges, and I certainly admire the effort put into this by all concerned

The production values are terrific and the photography is miserable, which is perfect!

Sutherland is so damn perfect, such a terrific performance, I love the goofy style.

There are times when the picture isn't interesting and sometimes things fall flat. But there are jokes and laughs which this film relies on during the absurd war, it's the joking that keeps these characters alive.

I wouldn't say this picture features a good screenplay but the direction is so unique that it deserves to be seen by everyone. They don't make challenging works like this anymore.

Remember to watch this film in widescreen otherwise you'll miss out on 43% of the picture.

The only issue I can see with what's an amazing movie, is that we watching it now are aware of the TV series. That wasn't the case when the movie was released in 1970...two years before MASH the TV show.

The two have a few things in common; Korea, some of the characters names, the theme song, and Gary Burghoff as Radar.

The movie, it isn't anti-war, a reaction to the Vietnam War. Based on the novel written by Richard Hooker, it's a dark look on life inside a Mobile Army Surgical Hospital during that war, and how those drafted into that war dealt with the horrors of trying to piece together broken and torn bodies under those conditions.

I had watched it years ago, and I read the book before then, and yes a fan of the program. And I'm still a fan of the movie. Donald Sutherland as Hawkeye, Elliot Gould as Trapper John.were a perfect paring, and the rest of the casting was inspired, and the story moves along with out any lags, and ends much like it ends (no spoilers.) I judge movies by whether I'd see myself watching it yet again. That's the case with MASH and a visit to the 4077.

No, not the very wonderful TV series. The Robert Altman film with Donald Sutherland as Hawkeye, Elliott Gould as Trapper John, and Radar as Radar. This is a dark comedy, but it's a delight from beginning to end. And even more effectively than the TV show, the movie illustrates the complete insanity of war. (But even the movie doesn't depict Jesus on the cross hanging from a helicopter. For that you'll need to read the book.) Like most Altman films, this one is episodic. It's also gritty, grim, bloody, offensive, and charming. And Frank Burns (Robert Duvall) is not a character watered down and humanized for television. This is an example of a film so rich in detail (like Altman's "Popeye," come to think of it) that it demands multiple viewings.

And then there was Korea. In an understaffed and overstretched medical camp Lt Col Blake puts an order in for more surgeons. Dispatched to him in a stolen army jeep are Captain's Hawkeye Pierce and Duke Forrest who immediately start chasing the nursing staff and annoying their tent mate Major Burns. When chest cutter Trapper John McIntyre joins them in the camp it starts a working practice that ignores authority and tries to find as much fun as possible in the middle of their bloody war.

I had watched the TV show for a long time before I finally got to watch the movie - I prefer the cynical comedy of the film although I have always loved the more sitcom style approach of the series. Many critics have hailed this as an anti-war film that exposes the brutal effects of war; to some extent I suppose that is true but it is far from being a part of the main narrative - even to call it a theme would be generous! It does have some scenes of blood and gore but it is far from having anything substantial to say about the cruelty of war.

Instead I always find this film to be a very episodic, freewheeling comedy, some bits of which work and some others don't. On the whole it is pretty funny and uses the sort of sporadic dialogue and action to move it forward. At times it is based on imaginative banter between Trapper and Hawkeye and at others it is out and out slapstick such as the chaotic game of American football at the end of the film. The downside of this is that sections of it just don't work - Painless Paul's dilemma is pretty uninspiring at least - however, on the whole it is energetic and very funny. Altman's use of overlapping dialogue and his usual use of overlapping scenes as opposed to a traditional narrative flow is good here but it would have been better if it had been toned down somewhat.

The cast is what really carries the film - the plot is weak and they have no characters other than what they create themselves and, although the dialogue is good, I couldn't help the feeling that the cast did as much as the writers. As such the lead two of Sutherland and Gould stand out as great comedians with great witty touches, their characters are the largest and their lines are the funniest. Skerritt starts out as equal to them but quickly becomes a third wheel despite still giving a good performance. The support cast are all a good mix of characters whether they be played by actors such as Duvall and Kellerman or less well known faces such as Burghoff or Bowen.

Overall, I am still unable to see what those who call this a `brutal anti-war film' see but that doesn't mean I can't enjoy it as a comedy. As such though, it is very episodic and really lacks a solid narrative flow meaning that any 10 minute period could be good or bad. Aside from this lack of substance it is a funny, enjoyable comedy but it doesn't deserve the classic reputation that it has obtained.

I should probably watch this again, since so many consider it a masterpiece. Maybe I was over-prepared (Hey, it took me a second viewing of 'Citizen Kane' to get my past pre-set expectations!). But while I could see why M*A*S*H was groundbreaking and important for a Hollywood film of it's day (lack of the usual clear narrative line, anti-war stance, overlapping, improvised dialogue, sexuality, bloody operating room scenes serving as ironic counterpart, etc), it felt pretty dated and unfocused. There are some very funny moments, but a lot of the ironies seem easy, and there's a lack of a true darker underpinnings and ideas, unlike, say, 'Dr. Strangelove'.

A lot of the humor is juvenile, cruel and silly. And while I get that's the point – nothing can be more deeply juvenile, cruel and silly than war, it got repetitive and heavy handed after a while. The performances are good, but beyond Robert Duvall, none of the characters have much in the way of dimensions. People stay exactly what we think they are from the moment we meet them.

Walter Chow makes a good argument on the web site 'Film Freak Central', that the sexism, homophobia, etc are the whole point. Altman is saying we're ALL beasts at heart, even if we act like we're bucking the system. It's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure I buy it's what Altman was intending.