Catch-22

This film suffers from the fact that so many have already read the book and look to pick apart every scene that doesn't synch up. I read the book and I think it helps to watch the movie if you are at least familiar with the themes of the book, but I still think the film stands alone in its genre, somewhere behind Stranglelove, MASH and Full Metal Jacket (all movies influenced by the book). A lot of the acting comes out cartoonish, but I think they were cartoons in the book as well. That was a theme of the book and the film; the artificiality of people playing roles in war. I thought Voight was excellent as Milo and Perkins played a perfectly reserved Chaplin. This was Arkin's film, and I though he carried it off. I also found the Snowden flash backs as an interesting choice for the movies pivot.

I've seen the film with people who did not read the book, and some unaware of the book, and I think most had very positive impressions of it. Yes the book is a more fulfilling experience, but that is almost always the case. I understand that the film disappointed when it opened and all the stars ended up despising each other. I think that reaction tainted the film for several years. I think that the film has appreciated with age and really stands today as a great underrated piece of work. I think at some point if will be rediscovered and be placed among the best black comedy/farce/war movies of its time.

A humorous, sometimes farcical film about war and the US military world. The director shows us an army governed by opportunists, lazy and incompetent, unfortunately he does so through crude humor and surreal and childish comedy, a hymn to nihilism and the bizarre.

Bomber Yossarian (Alan Arkin) no longer wants to fly with his squadron, but Colonel Cathcart (Martin Balsam), commander of the Pianosa air base, continues to increase the number of missions needed to get himself sent home, even pretending to be crazy and showing up naked at a medal ceremony in the presence of General Dreedle (Orson Welles).

Excellent direction by Mike Nichols, unforgettable scene of simultaneous take-off of a multitude of B52 bombers; the screenplay fails to capture the irreverence and crude satire of the original story, falling into vulgarity; the cast is really well-stocked with some top stars, unfortunately the results are quite mixed. It all boils down to a lot of comic and surreal strips about militarism and society, just like in the 50s comics Beetle Bailey.

When I first saw "Catch-22" I couldn't believe it was made in 1970; the structure of this film is so modern it could have been made yesterday. Frame for frame a masterpiece of storytelling unfolds before your eyes; a satire, a comedy, a tragedy: superb and unforgettable. The surreal humor captures the craziness of war in a way - I think - no other movie does.

The film was released at around the same time as the somewhat similarly themed "M*A*S*H", and while Altman's movie was a hit, "Catch-22" bombed at the box office. In retrospect I would say that both films have aged very well, but Catch-22 offers a much more cinematic experience and has a narrative that is as modern as anything that's being released today. One of my favorite movies of all time.

Favorite films: http://www.IMDb.com/list/mkjOKvqlSBs/

Lesser-known Masterpieces: http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070242495/

Favorite Low-Budget and B-Movies: http://www.imdb.com/list/ls054808375/

Favorite TV-Shows reviewed: http://www.imdb.com/list/ls075552387/

This is great film-making. I have never experienced greater skill with sound editing. The acting is terrific, the writing crisp and intelligent. The conception deeply nested. Why has the viewing public discarded this film? Interesting question.

Usually the answer is that the film is a poor evocation of the book. It is, of course; films are fundamentally different beasts than books, so the closest one comes is to have congruence of story. But the story is the least important element of either fine books or movies. No intelligent viewer looks for sameness in an adaptation.

I think the reason is simple. We are happy to accept war as heroic. Deep down, that's what we believe; whether as an inescapable fact of evolution or of chauvanistic indoctrination. Against this backdrop, we apply the stuff of our apparent convictions: that war is funny (MASH, the escape movies) or grossly brutal and confusing (Platoon, the first part of Pvt Ryan-- which then reverts to the noble). We just cannot accept the view that war comes from stupidity and selfishness, because it convinces that we, all of us every one is at root stupid and selfish.

This movie is so good, it convinces of that fact, and that's why no one wants to watch it. So no one is convinced. That's the catch.

I am in love with this book, so when I saw that there was a movie I flipped out and ordered it right away... and it was fantastic. I love the actors and I love how Nichols directed it. However, I was disappointed of the changes they made, where's Dunbar? He was like my 2nd favorite character. He was Yo-yo's best friend.... Also, they said it was Hungry Joe who was cut in half by McWatt, but it was really Kid Sampson, I could see how they didn't want to have too many characters to keep up with (in the book I felt like that was true) but still, Hungry Joe was...amazing, he was hilarious. Also, I'm not sure if I liked how Nately died, opposed to the books version. I suppose it made more since to kill him off when Milo's deal (the bombing thing), but it was when he died in combat mission that really broke Yossarian. I think Jon Voight did an fantastic job of Milo, he was really how I pictured Milo, I was really excited about that. The poignant walk through Rome that Yossarian takes, was so, perfect as well. But all in all, this was an excellent portrayal of the book, I totally imagined this movie (the settings, what Yossarian looked like, everything pretty much) as I was reading the book.