Too often as I watched this I felt I hardly knew what was going on (and I had just got done reading the book). It's a very tough novel to adapt, and I wouldn't say this was a success. If you've read the book I would give it a try because it has some good bits and you may really like it. I just can't suggest it otherwise because it sometimes feels like a confusing mess.

Even Mr. Kurt Vonnegut himself was satisfied with this entirely faithful and entirely satisfactory adaptation of what should have been a 100 percent unfilmable novel. The Sting aside, this is George Roy Hill's best effort and amounts to an overwhelming case for his standing as a substantial director.

What the blazes was that?

One of the greatest Kurt Vonnegut novels on film. A great fucking film.

Kurt Vonnegut's masterpiece is definitely not the easiest book to transfer to cinema, but George Roy Hill makes a pretty damn good attempt at it.

My only complaint is that the denouement on Tralfamadore, due to subpar visualization, doesn't quite mesh with the film's mostly ambiguous and literary qualities. Otherwise, its a tonally perfect realization.

Highly enjoyable adaptation of Kurt Vonnegut's novel, featuring Michael Sacks as the everyman Billy Pilgrim who finds himself adrift in his own life, zipping from his traumatic experiences in WW2 to his respectably middle-class middle age, to his life in an alien zoo on the planet Tralfamadore. Sacks is marvelous, and good support comes from Ron Leibman as the psychotic Lazzaro and Valerie Perrine as starlet Montana Wildhack. Strong script and directing; imaginative production design as well.

A flawed movie, but it's still the best adaptation of any Vonnegut work. Too bad it is for one of his weakest and shortest novels.

A bit 60's-ish--but still a good view.

Read the book.

Uhhhh... I haven't read any Vonnegut but I honestly hope this movie's script does not reflect the text of his book. It's a flashback-driven war dramedy with moronic sci-fi thrown in, all of which is pointless. Even the events that are supposed to be ordinary are both unconvincing and uninvolving, but the rest is just extravagantly erratic. The last twenty minutes are particualrly awful.

One of the weirder movies ive seen.

Superb realisation of Vonnegut's best. The narrative shifts are skillfully handled and the main characters capture their essence from the novel brilliantly. Tralfamdore could be woven in a bit better though, and the ending of the film suffers slightly as a result. And where's Kilgore Trout?

Needed Kilgore Trout, was corny sometimes, tragic and funny other times. Kept most of the themes, the acting was decent but not superb, script could have used some work. Still, a good adaption of an iconic novel.

Not very coherent - kept some themes that didn't make much sense without others that were left out and focused on different points than Vonnegut did. Nevertheless, its not as bad as i expected.

While essentially a good film, the cinematography feels atrociously dated. And Billy comes across as a mix of Gene Wilder and Forrest Gump, making the viewing experience somewhat grating.

The central device of the book loses a bit of impact on film, since movies jump from time to time anyway and we've no internal access to the character, but it's still fun. Also, Valerie Perrine.

I love Vonnegut's work. Vonnegut loved this film. I don't. Sometimes the owls just aren't what they seem.

Original, gentle tale of a man becoming "unstuck in time". Preserves the feel of a Vonnegut story while still working as a motion picture

Probably a true story