Catch-22

While a serviceable movie if viewed with complete ignorance of its source material, Catch-22 is noticeably the worst film adaptation ever excreted by Hollywood because in spite of its often-literal translations of the book's content, it is a film which so thoroughly misses the point of the novel its based on that it should furiously infuriate anyone whose read the book.

It can't even begin to compare to the book, but what could?

One of the first times that I was able to completely identify a movie as a black comedy, which is by no means an easy task, since my mind is an unusually dark one. I was able to appreciate it's message, and loved the story, but I'm constantly bugged by the idea that I know with absolute certainty that it's based on a far superior book that I have never read.

Nichols had great comic timing when he was a sketch comedian, but there is no trace of it left here. What should have been a quickly-paced absurdist delight is ponderous, filled with pregnant pauses, not to mention camera set-ups that preach at us all by themselves. I think the Buck Henry screenplay is okay, and if it could have been directed by Forman or--time machine dream--Preston Sturges, it might have been a masterpiece.

A solid attempt that unfortunately loses a lot of steam in the second half. The book is clearly superior, of course, but I honestly did not expect anything different.

As an adaptation of one of my favorite books of all time, the combo of Mike Nichols and Buck Henry tackle this really well. The non-linearity of the storytelling works to throw the viewer off balance and question when they are seeing images. Ultimately though, the movie comes to life off the backs of superb performances by the whole cast, but I specifically wanted to point out Alan Arkin (Yossarian), Anthony Perkins (Tappman), Bob Newhart (Major), and Art Garfunkel (Nately).

The book worked better. (Here ends the easiest most cliched review of a movie based on a novel ever)

What about Jon Voight here? How come his great acting potential end up giving him indifferent parts in so-so action movies or the weak father in a lame drama. Here he stars in a superb film that varies sublimely between humor and the showing of the shocking dysfunctionality of human nature... it took me various places and left me wanting more. Great cast, obviously, Welles, Sheen, Garfunkel, all are delivering.

Translating Keller's book to the screen is a difficult task, for sure. This isn't a good effort, though. A hilarious book turned into a pretty boring film.

If you've read the book, chances are you'll hate what this film does with the subject matter... Having said that, as a stand alone movie, it's thought provoking and entertaining with a brilliant cast. Those 3 things are rare in one movie. The utter joyful comedy of the first half gets bludgeoned to death in the second, quite purposefully... That it alienated the crowd of the day is no suprise.

Brilliant ideas abound, and Nichols uses the scope format exceptionally well, but resultant film is frustratingly uneven, and really begins to sag in the second half. It doesn't help that the philosophical underpinnings of the story are effectively ignored in favour of presenting 'just another war movie'. First-rate cast are all excellent, with Welles having a ball as the blustery general. Time lapse sequence is a hell of a curtain raiser!

The movie loses much of the dark humor while also increasing the flaws of the novel. Do not watch if you enjoyed the book, this movie will cause you to hate both Catch-22 mediums equally.

Changes a bunch of stuff from the book but keeps the sense of dangerous stupidity and frustration intact.

Good enough, but you'd be much better off reading the book instead.

A big scale war-comedy with some great jokes and performances (didn't even recognise Alan Arkin when he had hair). The editing is baffling, yet the war depicted in this film is even more baffling, perhaps only slightly more ridiculous than real-life. I'm already itching to experience this grand, fun, and devilishly funny film again.

Is this film bad because it fails as an adaptation of Heller's masterpiece? No, because what film could do justice to the monolithic literary achievement that is Catch-22 in only two hours of screen time? It's worth recognizing that Nichols/Henry display a clear understanding and respect for their source material. Nevertheless, so much of the excellence of the original novel is lost by reducing it down to a single narrative thread, It's worth watching, but only as an interpretation of the novel.

As others have stated, the book is more adept at capturing the insanity and desperation, but I think the strong cast did an admirable job at making a go of it.

Alan Arkin is brilliant, but the film is a bit too earnestly outraged to capture the full satire of Heller's book.

The book is fantastic, the movie is a heavy let down.

Quirky, infuriating and disturbing in parts. A real insight into the mad beurocracy that trapped many into service. Darky funny in parts and plenty of pathos at other times. Some stunning shots and cinematography and excellent characterisations.

If this film is absurd, then so is the war it is depicting. Dabbles into surrealism in a strangely tangible fashion.

The novel suffices.

Probably would have been better if I had not read the novel. IMO it lacked much of the impact of Heller's novel and some of the changes are kind of odd. I thought I would find it funnier also.

Wonderfully insane

Starts well, finishes poorly. Best watched from start to finish however. Bugger.

Too stiff to really be an accurate rendition of the novel (which was itself a bit confused).

One of the greatest books of all time turned into a passable movie. Movie doesn't do the book near enough credit, but that doesn't stop the film from being fucking amazing. An all star cast, this makes for one of the greatest dark comedies of all time.

Funny but a bit dated.

There's a unique brand of humor in this movie, and the gags really go all over the place. Around the last third of the movie, things just get really surreal, and the narrative coherence starts to fade a bit. It's one of those odd situations where the characters start to feel somehow alien... Less realistic.

I saw this recently and loved it! Really brings out the insanity of war. Kind of similar to MASH.

He can't be insane, 'cos he trying to be certified! still all in all a pretty good fillum

Watched it right after finishing reading the novel, and that might have influenced what I'm about to say, but this very poor adaptation, and not even much of a movie on itself, despite cast that should improve any movie at all. Lots of story lines of the book are simply hinted at, the rest - forgotten completely, or simplified to jokes and scenes that hardly work at all. In short: read the book (even if you didn't like this movie).

They disappeared Dunbar!

Love the cast and direction, though it doesn't illuminate or at least stand up to the book the way a good adaptation should.

Strange film but a good one.

Yossarian, a bambardier, in Italy during WWII is trying to be declared insane so he won't have fly any more missions. Of course, not wanting to fly and declaring that one is insane is an act of sanity - Carch 22 in the Army.

Without having read the book it's safe to say that the film doesn't live up to it. Tired humour and fragmented storytelling with occasional hilarities that make it watchable.

This film made me lose my mind and my will to live

Hazy, hard-hitting anti-war treatise.

Had a hard time watching this, just didn't have the same essence the book did.

Mike Nichols' underrated film of Joseph Heller's classic novel has a virtuoso first third, with strange jumps between fantasy and reality, and a stream of absurdist episodes. A bit of the steam dissipates as the film progresses, becoming darker and bleaker, but it's still a mostly excellent film, with a great all-star cast headed by Alan Arkin's fine Yossarian. Buck Henry's script is often graceful, and David Watkins' cinematography is often genuinely striking. It deserves to be better known.

I have been catching up on older movies I missed. I was surprised at how fucking funny this was.

A film based on this novel should be funny, but despite Arkin seeming to be the logical choice to play Yossarian, nothing about this whole film works very well.