Recensioni degli utenti

The book Catch-22 is my favourite novel, and is extremely deep and intricate. It has great moments of comedy which slip quickly into tremendous moments of horror. That novel as it is could never feasibly be addapted into a live action anything.

However, upon viewing the film, I was quite impressed and happy with it. I'm not an unrealistic person, so I understand that they had to cut out scenes and characters and subplots to condense it for the film. Overall, of course, it lost some of its greatest moments which are in the ironic humor of the narrative style of the book. But it was not a bad film at all. In fact, I thought it was one of the best adaptations I have seen. I think almost everything you see on screen happens in the book.

Apart from that, it was extremely well casted. The characters were just as I have envisioned them in my head while reading the novel (except that Major Major shrank about a foot... but that's not matter, because Bob Newhart was great anyway). The cinematography was beautiful, the acting was awesome (Alan Arkin was perfect), and the flashbacks to Snowden were done stylishly and surrealistically.

Basically, it's a good movie. But it's an even better movie if you've read the book, and you know exactly what is going on in some of the characters' heads and what is going on outside of the scenes we see in the film. Overall, I think this is the best anyone could have done with this adaptation, and I applaud the filmmakers for that.

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.

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.

My father was stationed on an island off Borneo during WWII from which air raids by American bombers supported by Aussie and American fighters were launched against enemy held islands. When I watched "Catch 22" with him, I expected he would be confused and slightly offended by the film's treatment of war. To my surprise, dad said that the film's depiction of war and those who fight them was not so exaggerated as one may think. The brass who send the men out on missions of no strategic importance to raise their own profile, the wheeler dealers, the earnest and ineffectual chaplains and all manner of crazies mixed with men whose only desire is to survive. My father also said that the mixture of comedy, drama, satire and surrealism reflected the strange dream of warfare very well. For my part, I can watch this film once a week for the rest of my life.

Captain Yossarian (Alan Arkin) is a WWII bombardier desperate to quit the war by claiming to be crazy. However Dr. Daneeka explains that there is a catch-22. People who are willing to fly the risky life and death missions are crazy. He is bound to release crazy people as long as they make a request. However if they ask, then they don't want to fly and therefore by definition are not crazy. Colonel Cathcart (Martin Balsam) is the callous commander who keeps increasing the missions required to go home. Tappman (Anthony Perkins) is the incompetent Chaplain. Captain Major (Bob Newhart) is given the squadron command seeing that he's the only Major around except Major is just his name and not his rank. Dobbs (Martin Sheen) is the bomber pilot. Milo Minderbinder (Jon Voight) is using various items in convoluted trades with wide ranging places taking the silk parachutes from the planes.

This is very similar in tone with MASH. This is much more surreal. They're both anti-war black comedies. They both came out around the same time and of course, Catch-22 got crushed by the better MASH. The story feels like a bunch of disjointed skits. Some of it is hilarious. Alan Arkin is especially funny in his mania. Some of it is less funny. I would like a more straight forward story concentrating on fewer characters or maybe only Yossarian. I'm not a fan of the various 'dream' sequences since they usually stalls the movie. Later, it devolves into a series of Kafkaesque dream scenes. Most of it doesn't really work but it does recover somewhat.

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/

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.

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.

Despite it's 42 years since initial release, still one of the best films ever made and directed about the insanity of 'creating' war - and the mindlessness and trauma suffered from its consequences of both those conscripted to engage in it and neither more nor less than the civilian victims of it's long-time aftermaths. Warfare's far-reaching ramifications touch us, individually and globally, even into the 21st Century and beyond. Being philosophically cogent of war's deep-seated egoistic, bizarre and greedy nature of those who foment it may not get you a Pulitzer, but perhaps you may garner a 'Catch 22' medal from those of us who've managed to live through them. Mike Nichols et al, within this film, remind us of war's senselessness and of it's bitter and long-effected remains. Superb, finely crafted, and in my sense, a must-see for 2nd and 3rd generation adults.

I've just returned from the user comments page on DOCTOR WHO ( 2005 ) which is a comparable page with this one on the film adaptation of Heller's CATCH 22 . Some people detest everything about the new version of the sci-fi show while some people can forgive the flaws since it's not meant to be a carbon copy clone of the 1963-89 show . And so it's the same with this film version . Some people obviously detest this Hollywood version of the anti war black comedy while some people can forgive the flaws

I for one have never read the acclaimed novel so I'm only judging the film on its own merits ( Interesting though in no way a shock to realise that the movie's most vocal critics are fans of the book ) but the one thing that is unlikable about the celluloid version of CATCH 22 is the acting style - It's overblown and cartoonish , comical and surreal . In fact it's like watching a live version cartoon a sort of WAIT TILL YOUR FATHER GETS HOME or THE SIMPSONS with battle scenes . Notice too that I didn't say " acting " but " acting style " I'm not really blaming the cast but the director Mike Nichols for this . The whole movie would have worked better if the comic characters had been played more straight while the serious characters had played up to the comic elements a bit more . As it is only Art Garfunkel's performance as Captain Nately seems suited to his character as is to a slightly lesser degree Jon Voight's Minderbender . Unfortunately everyone else in the cast seem confused as to how to approach their characters

Despite this flaw I can certainly understand where film got its reputation from . This is unrepentant cynicism about war . Imagine you'd departed as a draftee to Vietnam in 1969 with the last war film you'd seen at the cinema being THE GREEN BERETS and the next war movie you'd seen at the cinema being CATCH 22 . How the world in general and cinema in particular must have changed to the individual . As I previously said the directing is very heavy handed but in amongst there are very memorable scenes amongst the comic strip performances like Minderbender explaining a scam to his CO as a plane lies exploding on the runway or the final shocking scene involving Snowdon . Scenes like this stop the movie from being the disaster some people report it as . But the acting style stops it from also being the masterpiece some people claim it is

Although Alan Arkin did a notable job as Yossarian in the 1970 film version of Heller's classic novel Catch 22, much was left to be desired. Take, for example, the story. A good number of the adventures that take place in the book never conspire in the movie. Key events (such as any explanation of why the movie ends the way it does) are completely ignored. The most humorous scenes in the book are replaced by more obscure scenes depicting senseless violence (such as Milo's attack on the base). Not to mention the incessant Snowden flashbacks that become more of a chore than a cinematic element. The success of this film seemed to bank on three things. People's love for Joseph Heller's novel of the same title, the all star cast, and initial hype. All in all an attempt. I'll leave it at that.

CATCH-22 was filmed using a widescreen aspect ratio of 2.35:1 (an image almost two-and-a-half times wider than it is high). Every inch of the picture area was used by the cinematographer for important information. If you watch the horrible, cropped pan-and-scan version, which is all you can get on either VHS or Laser Disc, you are missing close to 40% of the intended picture area and a great deal of important stuff! I've seen this desecrated version and, be warned, you will not even understand the final flashback revelation because it is not even in the frame!! People who can't stand those "black bars" on the top and bottom of the screen are going to miss the entire point of this movie!! Rent or buy the DVD, which is widescreen and restores all this critical image area. Do not judge this film if you can't see it all. I have to wonder how many of the previous reviews here are based upon the unbelievably butchered VHS version.

I 've seen the movie mostly because of the cast appeared on the screen and of the interest I find in Mike Nichols' movies. I feel I have to say that I was a bit disappointed about the structure of the film and the way the director handles the plot: lots of mixed scenes, scenes put in an undetermined row, characters with nothing to give and shots that bore rather than help the film evolve. It's kind of a confusing film, although it's quite entertaining and funny. The only great part in the movie is the character of Alan Arkin (Yossarian) which is very funny and his intention to avoid the flights gives birth to numerous hilarious scenes and quotes. Anthony Perkins and Orson Welles put some glamor in the movie, only thanks to their names and not their performance and Jon Voight can be seen only for a couple of minutes. I have to admit that I pushed the FF button several times, especially near the end of the movie... Yet, I cannot escape from recognizing to Mike Nichols the intention to show the gradual isolation of a person who fights to be considered as a crazy soldier in order to quit flying. He's step-by-step left out of friends and allies and his only goal is to escape from the camp at any cost, in order to retain his human identity and put an end in his war-time period. And I think that's the central message every spectator should get from this movie...

You might say that "Catch-22" shows the insanity of war from an insane viewpoint. Yossarian (Alan Arkin) is an American soldier on an air base in WWII Italy who is constantly trying to get out of flying the missions. Unfortunately, he can only get out of flying the missions if he is declared crazy, and he will only get declared crazy if he turns himself in. But if he is trying to get out of flying missions, then he is obviously not crazy, so there is no way to get out.

Among the other characters are the Machiavellian Milo Minderbender (Jon Voight), the crude-mannered Col. Cathcart (Martin Balsam), the nervous Maj. Major (Bob Newhart), the robotic Sgt. Towser (Norman Fell), the dorky Danby (Richard Benjamin), the socially awkward chaplain (Anthony Perkins) and the menacing Gen. Dreedle (Orson Welles). The movie leaves nothing to the imagination, particularly in the scene where a pilot's innards get blown out (not a scene for the fainthearted). But overall, "Catch-22" shows that in war, there eventually are no good guys, especially when your orders are to bomb a town with "no strategic value whatsoever".

A few scenes are sort of just for laughs. One could say that the medal-awarding scene "strips" all facades off of war. But it's certainly a movie that anyone even considering fighting in a war should watch.

This is a film I saw many years ago… I didn't really understand it then and so I thought I'd give it another look (having matured a bit in the meantime). I must say it's very weird, anarchic at times and has a lot to say politically… it's also quite compelling. Based on Joseph Heller's famous novel which, I have to confess, I've never read so you'll be getting my opinion of the film as a stand-alone piece. But enough of my prattling; let's have a crack at a synopsis before I give you my thoughts.

Whilst flying missions in Italy during World War II, Capt. John Yossarian decides he wants out and tries to get himself certified insane… But there's a catch… Catch-22 to be precise. I won't tell you exactly how it works here; but needless to say, it's a pretty cunning way of keeping the boys flying. We also meet all of his crew and the locals they associate with when not on duty. There are also those who are out for themselves; Col. Cathcart, Maj. Danby and 1st Lt. Milo Minderbinder to name but a few. All this is interspersed with flashbacks to Yossarian's efforts to help a young airman who is injured on a mission. I really don't want to say too much, it's one of those you have to see for yourself to get a grasp of. Also, the Spoiler Police will be selling off all my stuff.

This is an interesting film that has a lot to say about many things; not least war and capitalism. I won't go into the political questions it raises, but needless to say the point is put across quite forcibly. Decent performances all round, particularly from Alan Arkin as Capt. John Yossarian; he did a first rate job here! Honourable mentions go to; Martin Balsam as Col. Cathcart, Richard Benjamin as Maj. Danby, Art Garfunkel as Capt. Nately, Jack Gilford as Dr. 'Doc' Daneeka, Buck Henry as Lt. Col. Korn, Bob Newhart as Maj. Major Major, Anthony Perkins as Chaplain Capt. A.T. Tappman, Paula Prentiss as Nurse Duckett, Martin Sheen as 1st Lt. Dobbs and Jon Voight as 1st Lt. Milo Minderbinder. Finally a special mention for Orson Welles who played a brilliant cameo as Brig. Gen. Dreedle.

Although I found this film entertaining, I did find it did drag on a bit towards the end. About 20 minutes shorter and it would have been ideal (for me). It's all very well shot, but I'm afraid it suffers from having the feel of some 'Frat-house' comedy which didn't really endear it to me too much. That aside, I did find parts of it were quite compelling although I did struggle to have much empathy with any of the characters… even the lead. For its day though I thought it was quite groundbreaking and quite an eye-opener (in more ways than one). At the end of the day an interesting adaptation… I'll have to read the book sometime.

My score: 6.9/10.

IMDb Score: 7.1/10 (based on 10,995 votes at the time of going to press).

Rotten Tomatoes 'Tomatometer' Score: 87/100 (based on 23 reviews counted at the time of going to press).

Rotten Tomatoes 'Audience' Score: 62/100 (based on 9,365 user ratings counted at the time of going to press).

There are several films I consider perfect. Not all are brilliant. There are quite a few I consider brilliant, and only a few of those are perfect. Catch-22 is not only perfect, but if there is a stronger word than brilliant, it's that too. The camera shots, the editing, the sound, the pacing, the casting, the flawless acting, the incredibly complex staging of many scenes: all done to perfection. Mike Nichols directs films sparingly, but his list of titles reads like a who's who of the greatest classics. Catch-22 is his masterpiece, as far as I'm concerned. You may not know that he earned an Oscar (not for this), a Tony and an Emmy all as best director. He may be unique in this regard, but I don't know. The book was absolutely wonderful. No movie can be an exact depiction of the book--it just doesn't work that way. However, this movie delivers the story, spirit and theme, not to mention the egregious comedy of the book better than I ever would have imagined. I could write a whole book on what I like about this film, and I won't, but after all my sweeping superlatives I need to cite a few concrete examples. 1. The mess hall conversation with Martin Sheen and others: very complex, with overlapping dialog, wonderful facials and voice characterization by Sheen and a few timely cuts, not to mention the incredible rapid fire lines delivered by Arkin. 2. The runway scene with Doc and Yossarian in which the essence of catch-22 is explained: the sound--the roar of the engines that almost but not quite drown out the dialog in spots, the incredible inverted shot of Doc handing Yossarian his hat and responding, "it's (catch-22) the best there is!" Then, the incredible visual of the planes taking off--staying with the shot, showing the sheer beauty of it and pausing from the story for a minute, so we can catch out breath. I would say Nichols is Hitchcock's equal at providing incredible visuals and being innovative at doing it. 3. The scene about Nately's 60 shares of M&M Enterprises. The cut to the close up delivery of, "then they'll understand." Exquisitely chilling line. 4. The endless stream of priceless cameo scenes: Orson Welles - "Take that man out and shoot him." The movie is outrageously funny, the script and dialog are incredibly witty and intelligent, the acting is inspired, the theme is clear without touting itself at all. A final aside: for those of you who were not in the military, I wouldn't be surprised if you thought the whole military depiction was just silly beyond words, but I can assure you that it's only one or two degrees of hyperbole. I had my share of Yossarian-like experiences in the navy.

Catch-22 (1970)

This should have been a brilliant movie, brilliant. It is based on one of the touchstone American novels post-WWII. It has a series of actors any other director would die for, or kill for: Anthony Perkins, Martin Balsam, Bob Newhart, Alan Arkin, Paula Prentiss, Richard Benjamin, and even Art Garfunkel, who sings better than he acts, surely. And there is Martin Sheen and Jon Voigt, too. And heck, throw in Orson Welles (yup).

Oh, and directing? Mike Nichols. It's 1970, the middle of Vietnam, and a year after "M.A.S.H." which may have unduly influenced the tone here. Nichols had only directed two features before this--"Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolfe"(which won Best Picture) and "The Graduate" (which should have, and which is one of the best New Hollywood movies).

Parts of the movie are utterly hilarious--when the movie theme from "2001" breaks out (simply because the main character, the infamous Yosarian, sees a woman), it's not only funny for its excess, it's a jab at Kubrick's over-seriousness. Give Welles credit for showing up, and for doing a humorless job. In a way, he gets what Nichols wants better than anyone. The one ongoing flaw to the movie is the acting, which is too often silly. It's like they are having fun, and if Heller's book is funny, it's not because the characters are being funny. It's because what they say and do is absurd. That's completely different. Martin Balsam is one of the worst for this, making a comic role out of a surreal one.

So when the movie is simply absurd or surreal--a kind of deadpan frightening ludicrousness that might actually have been true--it's terrific. When it turns to slapstick, even slightly (fumbling, making smart cracks, or just laughing at themselves), it fumbles. When it turns to utter seriousness, as in Yosarian's night walk through the old town, seeing in succession the horrors not of war, but of life itself, it's deeply troubling and moving. And brilliant. Yes, the movie can often be brilliant.

So it's a halting experience, patched together, with too many pauses between episodes. Disappointing, but a revelation about the impossibility of infallibility. And for heaven's sake, read the book if you haven't.

Brilliant, quirky, unpredictable amusement. Thought provoking, shocking and hilarious. A stellar cast carries the tone from serious to lunacy with astounding grace. Cult Classic. Not for everyone.

Possibly for fans of: Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, Where the Buffalo Roam, Fargo, Trainspotting, Drugstore Cowboy, Bonnie and Clyde, Blue Velvet, Man Bites Dog, Kicking and Screaming.

I read Joseph Heller's "Catch-22" at school of my own volition after watching the movie, and at the time, neither made sense. Having now seen the film subsequently, I appreciate it a lot more but you really need to pay attention such are the subtle scene interchanges, characters that fade in and out of shot mid dialogue and the underlying narrative can at times be hard work to follow. But if you can remain focused, you should be rewarded.

It's intriguing watching Arkin battle the myriad of crack-pots with whom he comes into contact, all the stars of brass coming and going like revolving doors, each of them displaying a manic neuroticism that in turn makes Yossarian look decidedly stable. Perkins, Voight and Benjamin to me appeared all subtle variations of the same personality, whereas Grodin was the standout point of difference, displaying trademark ambivalence. Surprisingly expansive cast also includes Martin Balsam, Orson Welles, Art Garfunkel and Buck Henry. The ladies' roles (Mrs Benjamin - Paula Prentiss, and Collin Wilcox) are minor and little more than bit parts.

There's a couple of scenes that will resonate, not least of all Yossarian's recurring vision in the cockpit of a stricken fighter, or the sight of the lusty (and starkers) nurse swimming toward him from the pontoon, but it's still an effort to absorb the copious two hours of dialogue. Perhaps more conducive to a few viewings over time to fully appreciate the layers. Made at the same time as "MASH" and "Suppose They Gave a Way and Nobody Came" which were of very similar ilk if you enjoyed "Catch-22".

I recall hearing Catch 22 author Joseph Heller state that he started writing the book by writing the ending first and then working on the beginning and so on, back and forth. I'm not sure if he was telling the truth, but the book is certainly based on his own experiences as a bomber pilot in WWII and the book/movie's nonlinear, stream of consciousness structure is an obvious demonstration of the randomness and madness of war. An earlier post said that this movie reveals that at heart wars occur because people are selfish and stupid, and I think that is correct. Even though this movie is funny it reminds us of this unpleasant fact, so we avoid the movie altogether.

Made back in the early 70s during that brief period when Hollywood actually made intelligent and artistic first-run movies, the film is an excellent piece, from its all star ensemble cast to its writing and pacing. The movie is also a sad reminder of how shallow and simplistic and adolescent movies are today. Even fine films like Saving Private Ryan have much less complexity and trust their audience less to contemplate the possibility of an amoral and senseless universe. The mythic characters, comic book pacing, and sacred three act narrative structure and tight endings--even sad ones--that tie up all the loose ends and make us feel good about ourselves and our country are the order of the day. And with this new administration look for more movies that pat ourselves on the back rather than question. ..

For those of us that read Heller's book and marveled at its audacity and satirical humor, you are not going to like this. And for those of you who never read the book... how could you like this?? The context is gone, leaving a film that's a convoluted mess lacking the messages that the book was brilliantly able to convey.

I don't even know what this was. I acknowledge that "Catch-22" was never going to be an easy film to make, but if you're going to strip away the soul and present this humorless mess, then maybe you're better off not even trying. Or just adapt it into something else, call it something different, and let it (try to) stand on its own. Because other than the name and the characters, this movie isn't that book. It's almost hard to imagine me saying this, but the Hulu TV series was better than this movie.

The cast is great. The patchwork directing and editing are bizarre. Movies are almost never as good as the books they are taken from, but rarely have I read a book and been so disappointed by the film version. I gave it a "4" and I'm going to stop writing now and just hit "submit" before I change it to a "3." Just a disappointing effort, that should have been FAR better given the brilliant source material. Fail.