Catch-22 (1970)

The first time I watched this movie, I was about 13 years old, and I loved it. Over the years I have watched this movie on more than one occasion and I still loved it. It inspired me to read the book, I watched it again, and guess what, I still loved it.

The movie like the book has a non-linear time line which may confuse some people, but if you concentrate you will have no problems following the story (even on the first viewing). The structure of the film is what gives it such a high re-watch value, each time you watch you'll find something new about it.

The stellar cast, give performances which vary in quality, with some of the smallest roles being extremely entertaining, but overall the ensemble delivers the goods. The direction is tight given the complex structure and the amount of material covered in the book.

This film always gets compared to *M*A*S*H*, which is also a good film, but I find Catch-22 provides more laughs while delivering, the more serious, anti-war message.

If you haven't watched this movie yet, I highly recommend it.

Fmovies: 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 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. ..

Catch-22 fmovies. 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.

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 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.