Slaughterhouse-Five (1972)

I couldn't track it down, unfortunately, but remember that Rolling Stone interviewed Vonnegut in the late 70's, and he stated that there were two movies that Hollywood had done that were better than their books: Gone with the Wind, and Slaughterhouse-Five. Kurt said Hill left out stuff that he should have left out of the book.

I finally watched the film just yesterday, and agree that it was masterful at capturing the book. The time-traveling was exactly as Kurt described it. The characters were nailed. If only Hollywood could be this good when it interpreted books every time.

If you're unfamiliar with the book and the film, I'd suggest reading first, then watching. It'll make the more obscure parts of the film clear, and you won't be disappointed by George Roy Hill.

Fmovies: "Slaughterhouse-Five" begins with a man, Billy Pilgrim (Michael Sacks), typing on a sheet of paper that he has become "unstuck in time." He's caught in a time warp causing him to shift back and forth without warning to different points in his life. This premise sounds a lot more interesting than what the movie delivers. Is he calling out for help? We can't tell. The movie never lets us in on Pilgrim's reaction to what's happening. We don't know if he's upset, scared, perplexed, happy, bemused, or anything. We are simply shown various points in life, connected in odd ways. One moment he's a POW in World War II, threatened by German soldiers who are about to shoot him; the next he's at his wedding and people are "shooting" him with a camera.

The problem is, this looks more like a narrative device (and not a particularly original one, at that) than evidence of time travel. It's more like a story told out of order than a story about a man caught in a time warp. Sure, something weird is going on whenever he appears to "remember" the future, like when his younger self starts addressing his future wife, and a fellow soldier standing there thinks Pilgrim is propositioning him. But the film has relatively few such moments, and we can't help thinking that what we're seeing is simply the perspective of an older man experiencing flashbacks, a distinct possibility considering that we later learn that the older Pilgrim had a nervous breakdown.

I tend to enjoy movies with fractured story-lines of this sort, because the task is not merely to see events unfold, but to piece together what has already happened. Unfortunately, this movie lacks a narrative focus. Pilgrim seems a very ordinary fellow, and the movie never explains what makes his life story worth telling. Nothing about him is particularly attractive, or particularly repulsive, either. He's just bland. We see him as a POW, where one soldier has an inexplicably passionate grudge against him, while another befriends him. There will be some tragedy, some bombings, and some killings along the way. By flipping forwards and backwards in time the movie struggles to make all this engaging, because it all comes off rather tame for a war movie. An account of the bombing of Dresden is filmed with surprisingly little emotional power. There's a lack of thematic focus in these scenes; they seem to be there only to provide biographical information about this character, without actually contributing to the movie's larger purpose.

The later scenes are all over the map. There is even a Hollywood-style car wreckage sequence that probably cost more to film than anything else in the movie, including the scenes on Planet Tralfamadore. This bit of broad comedy feels out of place in the mostly contemplative story and brings the movie to a grinding halt.

The movie's message--that time is static, that everything which happens is inevitable, and that one's task in life should be to cherish the good moments rather than try to control what happens--is provocative enough. But the film lacks the grace and elegance that allowed Vonnegut's book to bring this message alive. Take, for example, the book's description of an attractive woman as a "sensational invitation to make babies." The book abounds with playful, wry prose of this sort that reinforces Vonnegut's mechanistic outlook on life. The story at its core is a philosophical argument, but Vonnegut prevents it f

"Slaughterhouse 5" is perhaps the best book-film translation I've ever seen.

Let me safely say that Kurt Vonneguts 'Slaughterhouse 5' is my favourite book ever. It is incredibly funny and moving above any book I've ever read. But it is also a very complex and philosophical story with many deeply rooted undertones. As such, I strongly urge people to READ THE BOOK before you see this movie. A great many points are left unexplained to the viewer, assuming they have read Vonneguts version. As I read it beforehand, the movie didn't insult my intelligence by putting Vonneguts ideas in plain view. Instead, it relies faithfully on the viewers interpretations, not unlike the book.

Once again, unless you have a mind open like a 7-11, READ THE BOOK. Take my advice, and be immersed in the greatest story of the 20th century.

Slaughterhouse-Five fmovies. Slaughterhouse-Five is my all-time favorite movie. If you haven't seen it, don't be fooled by the title (it's not the fourth sequel to a horror movie) or the fact that video stores, if they carry it, typically file it under "Sci-Fi" (it's not a space movie, well, not primarily). Slaughterhouse Five is a movie about war, family, business, pets, space, time, aliens, friends, bitter enemies, revenge, overeating, fascism, communism, and mostly about just wanting to be left alone. It is the funniest and saddest movie you're likely to see, and it encompasses more aspects of life than you could imagine. Worth repeated viewings.

This is a very clever, thoughtful, well made movie. It succeeded in doing what I thought was nearly impossible, i.e. to put this amazing book on film. There are one or two small points that keep me from giving this picture anything higher than a 7, the main one being Ron Liebman playing the Paul Lazzaro role - highly irritating. Other than that, a brave and imaginative, clever, witty film that I would heartily recommend to anyone.

There is a definite 70s feel to this production of a book that does an amazing job of spanning the most fascinating period of American history -- 1945-1970. I first saw this film in 1986 as a late teen at the height of Regan America, the cold war, nuclear detente. Billy Pilgram was the beginning of that world that I was just starting to pay attention to. The movie had a really profound effect on me at the time. Reading the book afterwards and getting into his other books, didn't detract at all from my assessment of the movie adaptation. Even seeing it now many years later doesn't detract from an amazingly solid film. The transitions as Billy gets unstuck in time are some of my favorite movie images. Also beautiful is the music which totally turned me on to Glenn Gould.