Catch-22 (1970) Reviews

• One of my favorite movies of all time

  gogoschka-12013-12-15

  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/

• Bravo...Loved it

  longlivetheweekn2011-04-02

  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.

• Sanity trying to make sense of the insanity of war

  bobshankjr-22012-03-17

  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.

• We Hate This, That's the Catch

  tedg2000-06-19

  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.

• Don't buy or rent the VHS or Laser editions of this movie!

  Brooklynne2004-12-24

  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.