Catch-22
|
List Price: Our Price: $4.99 You Save: $4.00 (44%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Canada
Movie Reviews of Catch-22
Movie Review: Catch-22 the movie
Summary: 4 Stars
If you have read the book catch 22 you will be dissapionted. But you must remember that the way the book was written must have made it imposable to even think of a screenplay let alone write it. But once you look at it as a stand alone picture, you will see a large budgeted, darkly comiedic, and beautifully shot film. Ya, it could be better but not every comes out perfect.Movie Review: A change
Summary: 4 Stars
I take back most of the things I said. This is a great movie, and Milo is good.Movie Review: A good film that should have been better
Summary: 3 Stars
First, I was upset to see that the Hungry Joe's character from the book was all but not used, and that he didn't even die because of the cat, but instead suffered Kid Sampson's death from the book. Now...I do admit, this movie is better than I thought it would be. I'm especially happy with Bob Newhart's Major Major, the Chaplain, and Major Danby. My only problem is that many of the characters aren't portrayed to the best of their abilities, considering how well the book fleshed them all out. The best example is Balsom's take on Colonel Cathcart. In the book, Colonel Cathcart is prim, proper, and insane. In the movie, he is simply a crude, crusty old soldier, reminicent of Ernest Borgnine in "All Quiet on the Western Front." Though he is good when interacting with Dreedle. Orr is good in this, but maybe just a touch creepier than he should be. Milo is just wasted, and a little bland. Orson Welles is surprisingly good, but that is in direct effect of the good writing of his scenes.
Alan Arkin gets off to a slow start, but becomes very good as the film picks up speed. The Snowden films are great.
My main problem with the film, however, is that two very important characters from the book are completely and utterly not in the movie: Clevinger and Dunbar. Clevinger, while only in the first few chapters of the book, had a lot of very interesting things to say about Yossarian's behavior, and would have just been a good character to have. Dunbar, on the other hand, actually had a very large part in the book, serving as Yossarian's side-kick. He also delivered the classic monologue about boredom being the key to a seemingly-longer life. A great piece of writing that would have worked well with the rest of the film.
All in all, I suppose the main thing that would have made this movie better is an extra half-hour, so that more of the classic scenes could have been used. But still, surprisingly good.
Movie Review: A Decent Adaptation
Summary: 3 Stars
Joseph Heller's novel, like George Orwell's '1984' is a hard one to put on film as the narrative is so rich in satire ridiculing human nature and how it manifests itself in social conventions and institutions. Mike Nichols makes a decent effort in this adaptation in trying to present Heller's various themes on human nature's tendency to obey social paradigms and institutions no matter how absurd or exploitative they may be.
Yossarian (Alan Arkin) is the voice of sanity drowning under an absurd reality. Economic prosperity and efficiency outweighs any concerns for collective security: a herd mentality as a modus operandi is sufficient to assure that the group will prosper at the expense of the individual. My favorite part is when Yossarian asks his C.O. why his parachute is missing, the C.O. tells him that all parachutes have now been discarded to ensure future profit and that it's simply better that way: one can see an interesting parallel with our present politics concerning policies of collective well-being such as retirement, health, education, etc., that always seem to be sidelined in favor of more profitable enterprises favoring the elite at the expense of the majority.
The film is certainly not a complete or faithful adaptation of the book but few films are. The film does capture the satirical elements of the book rather well even if it dilutes itself somewhat in overextending its focus on its all-star cast starring Orson Welles, Jon Voight, Bob Newhart, Anthony Perkins, Richard Benjamin, and Martin Sheen, among others.
Movie Review: A mess.
Summary: 3 Stars
Mike Nichols' film version of the Heller novel was certainly one of the most anticipated movies of the 1960s. The novel was a favorite of every college student from the time it was published all through the Vietnam era. I still recall the glossy "Making of Catch-22" stories in Rolling Stone and other popular culture magazines of the time.Advanced word of the casting seemed promising. Arkin looked like a good choice for Yossarian. Orson Wells cut a fine figure as the pompous General Dreedle. And Norman Fell, who has probably played more deadpan army sargents than any actor on the plant, was excellent Sgt. Towson. Even Art Garfinkle, not the world's greatest actor, was passable as Snowden. The word was that this was going to be a great movie; tremendous attention to detail, one of the best directors in Hollywoods and a stellar cast.
It came, then, as quite a surprise when the movie was released. The pacing of the movie was so disconnected that even those who'd read the book found it difficult to follow the story line. Huge chunks of plot and motivation were missing. It was a mess.
There are some standout moments. The scene in the bomber where Snowden dies is powerful- but unfortunately lacks any plot coherence. The opening scene is a marvel of technical Hollywood filmaking in the pre-digital age, and does a nice job of setting the scene for the movie.
But there's just nothing tying it all together. As the film progresses the plot gets looser and looser, and the viewer is left up in the air. Stick with the book.