GamerTab That was an excellent one.

Ploydsge just watch it!

filippaberry84 I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Isbel A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

TxMike After all these years I finally saw it, at home on DVD from my local library. It was fun just seeing all those first rate actors in their 20s and 30s when the film was made. Now those still alive are mainly in their 70s and 80s, many still acting.It is set in WW2, primarily in Italy. A group of ragtag aviators flying bombing runs. The story focuses on Alan Arkin as Capt. John Yossarian, bombardier. He is probably the most sane one there but he wants to survive, he wants to go home. At first it would be after 25 successful missions, then it got pushed to 50, then to 75. He was losing patience. It is mostly a madcap type of absurdist comedy. Most of it works, some of it doesn't for me. Still I am glad I took the time, it is such a classic.

alexcurren I suspect that if Robert Altman's ground breaking M.A.S.H. had not come out the same year, Catch-22 might have lived on as the Vietnam era satirical anti-war film. I'm glad M.A.S.H. did come along because this film was dribble. I think Mike Nichols ego got the better of him, having come off two hits (Graduate and ...Virginia Woolf), and the film suffers for this. He took a seminal postmodern work and destroyed it, the viewer forced to watch this disaster at twenty four frames a second.All Nichols had to do was pull a John Houston. For years many filmmakers tried to make the Maltese Falcon, but they deviated from the novel, and the films were awful. Nichols just needed to put the book in script form, and then chop off some of the fat in the editing room. Instead we are forced to watch this mangled train wreck. There are a few good moments, the Snowden scene cut up and running through the film was a very nice touch. The casting was good for the most part, but we didn't have enough time with each character to really get to know them, to care about them, to hate them. Believing Art Garfunkel as Natley the rich New Englander is beyond the talent and abilities of Mr. Garfunkel, and insulting to actors and New Englanders everywhere. Jon Voight was absolutely wrong for Milo, the whimsical pseudo-communist capitalist running an empire of trades and deals. The role demanded someone with a bit of the shady New York about him, not Mid-western Nordicism. So many little tidbits are missing, and Catch-22 is story about little tidbits, little stories that all weave together to form a rich tapestry of life. Major Major Major Major came and went like a flash, no mention of Washington Irving. I was hoping that they could have cast Peter Fonda, and played up the Henry Fonda resemblance more. Nor a hint of the CID men who came to interview him.One of the most critical, and humorous scenes in the novel is the interrogation of Clevinger. It was one of the funniest things I've read in a novel, and it surmises the absurdity of the chain of command, and war in general. I was on the edge of my seat waiting for this pivotal scene that never came. General Scheisskopf is also absent, along with his parades, and masochistic wife. I saw Doc Daneeka as the guy who tells really dirty jokes when no one is looking, an edge to the man, a cunningness, a shifty opportunistic abortionist, and as good as Jack Gilford is, he's not that guy. The list continues on and on. Arkin was somewhat of a saving grace for this picture; he was cast accordingly, and did the best he could amongst the visceral carnage laid out on celluloid. The subtle allegories to heaven were also a little hackneyed. True one reading from this novel that some of it happened in a death dream state, a blur between life, death, reality and unreality. It would have come off much stronger to play it straight, Bea Arthur straight, and punched the jokes in strong. It's the contrast of order versus dis-order that make Catch-22 so endearing. That military men act illogically in logical situations, and logically in illogical situations. When translating a dialogue rich novel such as Catch-22, it's usually best to stick with the story in the novel. It would be wonderful is someone down the road dusted off a copy of this fine work of post war literature, wrote it out in script form, and shot it. The whimsical, satirical, nonsensical, non-linear structure might play better with cinema trappings of early 21st century cinema; Post- Tarantino, Chapter 1, The Texan, and so forth. Until then we're left with this dud.

longlivetheweekn 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.

drewwoodall This film did not try to recreate the book, and so it succeeded. I am happy to say that this film just keeps getting better year after year. It's hard for me to fathom that it came out 40 years ago! For me, it was another reminder (how many do I need) of the absurdity and futility of war, every war. Thank you Joseph Hellar, thank you Mike Nichols, thank you Buck Henry. And what a fantastic cast! Too bad that the film came out in the same year as MASH. But, I must say, that I find this film far superior to MASH. Whereas MASH did a good job at keeping things light, Catch 22 managed to show the absurdity of war while not shrinking from some gritty, realistic moments. Alan Arkins' scene of discovering the truth of Snowden's death (including bloody guts exposed to the cold air) is a scene I will never forget.