Tacticalin
An absolute waste of money
Merolliv
I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.
Bob
This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.
Staci Frederick
Blistering performances.
framptonhollis
The novel upon which this film is based is my all time favorite book, and the biggest flaw of its movie adaptation is that it doesn't really live up to the greatness of the novel. Of course, I do not believe that any movie adaptation good do Vonnegut's style much justice, and this film definitely makes an attempt and, for the most part, succeeds admirably. I know that it is somewhat unfair to criticize this film for not being as good as the book, but I do have a few genuinely good reasons to complain a little. There was plenty more great material from the book that could be adapted to the screen that is just simply ignored here (they could have done something very interesting with the character of Kilgore Trout). The book manages to be both more funny and sad than this film, which is a little unfortunate.However, this movie is overall pretty great. I loved the editing and visual style, it captures the structure of the book with sheer perfection while also being purely creative and original. The acting is also quite well done, despite a majority of the actors being mostly unknown. Everyone does a great job, especially Ron Leibman as Paul Lazzaro.Although I previously stated that this movie is not as funny as the book, it is still very funny. There are darkly hilarious bits scattered all throughout this dark classic, and it captures the essence of Vonnegut's brilliant satire and humor very well.Definitely recommended for anyone curious.
willkommjai
Adapting literature into film can be one of the most difficult things to do. This is simply because of writings individualistic nature and its ability to appear virtually different amongst each person. Director George Roy Hill has pleasantly done so in his film adaptation of Kurt Vonnegut's reading, "Slaughterhouse-Five". Slaughterhouse-Five follows Billy Pilgrim through his family life, the decimated lands of Germany, and faraway lands of Tralfamadore as he is unwillingly stuck in a loop of time travel for reasons unknown. I have twice read the novel and generated a different image each time. Director, George Roy Hill, has shot a wide variety of films ranging from classic westerns (Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, 1969) to corky sports comedies (Slapshot, 1977). Such diversity in directing films leaves the viewer oblivious of what to expect of the time traveling Billy Pilgrim. You can either expect an action packed glorified movie, a humorous one, or a translation more true to Vonnegut's intents within "The Children's Crusade". Other novels/films I'd fit into the same genre as Slaughterhouse-Five would be Tim O'Brien's, "The things they carried". Though no element of time travel is addressed first hand, its purpose is to show the horrors and atrocities of war, done by allies and enemies. The most astonishing part of the movie was its ability to portray every character exactly how I imagined them. Billy Pilgrim is Gumpy and goofy looking, while Paul Lazarro is the Mobster Mentality Maniac the novel makes him out to be. I noticed they used quotes directly from the book which addressed Billy's similarities to German soldiers in the film. "He's a kraut." Having an active interest in history really helps to find a deeper appreciation within the film. Historical accuracies such as setting, race issues, and the time period are all repeated trends through the course of the film. For example, I truly believed I was following troops through Belgium, Luxembourg, and Germany before learning a majority of the film was shot in Snow- ridden Minnesota. The Dresden scenes were all filmed on location in Prague, Czech Republic which provided a believable European influence to surrounding architecture. The year was 1972 and the films budget was around $3,500,000, essentially they had to work with what was given. This is a factor which I believe separates classic and modern cinematography on scales of positive impression. Another Example I found in the film is the shared hate for the Russians and Communism across all characters. To elaborate, the film truly captures the fear of 'The Red Scare' and growth of communism throughout the long, dragged-on cold war. A scene I felt was rather powerful occurs when the musical Englishmen take in the allied forces for food and care while the Russians watched coldly behind a fence. They are both in Prison camps but only the Russians are being treated as prisoners. This repeat offender is seen again when Michael Campbell Jr. attempts to recruit Billy for the 'Free American Corps' to fight communism. As Billy's son grows he ironically joins the Green Berets to "Fight the communists". In history, interracial infantry units did not exist until the Vietnam War. War Movies such as, The Patriot (2000) and Saving Private Ryan (1998) depict unrealistic comradery between African- American and Anglo-American soldiers. If you are familiar with Kurt Vonnegut, you know his style is abstract and follows no specific formality. He often includes himself in real time as well as characters from completely different stories and novels. Though the overall message of 'war is bad' is captured, there is a lack of Vonnegut himself, no cameos are made. It would make an exciting bit for die hard Vonnegut fans. I would have to side with Vonnegut and say this adaptation is far more than acceptable. It is accurate according to the novel and history. It would be nice to see how Kilgore Trout, the reason behind Billy's spatial thoughts, made him Senile or granted him the ability to time travel. This will forever be locked in the confusing mind of long-lost Vonnegut. 4.5/5
Jorgosch
Life is but a random sequence of good and bad things happening. That is the premise of the story and that is how this film is structured. The director uses every trick in the book to put you on a roller-coaster of a ride with so many ups and downs in sequence that no eye will remain dry. Depending on what type of viewer you are, the tears will might come from laughing but much more probably from crying. Although the movie is partly tagged as a comedy, the humour in it film is very dark indeed.One might think that the lesson behind the story is that life takes you along on a preprogrammed ride and you best lean back, take it as it comes and enjoy the good parts, but that is not true. I think what author and director want to convey is that those in tune with others will find that some things are inevitable but just as many good moments are of your own making.The emotions hit you hard and relentlessly, but the end is conciliatory (at least, if you're male) and even whimsical. Not a movie for every day, but definitely recommended. 8/10
oneguyrambling
An elderly Billy Pilgrim sits and writes his memoirs at a rickety old typewriter. To say that he has lead a very interesting life is an understatement, to say that his life makes for an interesting movie is a little more arguable.As Billy taps away at the keys the film drifts in and out of various times in Billy's life, ranging from his childhood all the way up until he is abducted by aliens and forced to live on another planet wiling away the time banging a Hollywood star.You read that right - this is not just a WW2 film.The bulk of the time though focuses on Billy's wartime experience - Slaughterhouse-5 refers to the former abattoir that Billy and fellow POWs are imprisoned in located in supposedly peaceful Dresden - and the years following his return home where he marries and raises a family. In between there is some action, but not much. What is there includes a plane crash, combat, internment and the UFO abduction thing, but nothing is exceptionally big or "Wow", even the war scenes aren't very "war-ey"..It is all quite well edited and seamlessly moves through the eras backwards and forwards, which takes a bit of getting used to as you think where is he now, once you see Billy's gap toothed mug and gauge his age you catch up quick though. It did add one funny joke where Billy's slightly chunky and annoying wife told him in every era how she planned to lose weight to make him happy - then we progress forward and find out that she never did, more unfortunately for old Bill is that she continued to be as annoying...Slaughterhouse-5 is practically unknown nowadays - it is 30+ years old - and it is no doubt weird. Just not weird enough to make it notably weird like say Eraserhead or Dark Star even though it is far better than both. I guess at the end of the day unknown-weird is still no more than unknown.The fact of the matter is that while it is pretty interesting and well made Slaughterhouse-5 has no one scene that differentiates it from the pack. You keep waiting for it to have the big reveal and explain everything but it never does.You probably should admire that as a movie watcher, but is it enough cause to hunt down this unassuming oddity from 4 decades ago? The answer is No, not really.Final Rating - 5 / 10. Not a terrible film, but nothing really going for it enough to provide cause for recommendation.