Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Simply A Masterpiece

Highly Overrated But Still Good

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

Disappointing movie based on the hilarious anti war novel. It has some very funny moments, most of which occur in the first half.Considering the talents involved, it should have been a lot more entertaining. But mostly it crawls at a funeral pace and is rather dull. Still Arkin is perfect as Yossarian. For his performance alone, it's worth seeing at least once.

If we pause to consider it was, logistics to one side, relatively easy to adapt Gone With The Wind for the screen, as it was To Kill A Mockingbird, once you had Rhett Butler and Atticus Finch squared away it was just manual labor. But would YOU like to be the one that shot a movie version of The Catcher In The Rye? No, I didn't think so. Same thing with Catch-22; sometimes a best-selling, even 'cult' novel just SEEMS elusive but isn't really but sometimes it IS, and Catch-22 is one of those times. Buck Henry and Mike Nichols certainly gave it the old college try and probably made as good a fist of it as anyone could but in the end it was like nailing jelly to the wall. The thing about the novel is that you can open it virtually anywhere and you'll eventually get back to the beginning, it's a kind of Finnegan's Wake-lite without the contrived words i.e. in conventional English. The movie has made a half-decent stab at the same thing but a crucial mistake was eliminating some characters and cutting and pasting with events. Nevertheless worth a look.

Read the book twice and thoroughly enjoyed it. Saw the movie several times and even got stuck out in the suburbs the first time after seeing it twice and called up my High School Teacher and mentor Pierre Rener to come get me late after midnight hoping to brainstorm with him about it. I'll never forgot how he groaned over the phone, "Oh God! Oh God!". I was just a pimply faced teenager back then and only now as an older man do I realize how much I must have irritated the hell out of him.When I read it the first time I loved its wacky wit and snappy ending. Despite its length, for me it wasn't a hard read at all. I suppose nobody had to convince me that war was crazy as it was kind of self evident to me all along and I could kind of sense the comedic appeal of such an activity as a Theater of the Mind. The second time I brainstormed about this royally with Miss Gomez in her class 'INTRODUCTION TO THE NOVEL'. She was a die-hard Existentialist and used Sartre and Camus as a reference for her pontifications which were usually spot on. I can hear her now, "- every assertion implies a negation and every negation implies an assertion." A beautiful, philosophical woman she was and I learned a lot from her.All this is said to report that I saw only one way to film this thing with its myriad characters and stream of consciousness narrative moving faster than chain-lightning one-liners. I even wrote a paper about it for Miss Gomez's class where I diagrammed how the structure of the novel was very nearly a flashback within a flashback or more formally a series of chain reactions composed as flashbacks. This led Miss Gomez, God Bless her, to declare before the entire class, "Mister Boykin, you understand this novel better than I do!"Whether true or not, this is one of those stories that, like CHINATOWN, I seem to have a special affinity for because of my temperament and life experience. Paradoxes abound in Life as you surely know and - well, don't get me started about THAT. But the frenetic nature of Yossarian's mental climate as he gradually recovers from the gross traumatic incident that his mind keeps bouncing off because of the pain and horror contained therein is barely addressed or properly served in the film despite a stellar cast.This, however, is the heart and soul of the novel as it should have been with the film. The great humor of CATCH-22 comes from an inability to rationally confront and address the profound pain and horror of the wartime experience. It's this absurd dancing around the contours and the edges of something that's so abysmally hellish that gives the moral comedy of CATCH-22 its edge. Finally around Chapter Thirtynine an exhausted Yossarian realizes the dancing has to stop and he takes a walk through THE ETERNAL CITY to slow down the pace to something bordering on philosophical reflection. But even as he has slowed things down to a walk he observes that the absurdity around him continues on unabated with a will and a spirit of its own. This sense of being reluctantly forced to probe into the philosophical underpinnings of what war really is all about is remarkably absent from the film. It's a great show as was DOCTOR STRANGELOVE, but I always felt some special gravitas was missing despite the able efforts of Alan Arkin displaying all the various shades of moral outrage as Yossarian and Jon Voight offering shares for missing parachutes and chocolate covered cotton balls as 1st. Lt. Milo Minderbinder to keep his corporation afloat.The chocolate covered cotton balls are a great motif, by the way. How do you sell somebody something that nobody wants or needs and is near impossible to digest and besides offering you next to no nutrition doesn't do a damn bit of good for you? I know! We'll cover it with chocolate!The cast reads like a Who's - Who's from Saturday NIGHT LIVE and COMEDY CENTRAL. There is Richard Benjamin as Major Danby, Bob Newhart as Major Major Major, the great Orson Welles as Brigadier General Dreedle and Anthony Perkins as Chaplain Capt. A.T. Tappman. There is also Paula Prentiss as Nurse Duckett and the beautiful body of Olimpia Carlisi as Luciana for aesthetic and romantic diversion. There is even Art Garfunkel attempting to wax philosophical with a wizened old man who has seen this all a number of times before when the warriors came marching into the whorehouse.That being said, I always saw CATCH-22 as a faster paced film than this slow, ponderous elephantine thing Mike Nichols put upon the screen to convey some kind of epic movement and always sensed that the rhythms of CATCH-22 were more akin to Progressive Jazz than any type of reference to Classic Music. Just can't let go of the conviction that I could have penned a better screenplay than Buck Henry in this particular case. Although ALSO SPRACH ZARUTHUSTRA works very well when Luciana comes marching down the street.I also think one of my classmates was right about Omar Sharif. She thought it would have been interesting to see what kind of Yossarian he would have made.

Yossarian is a US Army bombardier serving in Mediterranean Italy during World War II. Despairing of the horrors, lunatic bureaucracy and general insanity all around, he resolves to get grounded by claiming to be crazy. But there's a catch; to be grounded you must be diagnosed as crazy, but if you ask to be grounded then quite clearly you're sane ...Much like Naked Lunch, this is a good movie of a good book which is fairly unfilmable. Joseph Heller's 1961 novel is an amazing achievement - arguably the first novel to deal with war as both horror and comedy, using an episodic stream of consciousness approach which enhances both sides of the material to great effect. The movie, made at the height of the US-Vietnam war, has something of a hippy sensibility, but is very successful in its surrealism and satire. It's almost impossible to imagine it being made nowadays; scenes like the one where Yossarian pretends to be the son of a visiting family when the real son has inconveniently died shortly before are too daring and avant garde for a modern studio picture. The movie piles on craziness after craziness without ever seeming heavy-handed, but for every funny moment there are carefully crafted shocks, culminating in Yossarian's post-curfew walk through a city where crime and depravity have become so common that no-one hardly notices anymore. The film's trump card is a stunning cast of great actors in early stages of their careers; Voight, Garfunkel (billed here as Arthur), Sheen, Grodin and Balaban are all terrific, Newhart is very funny as the harassed Major Major, and Welles steals his scenes as the world-weary General Dreedle. The best two performances for me though are from Arkin and Perkins, perhaps the two most interesting American actors of their generation, who seem to make almost every nuance and gesture somehow add to the characterisation and impact of each scene. Nervous comedy is probably about the hardest thing to play, and this is a masterclass from both. Nicely shot in the Sonora desert by David Watkin, with an amazing main set built by Richard Sylbert. Written by Buck Henry (who plays the cigar-chewing Lieutenant-Colonel Korn), who also collaborated with Nichols on their previous movie, The Graduate. It's worth noting the influence of the seminal 1923 Czechoslovakian novel The Good Soldier Svejk by Jaroslav Hasek, on both the movie and Heller's book. Not everything in the film works as well as it could; the absence of a score for me is a problem, the situations are so extreme that they require patience and an open mind, and as with all non-structured writing it does sometimes slip into an episodic feel, rather than a flowing story. It's an amazing statement on what war is really all about though, made by a big studio (Paramount) during a short interval when Hollywood had the courage to back filmmakers and artists to try something imaginative and different. If you've only vaguely heard the term Military Industrial Complex and can't see why there are always so many nasty little wars going on all around our world, this is a good movie to try and catch for some answers.