The concurrent sexual lives of best friends Jonathan and Sandy are presented, those lives which are affected by the sexual mores of the time and their own temperament, especially in ... See full summary »
Dr Jake Terrell, who has been training a pair of dolphins for many years, has had a breakthrough. He has taught his dolphins to speak and understand English, although they do have a limited... See full summary »
George C. Scott,
Trish Van Devere,
A highly-evolved planet, whose denizens feel no emotion and reproduce by cloning, plans to take over Earth from the inside by sending an operative, fashioned with a humming, mechanical ... See full summary »
Remzi is a thirteen year old boy, who was placed in an institution for mentally challenged children when he was four and since then he has moved from one institution to the other, time ... See full summary »
A bombardier in World War II tries desperately to escape the insanity of the war. However, sometimes insanity is the only sane way cope with a crazy situation. Catch-22 is a parody of a "military mentality" and of a bureaucratic society in general. Written by
Jeffrey Struyk <Catch22@ix.netcom.com>
Second Unit Director John Jordan refused to wear a harness during a bomber scene. While giving a hand signal to another airplane from the tail gunner position in the camera plane, he lost his grip and fell 4000 feet to his death. See more »
Pianosa and Ferrara are depicted with inaccurate geography (see trivia). See more »
I, for one, had NOT read the novel before viewing Catch-22, and I absolutely LOVED it! I believe it ranks as one of the best films ever made! It certainly ranks with Carnal Knowledge and the Graduate as the best pieces of work Mike Nichols ever made. Alan Arkin gives by far the best performance of his entire career. The rest of the cast is nearly perfect. It is a long movie, and moves at a very quick clip. Like 2001: A Space Odyssey, it begs to be viewed again and again. I love the close-up photography, which adds to the sense of claustrophobia & combustibility of the "insane war" situation of the characters. There are no panoramic vistas of Italy here. In fact, Italy has probably never looked so ugly in a movie. I love the way the action moves from scene to scene based on the thoughts of the characters, rather then strictly chronologically -- a technique Quentin Tarantino has utilized throughout his more recent career. Unlike most of the rest of you, I love the pacing. I love the hilarious, fast-paced first hour of the film, and then I love the slower, somber, horrific second hour. Later, I read the novel, and while it's certainly true that everything in the novel could not possibly have been used in the movie, I prefer to judge the movie strictly on its own merits. It seems as though most of you prefer to compare the two. I always like to see the movie first. Case in point: I believe I liked the World According To Garp so much because I had never read the novel before -- I had no preconceived notions of what the characters looked like, or how they should behave. Then, when I read the novel, I realized that all the action of the book could not possibly have been used in the film, but the film gave me a good, solid basis from which to begin reading the book. Was the movie is "good as the book?" Of course not. Is it ever? Was To Kill A Mockingbird as good as the book. Again, of course not. But didn't you love the movie anyway. Same with Catch-22. NOT comparing it to the book, but comparing it strictly to every other movie I've ever seen, it ranks as my favorite war movie of all time, my favorite comedy of all time, my favorite film of 1970 (a year full of good movies), and one of my favorites, period. It is a classic. Rent it. Watch it over and over again. It's well worth it!
40 of 69 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?