Catch-22 (1970)

Featured Audience Ratings

• Bob S

  
  I have not read the book, which seems to be a prerequisite for enjoying this movie, which I do, immensely

• Lucas M

  
  An terrific surrealist dark antiwar satire.

• Jennifer X

  
  No better, no worse than the book itself.

• Dean M

  
  This release stars Alan Arkin as a soldier in World War II most interested in avoiding the insanity of combat. It's sarcasm alone is enough to sustain interest.

• Pierluigi P

  
  In the sandy landscapes of the mediterranean sea coast, a madhouse is located. A place that, in order to take democracy to that dark region of the earth; has artillery, airplanes and willing superiors; but is a little short of sacrificial lambs. An excellent cast, led by Alan Arkin,… More
  In the sandy landscapes of the mediterranean sea coast, a madhouse is located. A place that, in order to take democracy to that dark region of the earth; has artillery, airplanes and willing superiors; but is a little short of sacrificial lambs. An excellent cast, led by Alan Arkin, forms the insane mob that seems to be straight out of "alice in wonderland" Even though it is hilarious, it also delivers a sad and crushing anti war message.

• Tim S

  
  I loved every second of this movie. From the absolutely stunning opening shot (one of the best openings ever in my opinion) to the fantastic ending, I was really captivated by this film. I loved the dialogue and the performances by a really cool cast. Alan Arkin proves once again that… More
  I loved every second of this movie. From the absolutely stunning opening shot (one of the best openings ever in my opinion) to the fantastic ending, I was really captivated by this film. I loved the dialogue and the performances by a really cool cast. Alan Arkin proves once again that in his heydey he could carry a film with the best of them. His performance here is funny, sad, and the perfect tour guide through the hell that is war. One of my other favorite performances was from Richard Benjamin who is hilarious. (Hell, even Bob Newhart and Orson Welles are in this movie and where can you go wrong with them?) The strength of the cast and the entire success of the adaptation has to be attributed to Mike Nichols who I am becoming a huge fan of after watching his earlier work.

• moon r

  
  what if no one on the planet ever really connected to anyone else, but only pretended to in order to get what they wanted? it's a question to think about, but i'm not doing that cause i'm busy or something. <br/>watch alan arkin beg for mercy, for humanity, from… More
  what if no one on the planet ever really connected to anyone else, but only pretended to in order to get what they wanted? it's a question to think about, but i'm not doing that cause i'm busy or something. <br/>watch alan arkin beg for mercy, for humanity, from everyone he meets, to no avail... <br/>a commentary on modern times...? naaaah, that'd be too easy...

• Randy T

  
  Underrated and all but forgotten. I'm not a "huge" fan of Mike Nichols but this is a satirical masterpiece.

• xGary X

  
  A heavyweight cast struggle in a slapdash effort to bring Joseph Heller's classic novel to the big screen. Has some fantastic moments, but unfortunately does not gel as a whole; it is consistently exasperating as far too much of the nonsensical goings on are left completely… More
  A heavyweight cast struggle in a slapdash effort to bring Joseph Heller's classic novel to the big screen. Has some fantastic moments, but unfortunately does not gel as a whole; it is consistently exasperating as far too much of the nonsensical goings on are left completely unexplained. Arkin is eminently watchable as ever, though.

• Michael G

  
  Not a great adaptation of Heller's novel, but also not a terrible movie. Not amazing, but not terrible.

• Hal M

  
  Joseph Heller's great novel makes for poor source material as a motion picture. Mike Nichols, still in his prime, took a decent shot at it. But nogo. It's watchable, has some moments, a good cast. Yet the scenes never really synch properly, and the picture never achieves… More
  Joseph Heller's great novel makes for poor source material as a motion picture. Mike Nichols, still in his prime, took a decent shot at it. But nogo. It's watchable, has some moments, a good cast. Yet the scenes never really synch properly, and the picture never achieves an authenticity of tone. Catch-22 the book was a true one-off-- author Heller himself could never recapture the magic in his subsequent novels; he doesn't seem to be the same Joseph Heller as wrote Catch-22! So I guess not so surprising screenwriter Buck Henry can't replicate that mojo here either.

• Doctor S

  
  Another wholly unfilmable novel and it shows.

• Dimitris S

  
  I have my presumptions of the book's individuality.The concrete notion so that adaptation is unexpected and shockingly beautiful.It's one of those occasions...I think..and the vastness of comedic wars.

• MJS M

  
  Joseph Heller's Catch-22 is a novel I've been meaning to getting around to reading, but most of my time and attention has been taken by various movies. So it's probably for the best that finally just saw the movie version, because I was probably never going to get… More
  Joseph Heller's Catch-22 is a novel I've been meaning to getting around to reading, but most of my time and attention has been taken by various movies. So it's probably for the best that finally just saw the movie version, because I was probably never going to get around to that book. This is the third movie from director Mike Nichols after Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolfe and The Graduate, both of which went on to become classics. The film is an anti-war satire which is theoretically set during the second world war, though I get the impression the exact war zone is largely irrelevant. The film's satire largely targets military bureaucracy as well as the general insanity of war. Released in 1970, this anti-war message was very topical given the events of Vietnam. The film is frequently compared to other war satires of the era like Kelly's Heroes and Robert Altman's M*A*S*H. The film isn't particularly funny, so as a straight ahead comedy it probably fails. The film instead uses a certain ironic wit. For example, early in the film it is established that if someone wants to go on hundreds of bombing missions they must be insane and should be grounded, the catch is that they need to ask to be grounded and if they ask they must not really want to go on these missions and thus isn't insane and can't be grounded. As the movie progresses it grows this irony goes from simple satire to outright surreality to the point where a man gets split in half by the propeller of a plane. By the last third of the world of the film has turned into what is clearly a Kafkaesque hell to which there is seemingly no escape. My main complaint is that the central story takes a very long time to entrench itself and afterwards it is still rather messy. Initially it was hard to tell who I was supposed to be following, there were a number of characters who each seemed to get equal screen time leading the viewer to believe this was a strictly ensemble piece. but then about a half way through the film begins to focus strictly on the John Yossarian character played by Alan Arkin, which is rather disorienting. What's more there are a lot of things in this that feel extraneous. There are a lot of moments of ironic strangeness that do little to progress the plot but which is included anyway, probably just because it was a memorable portion of the book. That's the thing about this movie, most if not all of the scenes in the movie are rather clever, witty, and ironic; but they don't really come together to create a particularly coherent story. I would recommend it as a nice work of angry satire, but as a whole I'm not sure it really works. I guess I'll have to actually read the book after all.

• Barry L

  
  What a movie. The book was superb and this film does it real justice.

Read all 15 featured audience ratings