Customer Reviews

Catch-22 [VHS]

5 star:		(35)
4 star:		(22)
3 star:		(11)
2 star:		(15)
1 star:		(8)

 

 

Finally ...... one of those DVD re-releases I've been practically holding my breath for, and was not disappointed. This criminally overlooked gem was trashed by critics upon its release in 1970, and never enjoyed a video transfer worthy of the filmmaker's effort, not even on laserdisc! And as you can see from the varying reviews, the controversy rages on. Which just proves how alive and well and timely a film Catch-22 truly is.

Mike Nichols captures the essence of Joseph Heller's defining anti-war classic quite admirably, with a faithful adaptation by Buck Henry (who can be seen along with a veritable Who's Who period ensemble cast), with an eye as removed and objective as Kubrick, yet at times very visually subjective ..... an approach used to great advantage in his previous hit film The Graduate. All the verbal and ethical contradictions of the book bring its dark humor to demented life, through a kaleidoscopic cavalcade of archtypical characters who make up the living nightmare of one Captain Yossarian, who has decided he can no longer bear to fly the combat missions his superiors have made it impossible to get out of. To get out of flying, he has to be officially diagnosed as "crazy", and must request to be grounded ..... but if he requests to be grounded, then he's not really crazy, and is therefore eligible to keep flying missions. That's some catch, that Catch-22.

This film, like the book on which it's based, is not so much an indictment of the insanity of war as it is a look at how the corporate mentality can find its way into the noblest of causes, and how beurocratic manipulations devaluate basic human principles, which take a back seat to merely "looking good". A timeless theme indeed. This skewed logic is cheerfully accepted by all the story's characters ..... until our Yossarian's eyes are opened to the product of that logic literally disemboweled at his fingertips (yes, that scene was put back in!), and suddenly he is the outsider whose prime mission is to avoid any more missions. Which is not an easy thing to do when Brass keeps adding more after you've completed your tour of duty.

As far as the transfer itself: It has probably never looked better since the original theatrical release over 30 years ago, especially being the first widescreen release of this title, which is the only way to experience it as intended. The transfer team did the best they could with the mono soundtrack, I'm sure, which does get compressed and distorted at times, something we enthusiasts of early films live with.

Mike Nichols' Catch-22 may only enjoy cult status, but it is DVD releases like this (and that other oddball, star-studded 60's curiosity Candy) that make one truly appreciate what is being done with this revolutionary medium. Hey, not all movies can be for everybody. Long live the Anti-Blockbusters!

Catch-22 is probably my all-time favorite novel and favorite movie. I constantly read reviews of the film version claiming that it doesn't quite reach the level of insanity the novel elevates to and that it is clouded and too literal. I know, there are a lot of things that one just cannot believe are not in the movie, like General Peckem or ex-P.F.C. Wintergreen or Hungry Joe screaming in his sleep whenever he is off combat duty again or Chief White Halfoat waiting to die of pnuemonia and threatening to slit Flume's throat ear ot ear or the chaplain's morbid, introverted struggles or Yossarian censoring letters as Washington Irving. But you can't put EVERYTHING in a movie. I love this movie a lot. I think it sort of becomes its own thing, apart from the novel. Plus, it does bring across the main points and feelings of the novel. In fact, I'm surprised how understandingly Mike Nichols directs and the actors act and the dialogue is executed. Just watch the scene near the beginning where Yossarian is arguing with Dobbs, Orr, McWatt, Milo, Aarfy, and Nately about his persecution complex. It comes off like a ballet of words. I don't think this movie is too heavy, as Leonard Maltin reviews in his book, because the novel is heavy. The novel is not JUST a cute farce (which is what makes it so great). I think the movie has the right tone. I also think the actors are brilliant. Alan Arkin, to me, is the only man who could ever play Yossarian. He is Yossarian. The moment of his performance that stands out for me is right at the start when he's stabbed in the side. He gasps, almost comically, in a disbelief, in such a pure shock that he has just, to his knowledge, been killed (and that's the last thing he wants to happen to him ever, literally). He stumbles to the ground wide-eyed after the disbelief and denial fades and stretches on the ground as if the eventual prophecy of his impending doom has been answered and there's finally nothing to do but accept it. Dying isn't an option for him, but they finally got him. He practically looks at the audience and asks "Do yo believe this?" It's like all of Yossarian's contradictions that were written in the novel are mimed in one brilliant moment of acting. And the rest of the cast is great, too. Orson Welles as Dreedle, Bob Newhart as Major Major (his single greatest performance), Charles Grodin as the slimey Aarfy, Art Garfunkel as Nately, Sheen as Dobbs, Bob Balaban as Orr, Buck Henry (who adds some very funny dialogue of his own. "I've never caught a piece of shrapnel...") as Korn, Norman Fell, Richard Benjamin, Jon Voight, Peter Bonerz, and, my favorites, Jack Gilford as Doc Daneeka, Martin Balsam as Cathcart, and Anthony Perkins (forget about Norman Bates) as Chaplain Tappman (name-change). Just listen to Perkins when he tells Cathcart's receptionist who he is, like he detests saying his own name and he doesn't like admitting he's him. "I'm...Chaplain Tappman." Overall, this is a great movie, despite the literary omissions. I think it's a forgotten classic that was never once remembered, and I feel it should get its classic status as a great film adaptation. Let's have a 30th anniversary next year and re-release it in the theaters. Whaddya say, fellas? (I'd give it five stars, but I just don't believe in the five-star system.)

I read Catch-22 many years ago. Loved it. I've seen Catch-22 the movie several times. Loved it. But they are different. You are not going to get every nuance of the complex, convoluted book into the movie, but it is a good approximation. The movie works on its own, mostly due to the collection of oddball characters and circumstances. The long list of big named actors did a good job. However, the cinematography may be the star, here. As an "anti-war" comedy, this ranks near the top. It is as satirical as Dr Strangelove.

The movie has no musical score, and only has (as I recall) one instance of music at all ("Thus Spake Zarathustra", a la "2001 A Space Odyssey".)

"Let me see if I've got this straight. In order to be grounded, I've got to be crazy and I must be crazy to keep flying. But if I ask to be grounded, that means I'm not crazy any more and I have to keep flying."

The reasonably-priced DVD has a so-so commentary by director Mike Nichols with Steven Soderbergh.

This is a film about military absurdity and entrepreneurial creativity. If you have no military experience, watch it as a documentary. I received my indoctrination in the 1950's when I arrived in Korea as a Private. Upon arrival, we were sent to the Supply Room and given a long list of equipment and supplies which we were required to have immediately. We were also informed that there was a small problem. These items, normally furnished by the Supply Room, were currently out-of-stock and expected to remain so. Fortunately, an old woman just outside the fence had all the items in quanity, but if we purchased anything from her, we would be buying from the Black Market, which was illegal. The old woman liked a certain brand of soap, however, and would trade each item for an established number of bars of the soap. Fortunately, we could legally purchase unlimited bars of this soap (3 at a time) at the Post Exchange at a very reasonable price. For a few bars extra, she would arrange for all our new patches to be sewn onto our uniforms. All we needed to do was sign a receipt for advance pay which the Army would give to help us feel welcome and get settled in. We could use the money to purchase things like soap, for example. Did we all understand our duty? Yeah, Sarge. We got it!
We had a 24 hr Mess Hall, but the food consisted of large vats of things like powdered eggs, powdered milk, powdered potatoes, oatmeal, etc, which appeared to have been chewed, partially digested, then regurgitated before being served. Choice UDSA steaks, eggs, fresh vegetables, etc, were available in the local village to be traded for cigarettes and alcohol, which we could purchase in unlimited quantities at the Post Exchange at a very reasonable price. For a consideration, cooks in the Mess Hall would skillfully cook the food for us. Did we all understand our dining options? Yeah, Sarge. We got it! And so it went.
The Military Air Transportation Service was extensively used for world-wide distribution for all sorts of contraband. With US taxpayers covering all shipping costs, smuggling boomed.
I read Catch-22 in the 1960's. It was hilarious and insane. Due to my personal experience in the Army, I accepted it as a realistic, highly entertaining, but sometimes sobering, account of World War II in Europe. The subsequent movie was a big disappointment to me, because it left out so many parts of the book. Now, after 36 years, when I watch the DVD, I think the movie is superb and really captures the spirit of the book. Some well chosen special features and more commentaries would have been nice, but the movie speaks well for itself. Had it tried to cover the entire book, the movie would have made Gone With The Wind seem like a featurette.
Perhaps it has just been too long since I read the book, but, be that as it may, to anyone who hasn't read the book or seen the movie recently, I recommend that you ignore the critics and watch this DVD. Then, if you enjoy the DVD, read the book. In fact, I think it's time for me to check out a copy at the local library and read it again myself.

If you start comparing this film to the book (which obviously you must do to an extent) you will find so many things wrong with it you will never stop. A good comparison would be Stanley Kubrick's version of "The Shining," which also is very good when taken separate from the book while the book is far superior. Catch-22, the novel, is a brilliant piece of writing that could never be captured on screen, but I think Nichols makes a vallant effort of it. One complaint is the character of Milo is blown out of all proportion, becoming in the film a meglomanical dictator rather than a flagrant opportunist who exploits the men for his "Syndicate." Jon Voight, it must be said, does a good job in this interpretation of Milo.
Parts of the book are notably absent; Orr is barely mentioned until the end, the Glorious Loyalty Oath Crusade, one of my favorite parts, is gone completely and the brutal satire surrounding the Chaplain's life on the base and the doctor believed dead in a plane crash which he wasn't on (so everyone now ignores him and he can't be fed) are not included. The chaplain's interactions with the other men are almost gone altogether, and we never really get a glimpse of his character as it exists in the novel. Also, I think the film would have benefitted from showing Colonel Cathcart's form letter sent to the relatives of men who died...if you don't know what it says that alone makes the book worthwhile (of course, I could say that about scores of incidents in the book, it is worth reading any time, anywhere).
Good things: the cast is fantastic, and Orson Welles' brief appearances as Dreedle are great, he personifies the general perfectly (the "take him outside and shoot him" scene is arguably the funniest in the film); Alan Arkin is great as Yossarian, and the Snowden scenes, where a little more of the incident is revealed each time, are wonderfully crafted, as are the (chronilogically) following scenes where Yossarian refuses to wear clothing.
Finally, the end is faithful to the book in all but one respect, that being the novel's final three sentences, which (as I think I said in my review of the novel) pretty much sum up the feeling of the entire novel, where one is led to believe one thing is happening just before the opposite occurs (the fact that Heller could get you going midway through a three-sentence paragraph and then whip you back the other way is a testament to his brilliance).
So in the final analysis, don't buy this film if you think it will be an adequate adaption of Heller's novel, because it is not, nor could any film hope to be. But if you want a darkly funny, satiric, well-acted anti-war film that contains the skeleton of the source book, by all means buy this, and if it leaves you hungering for more then get the book (actually read the book first, that way you can fill in the gaps in the film as you watch it).

Catch-22 DVD

Catch-22 is based on Joseph Heller's novel about an American air base in the Mediterranean during World War II. Again, if you are a reader IMHO the book Joseph Heller's Catch-22 (Barron's Book Notes) is better, the movie quicker, Starring Alan Arkin and Martin Balsam.

Recommended for fans of Alan Arkin and Martin Balsam.

Gunner February, 2008

"Catch-22" is a beautifully designed, shot and executed movie that, in the end, doesn't really work. However, it's too elaborately staged and too ambitious to be considered a "bad" movie. And the extra features that accompany the DVD help the film transcend a "thumbs up/thumbs down" rating.

First and foremost, it looks amazing. I loved this film when I initially saw it on tape in 1990, but it was only recently that I was able to see it in a widescreen format -- letterboxing reveals what a brutal disservice pan-and-scan does to the compositions of "Catch's" 2.35:1 aspect ratio. If you've only seen this movie in fullscreen, you haven't really seen this movie.

The transfer is also incredible. I'm so used to seeing the grainy print of my VHS copy that I hadn't realized how great a lot of the cinematography is. The use of front-projection during the air-combat scenes is astonishing and the detail and color really surprised me.

But the main reason to get this DVD is the commentary. Director Mike Nichols is joined by Steven Soderbergh to talk about "Catch-22" and through their discussion, one really gets a sense of how Nichols (who had just directed back-to-back hits with "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf" and "The Graduate") took on this project with the best intentions and inspiration... and quickly got swallowed up by the massive project and even bigger budget. Soderbergh is, in my opinion, one of the best directors doing commentary these days (he gives a perfect mix of technical details and storytelling) and he really knows his "Catch-22" ---though I find it a little incredible that he never noticed the changing portraits in Major Major's office, as he claims while watching the scene.

This movie is a great mix of Fellini, Laugh-In, Welles and Salvador Dali. Some may feel there's not enough Joseph Heller here but it would take a mini-series to cover all the bases of such a deep, rich novel. At times, this movie can try your patience (like most Catch-22's often do) but it's definitely worth seeing and hearing in this new format.

Its a shame that Catch 22 (the book) was so critically aclaimed and popular. Not that I don't believe it deserves it, it is certainly one of my favorite works! However, had it been an unknown, hidden book, I think this movie would have gotten a great deal more credit.

This is without a doubt one of my favorite movies, and I can watch it over and over without feeling unsatisfied. Why so much backlash towards this film? Because it something it was not supposed to be. The book is excellent, the movie is excellent, but they are excellent in their own rights. They must be watched with great distance placed between each other, and to watch the movie and expect the book is a mistake. The casting and acting is excellent, the cinimentography is extraordinary, the transitions are brilliant, the plot is tight, the humour is high grade, the tone is masterfully manipulated throughtout, there is nothing bad I can pin on this movie. What is important to note is that the director is taking single concepts from the book and expanding on them. Thus, the movie is more focused than the book. This should make it neither inferior nor superior to the book, merely different.

And different it is. The shift from humour to dark drama is so seamless, it intensifies the emotional impact of the events that take place. The artistic maneuvering of time is disorienting at first, but you'll soon wonder why more movies aren't done this way. Some dialogue scenes are so well done, they pick up a life of their own and will play on in your head long after the movie is over.
Rent this movie, and if its your kind of thing, buy it. And then, watch it over and over again...

"Who is this man?"
"Major Danby!" "Danby. D - A - N - B - Y"
"Take him out and shoot him."
<Danby Faints>

- Seth

...be given filet mignon and feel it is a insult to his palet.

Another Batman movie is being made. Watch how many folks complain how wrong the filmakers got it and how it is crap because it doesn't fit their idea of the Batman mystique acquired from their readings, nay, studying of the comic books.

What does this have to do with the movie Catch 22?

There are too many critics here who didn't like this Mike Nichols rendition of Joseph Heller's war novel Catch 22. I say Frog Them and see for yourself what's up with this rendering (another view) of the war story. I however read the book and saw the movie and thought the movie to be just fine. No, better than fine. The movie captures the story and the mood of the novel superbly.

Yossarian (played by Alan Arkin) famously discovers that part of the enemies in war are not only the ones you bomb and shoot, but the ones who are said to be *on your side*... but have either 1) a jackbooted mentality towards military protocol or 2) so corrupted by taking advantage of the loopholes in the protocol that they are criminal....Yossarian tries to get a psychological deferment to not fly the bombers any more and try to get home...he wants the powers that be think he's nuts so he would not be further exposed to the inanity and insanity of war, but of course gets confronted with the 'damn if you do fly and damn if you don't fly' orders from the military protocolists...if Yossarian knows its flying in another mission which makes him nuts, he can't possibly be nuts, so he must fly in another mission...

Striking in the book as well as the movie are the scenes where: Yossarian discovers his gunner has been riddled with artillary fire, a soldier gets destroyed by the propellers of a low flying aircraft and all the soldiers various madnesses with the ladies of the red light district...as well as how the military supplier becomes as fascistic as the enemy.

It is a good movie that I feel didn't get it's due because it went against the grain of most war stories being told. It poked a little fun at the ridiculousness of war and of men in war...it has a 60's draft card burning, hippie protest feel about it. We expect the boys to be proudly willing to do their fighting for our country. But we really don't know how crazy going to war is unless we've gone fighting for our country. You should find this one and look at it...

Growing up in the '60s, I thought that Joseph Heller's Catch 22 was one of the great literary achievements of my lifetime -- and I still do.

When Mike Nichols' film version came out in 1970, I was disappointed. I'm not sure why I felt that way, except that it's impossible to capture the richness and the many layers of Heller's satyric masterpiece.

Just today, I [watched]the recently released DVD version of this film ...for the first time in 30 years. All I can say is, I was blown away. I can't imagine what my 20-year-old self was thinking in 1970 ... this is simply one of the greatest films I have ever seen.

Start with David Watkins' astonishing cinematgraphy ... it's reason enough to buy the DVD version. ...he does more dazzling things in the first 10 minutes than all the multimillion dollar special effects in .... There's one scene midway through the film, when Watkins shoots from in front of Yossarian's B-25 in flight -- with his entire squadron behind him -- that has to be seen to be believed.

Seeing it again, Buck Henry's script is a masterful adaption of Heller's Rabelasian masterpiece. I think he captures the essense of the novel and even makes a couple of useful additions. Seeing the way he uses the comic elements reminds me of Robert Heinlein's explanation of humor: "We laugh because it hurts to much to cry." (from Stranger in a Strange Land, the OTHER seminal book of my youth!)

Alan Arkin's Yossarian is superb -- The highest praise I can give is that it's hard to imagine anyone else playing the role. But the supporting performances are also uniformly excellent -- from Jon Voight to Martin Balsam to Bob Newhart to Jack Gilford to Bob Balaban to Martin Sheen to Art Garfunkel (in his first role). Special mention to Charles Grodin, especially in his final scene after mudering the young girl.

One other performance deserves special mention -- the final film appearance of the great Marcel Dalio. Although only on screen for a brief time as the old man in the Roman whorehouse, his performance is, I believe pivotal to the film. It's the moment where the light, almost farcial tone of the film turns into a dark, Fellinieque nightmare. Watch Dalio after he finishes his conversion with Garfunkel, while Arkin takes over the dialogue and the old man sits quietly in the foreground, saying nothing, but continuing his lecture to Garfinkel with his eyes.

There's so much more I could rave about ....

Pardon my enthusiam. I'm still too overwhelmed by my viewing of the DVD (with a very, very useful commentary by Michael Nichols and Steve Sodenbergh) to sort everything out.

But one of the DVD extras did help me understand just a little bit why the movie wasn't more successful -- it had to boast the worst theatrical trailer ever made.

....