Film a disappointment

I read the book a decade or more ago and I have forgotten most of it.

I always thought the movie was confusing, but now in retrospect I realize that this is because until now I had only viewed it on TV.

I have taken a vow, not to ever watch an important movie on TV again... The editor, in an attemp to shield us from all the sex and violence usually does to the film what was done to 'Hungry Joe.'

Afet watching on DVD, is is a very easy to understand - and love movie.

and they left out Major _______ de Coverley

I've got to agree with Kolo on this one. I absolutley love the book, which i consider to be one of the best books of the 20th Century. (Not that i'm claiming to have read everything written in the Century, so no smart-arses on to that one).

So, I found my self in a similar situation. I bought the DVD of the film, and was heartily dissapointed with it. I understand to some extent the essential constrictions in place when adapting a book for the screen (any decent length book would make a film about 20 hours long if filmed 'as-is'). But still, a heck of a lot of stuff was missed out and/or skimmed over in this film.

Whole characters and sub-plots never made the cut, and this level of interwoven relationships was, for me, a major part of the appeal of Joseph Heller's masterpiece. Also, i felt that the film largley failed to convey the books sense of the overriding futility, pointlessness and sheer stupidity involved in war. Sure, the words are spoken and the actions are made, but the FEELING just doesn't come across.

Some of the actors (i'm thinking specifically of the guy that played Doc Daneeka and Jon Voight) really struggled to deliver the dialog with anywhere approaching the skill it needed or deserved.

Just one man's opinion, but in my view, read the book. It's incomparably superior to the film.

McWatt didn't kill Hungry Joe! Huple's cat did, by sleeping on Hungry Joe's face every night. McWatt killed Kid Sampson, who was standing on the dock. Not to mention himself.

And poor Doc Daneeka.


(by the way, anybody else see the Deep Space Nine episode where several Catch 22 character's names are mentioned by Cmdr. Sisko as being characters in the show?)

hey people,

i havent read the book but the movie was absolutely superb, and it has inspired me to find the novel.

I just wanted to say that generally books are superior than their movie adaptations. I find it difficult to come up with an example where an adaptation has been better than a novel.

If you take Catch 22 as a stand alone movie, it has to be one of the best movies of the 70's, arkin is superb, and i also loved the dude who was making the mission announcements.

The book must be a killer

"Theres no fighting in the War room!!"

[deleted]

[deleted]

I think Yossarrian was different in the movie. He seemed a bit more manic than in the book. Of course that all comes from the fact we read his thoughts as much as we read what he's said where as in the movie we're stuck just being able to hear the spoken(or the occasional dream sequence).

Still like the film though, a good adaptation--better than MASH I think was(frankly I think I would have liked the movie MASH less if Altman hadn't directed).

BradLaGrange