MovieChat Forums > Catch-22 (1970) Discussion > Film a disappointment

Film a disappointment

posted 21 years ago by koloxxviii
61 replies | jump to latest

Having just re-read the book (one of my fav's) I was pleased to see a film version scheduled on TV the other day, to cut a long story short I missed it and felt obliged to buy the DVD. I now consider myself lucky that it was in a sale. Bad acting/screenplay stripped the story of it's frenetic comedy which in the novel is borderline madness/comedy and they completely butchered the actual events in the book. I can safely say it's one of the worst book conversion films i've ever seen.

(Still nowhere near as much of an abomination as Alex Garlands 'The Beach' with Leonardio di CRAPio)

My advice is take a couple of days to read the book and do the story some justice.

Peace Out

[–] acey-1 18 years ago

I watched the movie, read the book (which i found just as confusing as the movie) and watched the movie again.

I must say for a book as confusing as catch-22 (though entertaining and strangely hard to put down), they did a fantastic job of converting it to a movie. Remember, movie and film are 2 very different mediums, with very few books making successful movies. We all have in our imaginations what each of these characters and sets should look like and the movie never stacks up.

Well done on Mike Nichols for attempting to make this film, and to Buck Henry for writing a great script. From what i read somewhere, Joseph Heller made a comment that he never expected anyone to be able to make a movie of this book.

[–] bciocco 18 years ago

I am listening to the book on CD. It is very entertaining. I will be watching the DVD later in the week, as it is on hold at the local library.
I don't expect the film to be the same as the book. How could one relate the Washington Irving (or Irving Washington or John Milton for that matter) signings of Yousarian and Major Major in film? There aere too many thoughts to relate into actions. I trust it will be entertaining nonetheless.

[–] ATK-2 18 years ago

I read Catch-22 several times and appreciate the differences between the 1970 film and the novel. I like the film nonetheless. It's still entertaining and though more subtle in it's many messages, it's still effective and profound. As far as I have been able to acertain over my *cough* 30+ years, there's seldom a substitute for viewing a film version in lieu of reading the story it's based on. I can easily imagine how hard it is to take written work and make it into a viable film. Look how many DVDs have cut/lost/unfilmed scenes which the Director wanted in but, had to leave out.

That hump between translating a complex storyline from literature and onto film has always been a hard one. I recently got around to reading Jack Kerouac's "On The Road". While some attempts have been made to put it on film, it would be extremely difficult to film and successfully maintain the juice of the novel. At least in the usual time constraints of a feature film. I think, to fully move a work like Catch-22 - or On The Road - to the screen and sucessfully include all of the characters, interwoven stories and events, it would have to become a mini-series or something. Something which would add-up to hours of film, broken into smaller bites for each sitting. You can't easily squeeze all of the best novels into a 90-120 minute film without a lot of sacrifices. Now with widescreen HDTV, there's no reason not to consider proper filming of Catch-22 and On The Road for the home audience directly. Not because nobody will produce a proper theatrical release, but because each film would have to be so long, it would need to be viewed in installments if you don't want to leave anything out.

If Catch-22 (1970) had included all the characters from the novel and had been as out of sequential/linear order as the vignette-style chapters of the novel had been, it would have been greatly confusing for the audience not already familiar with the novel. Speaking of which....we can only wait and see how they treat Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" which is still having the screenplay worked out but has Angelina Jolie slated to star.

If there is an After-Life, it sounds like The Residents.

[–] hslaw2222 17 years ago

come on Kolox...the book and the movie have absolutely nothing to do with each other. A famous man once said "The medium is the message." What did you expect? I say great movie, great book. How would you translate a five hundred page, best of the century anti-war epic into a two hour film? Don't you get it? They're not dependent on each other- not for form, not for style, not for content. nada nada depuis nada. Read some more books, watch some more movies , but don't ask them to be responsible to each other. Should I expect the newspaper to talk to me like the radio does?

[–] CoSMiGoNoN 11 years ago

Haven't read the book, I don't think I will after watching this movie. Found it incredibly boring, not funny at all, and the humor was just plain dumb.

[–] Sandoz 10 years ago

Countless Surrealists and Absurdists have struggled, suffered, and died just so you can retain your ignorance.

"You may think that...I couldn't possibly comment."

[–] ebonyflight 9 years ago

I agree with the original poster in that the film was a disappointment. I have recently read the book and looked forward to the film, however I found it to be more like an amateur play than a major film. The book is a classic in its own right; always on lists of novels you must read, but this film is not a classic.

If I had not have read the book beforehand I would have been confused with the storyline and a bit bored. I appreciate it may not have been easy to transfer story to screen, but so much of it was missed out, including some characters that it felt rushed and patchy, it didn't do the book justice it should have.

This is one film I wouldn't mind seeing a remake of as I don't think they could make it any worse.