Catch 22 lover

Yeah I agree to an extent, I don't think you can really convey 500 pages of a book into 2 hours of film, especially due to the volume and detail of the characters in the novel. However I do think the film is good on the whole as despite the story being a bit disjointed, the acting is excellent in my opinion and the film did give me a few good laughs. It is by no means as good as the book but I would say the film is a worthwhile watch.

p.s. It did annoy me that they showed Hungry Joe being cut in half when in fact it was Kid Sampson.

If you really have read the book thirteen times, shouldn't you know how to spell Scheisskopf, Chief White Halfoat, and Major ____ de Coverley's names?

I agree that the book is better than the movie (this is almost always the case and anyone who has read/seen both would surely agree), but this is far from the worst adaptation of all time. It seems like you're either personally insulted (for some reason), haven't seen more than maybe three or four book to film adaptations, or just trying to make people mad at you.

A rather harsh indictment of a film that is, at the very least, a cult classic. The movie is not the book but can certainly be enjoyed for what it is as opposed to what it is not. The Buck Henry screenplay does preserve the satirical bite of the novel and is genuinely funny at times in the fashion of black comedy. The anti-war theme and the insanity of war is faithfully maintained from the book. Although not critically acclaimed upon its release, the film has undoubtedly gained stature over time and is just as relevant today as when it was first screened during the Vietnam War. The production values of the picture would be impossible to duplicate today because of the sheer expense involved of so many stars, the set itself which was a total reproduction of an Army Air Force base complete with the building of a runway, as well as the planes being the real deal instead of computer generated imagery. The entire shoot was filmed on location in Guaymas, Mexico and Rome, with the exception of some interior scenes of Yossarian in the nose of the plane. I would suggest Miss Nae, that you screen this picture again with the realization that it does not attempt to be a literal translation of the book and enjoy, what to many, is a deliciously wicked as well as an honest and uncompromising to the point of discomfort, representation of early seventies film-making and an important contribution to the anti-war film genre.

If we expect any movie adaptation of a great novel to have to be as great as the novel, then we might as well avoid every trying to do it. Novels and movies are different things and use different means of evoking reactions in people. You have to cut most of a novel to make a screen play and to do that you have to adopt a unique pov to the movie, which accentuates some aspects and ignores others. Otherwise, you end up with a bloated monster which accomplishes nothing.

Buck Henry chose to emphasize certain things in his screen play. (In some cases, Heller was quite pleased at Henry's work and expressed his wish that he had come up with some of his additions). Mike Nichols made his own choices of how to tell the story as did the cinematographers and the actors and everyone else involved in the production. You end up with a unique work. It is senseless to complain that it isn't the novel. It CANNOT be the novel!

I agree that the movie of Catch-22 fails on some levels, but I've watched it with people who never read the book and they loved the movie. Many had then gone and read the book and loved it!