MovieChat Forums > Catch-22 (1970) Discussion > Better than Strangelove

Better than Strangelove


This is a great movie if considered apart from the book.
I have not read the book, so I had no preconceived notions going in.
This is a great movie in its own right.
At the time of this writing, Dr. Strangelove is #13 on IMDb's top movies list.
If you consider that movie to be great, I don't know how you couldn't feel the same about Catch-22, because it has all the same great elements (dark satire about war, absurd intellectual comedy, beautiful cinematography, great acting from an incredible cast, great screenplay) plus a few extras (in color, more epic, snappier funnier dialogue). Unless you're just a big fan of actors playing multiple roles, in which case go rent Goldmember.
The only reason why I can imagine that this movie is not so highly rated is a natural, if unfair, comparison with the book, and the fact that Dr. Strangelove has about 20 times the number of votes, which means Catch-22 is sorely underviewed and underrated, in my opinion.

reply

[deleted]

kind hearts and coronets has alec guiness playing 8 (i think) different characters. classic

reply

i gave this 1 point less than strangelove, mainly for the strange acting and lack of character developement which lead to a few difficult moments in the first 30 minutes or so..but, i agree, catch is a little bit underrated whereas strangelove is a little bit more overrated.

reply

Like the movie very much, but not all parts. Too many characters seemed week or cowardly, John Voight's character was just plain annoying, army corruption too rampant. Others may feel the same. You want to criticize/satirize war or hawkish leaders, that's one thing. But the criticism of soldiers rubs people the wrong way.

It's amazing, Molly ... the love inside ... you take it with you ...

reply

[deleted]

For me, it's hard to review it independantly from the book. For starters, the only reason I watched it was because I enjoyed the book so much. In some ways it is unfair to compare the movie and the book, but in some ways it's perfectly fair (since one would never have existed without the other). If they'd done everything that was in the book, the movie would have been way too long, but on the other hand, the characters would have been much better developed (which was my main problem with the movie), and we could have seen the hilarious subplots about Doc Daneeka, the Chaplain, ex-PFC Wintergreen, Hungry Joe, Captain Black, and all the others I'm know I'm forgetting.

That's not to say that the movie doesn't have it's strong points, but most of those came built-in with the source material. I guess what I'm saying is that Catch-22 is handicapped in my mind by the fact that I know there's a much better, more thorough version of it that came first.

Then again, has there ever been a movie that's lived up to the book?

reply

tep24 - "one would never have existed without the other"

what? im not sure of the exact year the book was written in, bu surely it was before 1970? what do you mean?

reply

All I was saying is that the movie was based on the book.

reply

Tep, that is one of the most ignorant statements i've ever heard. Francis Ford Coppola made one of the most appalling versions of F. Scott Fitzgerald's "The Great Gatsby." Why was it bad? Because he made it word for word from the book. Books are written to be books and to make the story which exists in a book into a viewable movie some modifications have to be made.

Comparing a book to a movie is like comparing a song to a painting, they are two different art forms and shouldn't be compared. Besides i go to the theatre to see a move, not a book thats been filmed.

Imagine someone going to see The Passion and walking out saying "The book was better."

reply

(Sorry for the inverted commas)

I dont know why im writing this but here goes... I didn't want to get into a "debate" about how this compares to Strangelove because i dont think they need to be in competition. I maybe some boring guy who thinks about periferal issues too much but i hope im not the only "movie buff" that thinks about alot of s*** when i view a movie. Firstly, each movie had a very different historical context/milieu that shaped them (strangelove =cold war tension/paranoia, catch =vietnam),secondly i read the Heller novel first so maybe that has given me a different view of catch-22 than those who haven't. I know that it must be really hard to convert a complex novel into a film, especially when catch-22 was one of the most weird/insane books i've ever read, but that the whole point. I think both movies/novels are not just satirising war (by making it seem nightmarish, insane and controlled by forces beyond anyone's control) but really poking fun at the elements of human nature (or whatever you want to call it e.g suicidal/homocidal impulses) that allow these events to occur and then spiral ou of control. Catch-22 as a movie was good in some ways but i felt slightly unsatisfied by it, i thought it was dragging (not keeping the attention it should have) by the time Yossarian went to inform Nateley's "girl", then there seemed to be alot of visual symbols thrown on screen (e.g old woman breast-feeding, etc.) as some sort of substitute for i don't know what. Then the ending just ended... Ok maybe im not making much (if any) sense but this was my feelings. Whereas in Strangelove Kubrick wastes no screentime and infact puts in so many subtle themes and superb cinematography not to mention hilarious/chilling moments that the mind boggles. I was also a bit annoyed with the way Yossaian kept having flashbacks of when Snowden died which became drawn out and lost impact. But i'm being over-critical because Kubrick is one of my favourite directors. Anyway, they are both good and (i would say) under rated anti-war films that challenge any modern world leader to prove that the end justifies the means! It must be extremely difficult to try and turn a good novel into a screenplay, i had a differnent view of certain events when i read catch-22 to how they were portrayed in the film. Its a pity that so much has to be cut out and an (seemingly) artificial plot structure has to be imposed on such a great story. Im still over crtitical (its not like i could have adapted it better), but im glad i've seen both these thought-provoking movies!

reply

(Sorry for the inverted commas)

I dont know why im writing this but here goes... I didn't want to get into a "debate" about how this compares to Strangelove because i dont think they need to be in competition. I maybe some boring guy who thinks about peripheral issues too much but i hope im not the only "movie buff" that thinks about alot of s*** when i view a movie. Firstly, each movie had a very different historical context/milieu that shaped them (strangelove =cold war tension/paranoia, catch =vietnam),secondly i read the Heller novel first so maybe that has given me a different view of catch-22 than those who haven't. I know that it must be really hard to convert a complex novel into a film, especially when catch-22 was one of the most weird/insane books i've ever read, but that the whole point. I think both movies/novels are not just satirising war (by making it seem nightmarish, insane and controlled by forces beyond anyone's control) but really poking fun at the elements of human nature (or whatever you want to call it e.g suicidal/homocidal impulses) that allow these events to occur and then spiral out of control. Catch-22 as a movie was good in some ways but i felt slightly unsatisfied by it, i thought it was dragging (not keeping the attention it should have) by the time Yossarian went to inform Nateley's "girl", then there seemed to be alot of visual symbols thrown on screen (e.g old woman breast-feeding, etc.) as some sort of substitute for i don't know what. Then the ending just ended... in a way that felt hollow. Ok maybe im not making much (if any) sense but this was my feeling. Whereas in Strangelove Kubrick wastes no screentime and infact puts in so many subtle themes and superb cinematography not to mention hilarious/chilling moments that the mind boggles. I was a bit annoyed with the way Yossaian kept having flashbacks of when Snowden ("im the bombadier") died which became drawn out and lost impact. But i'm being over-critical because Kubrick is one of my favourite directors. Anyway, they are both good and (i would say) under rated anti-war films that challenge any modern world leader to prove that the end justifies the means! It must be extremely difficult to try and turn a good novel into a screenplay, i had a differnent view of certain events when i read catch-22 to how they were portrayed in the film (Yossarian seemed too cowardly, instead of being the only sane man in a insane situation). Its a pity that so much has to be cut out from the novel (e.g characters, events) and an (seemingly) artificial plot structure has to be imposed on such a great story. Im still being over crtitical (its not like i could have adapted it better), but im glad i've seen both these thought-provoking movies!

reply

vietnam?

reply

[deleted]

but it was set in italy. surely that cant be seen as a vietnam film?

reply

[deleted]

but surely if you look at it that way then it wasnt about vietnam or WWII? just about war in general? i see your point but i disagree

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

It wasn't a truthful statement that Heller made. That's why its listed as "fiction." Plus, its satire. Satire is used as a form of exaggeration to make a point. Read Jonathon Swift. He used stereotypes exaggerated to huge proportions to make his point. I mean, when Swift wrote "A Modest Proposal", he talked about eating babies as a cure for starvation in Ireland. Heller was commenting on humanity and the futility of war. While there is no doubt that WWII was just, you can't deny that there weren't painful after effects for everyone involved. War does that. It only has the power to destroy. Obviously just because of that, we can't stop fighting them. Heller was making a point through the usage of a commander who used the system to his own benefit. (In an exaggerated sense, yes). Also, the book was fiction. If it had been published as a truthful account, then you can accuse a libelous offense. However, as it was simply a novel commenting on war and its futility through the use of the "Catch-22" rule, it is not libel, it is simply smart.

And, I think that Dr. Strangelove was a better movie than this, but if Catch-22 were to be made again and find its full realization, it could be one of the great movies of all time.

reply


In 1943 the limit was 25 missions. It was raised 5 or six times in line with improving atrition rates. USA needed more crews in the war so changed the rules

Anyway it is foolish to compare a Narative Historian like ambrose with a Novelist like Heller.

Hellers book isn't not a frame for frame picture of the war but rather an expresson the madnes of conflict and ambition of it. With a nod to western capitalism

The message; Yossianain is the war hero but Milo wins the war.

sorry for the spelling errors

reply

a small fictious island off the Italian coast actually, sorry thats being really picky and pedantic, but you get what i mean about how it attacked (hawkish) Vietnam war attitudes because it was released at the height of the protest movement...

reply

thats the war that was tearing america apart (politically) in 1970, i meant context of the time not the movie, i didnt make it that clear i'd had a few beers when i wrote that.... i believe anti war movies of the time although about past wars (e.g M*A*S*H in korea) were really a reaction to vietnam...

reply

I just finished reading Catch-22 last night, and I loved it. I look forward to seeing this film, but regarding the fact that most book-to-film adaptions are inferior to the original project, my hopes won't be too high going in.

Torture you? That's a good... that's a good idea... I like that one.

reply

[deleted]

I would rather shove shards of broken glass into my eyes than watch this wretched, nonsensical film ever again. :(

reply