Review of Catch-22 (1970) by Allen B — 07 Mar 2010
Terrible. Surprisingly so, especially coming from the people who made the "The Graduate," among other films. Such a disappointment.
Poorly acted, edited, staged, written. Everything. The only things that were somewhat cool were the long, complicated takes, but even they didn't serve any real purpose other than to look good, and they really don't.
What's even more surprising is that the book this film is based on is one of the best ever written, and pretty film-able, or so I thought. But everything is just terrible.
Alan Arkin is awful as Yossarian; he barely shows any emotion, and all attempts at humor on his part are forced and unconvincing. Heck, he even laughs through half his scenes. What is this, an SNL skit? And so many awkward pauses, almost maddeningly so. The only good actor in this is Orson Welles, and he's only in it for two scenes. Lame. Jon Voight is also pretty good, but eh.
Just a bad, bad movie. I think the main problem with the whole film is its tone; it just takes itself way too seriously. Everything is too realistic, and the book isn't. It has moments of realism, but it mostly exists in a heightened world of hilarious insanity, which is why it's such a classic.
This movie doesn't even attempt the comical nature of the book, and that's it's most significant failure, though the terrible acting and directing are pretty grievous as well.
Just terrible. And boring. And the different ending than the book was ridiculous. What a waste. Avoid.
This review of Catch-22 (1970) was written by Allen B on 07 Mar 2010.
Catch-22 has generally received positive reviews.
Was this review helpful?
