Solemplex To me, this movie is perfection.

LouHomey From my favorite movies..

Mandeep Tyson The acting in this movie is really good.

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

TxMike After all these years I finally saw it, at home on DVD from my local library. It was fun just seeing all those first rate actors in their 20s and 30s when the film was made. Now those still alive are mainly in their 70s and 80s, many still acting.It is set in WW2, primarily in Italy. A group of ragtag aviators flying bombing runs. The story focuses on Alan Arkin as Capt. John Yossarian, bombardier. He is probably the most sane one there but he wants to survive, he wants to go home. At first it would be after 25 successful missions, then it got pushed to 50, then to 75. He was losing patience. It is mostly a madcap type of absurdist comedy. Most of it works, some of it doesn't for me. Still I am glad I took the time, it is such a classic.

SnoopyStyle Captain Yossarian (Alan Arkin) is a WWII bombardier desperate to quit the war by claiming to be crazy. However Dr. Daneeka explains that there is a catch-22. People who are willing to fly the risky life and death missions are crazy. He is bound to release crazy people as long as they make a request. However if they ask, then they don't want to fly and therefore by definition are not crazy. Colonel Cathcart (Martin Balsam) is the callous commander who keeps increasing the missions required to go home. Tappman (Anthony Perkins) is the incompetent Chaplain. Captain Major (Bob Newhart) is given the squadron command seeing that he's the only Major around except Major is just his name and not his rank. Dobbs (Martin Sheen) is the bomber pilot. Milo Minderbinder (Jon Voight) is using various items in convoluted trades with wide ranging places taking the silk parachutes from the planes.This is very similar in tone with MASH. This is much more surreal. They're both anti-war black comedies. They both came out around the same time and of course, Catch-22 got crushed by the better MASH. The story feels like a bunch of disjointed skits. Some of it is hilarious. Alan Arkin is especially funny in his mania. Some of it is less funny. I would like a more straight forward story concentrating on fewer characters or maybe only Yossarian. I'm not a fan of the various 'dream' sequences since they usually stalls the movie. Later, it devolves into a series of Kafkaesque dream scenes. Most of it doesn't really work but it does recover somewhat.

Chase_Witherspoon I read Joseph Heller's "Catch-22" at school of my own volition after watching the movie, and at the time, neither made sense. Having now seen the film subsequently, I appreciate it a lot more but you really need to pay attention such are the subtle scene interchanges, characters that fade in and out of shot mid dialogue and the underlying narrative can at times be hard work to follow. But if you can remain focused, you should be rewarded.It's intriguing watching Arkin battle the myriad of crack-pots with whom he comes into contact, all the stars of brass coming and going like revolving doors, each of them displaying a manic neuroticism that in turn makes Yossarian look decidedly stable. Perkins, Voight and Benjamin to me appeared all subtle variations of the same personality, whereas Grodin was the standout point of difference, displaying trademark ambivalence. Surprisingly expansive cast also includes Martin Balsam, Orson Welles, Art Garfunkel and Buck Henry. The ladies' roles (Mrs Benjamin - Paula Prentiss, and Collin Wilcox) are minor and little more than bit parts.There's a couple of scenes that will resonate, not least of all Yossarian's recurring vision in the cockpit of a stricken fighter, or the sight of the lusty (and starkers) nurse swimming toward him from the pontoon, but it's still an effort to absorb the copious two hours of dialogue. Perhaps more conducive to a few viewings over time to fully appreciate the layers. Made at the same time as "MASH" and "Suppose They Gave a Way and Nobody Came" which were of very similar ilk if you enjoyed "Catch-22".

Tim Kidner I could never really quite get into MASH and that baseball game is wasted on me. Mike Nicol's Catch 22, though, that's different. It's instant. Straight away it just clicks as being a film that is warped enough to be well outside anybody's box. I know that MASH is Vietnam and this an Italian airbase somewhere in the Med in WW2, but from here-on in, there are big similarities.Alan Arkin has never been better and though I haven't read the book and probably never will, you can tell straight away that he was born for the role. His only other performance that comes near was his Oscar winning one as grumpy old uncle in Little Miss Sunshine. As the US air-force captain hell-bent on proving his insanity, Capt Yossarian has to try and convince everybody, especially himself.The film is on so many delicious levels that it can be seen many times and a different stance or joke is revealed that you didn't see before. I'm on my third. Dreams, nightmares, psychosis, nudity, superb, adventurous cinematography AND Orson Welles, that's one helluva combination. The stunts are worthy of expensive 'proper' war films and it must have been a very brave film for Nicols to even contemplate making.There's one hell of a cast too, aside of Arkin and Welles - Anthony Perkins, Richard Benjamin, Art Garfunkel, Martin Balsam, Jon Voight and Martin Sheen - that's an invite list to the Oscars!My policy with such off the wall movies is not to try and understand them, unless it comes to me. Logic and reasoning can be an awful barrier to enjoyment, sometimes! For this reason alone, I'm not even going to try to explain the plot here.You'll want to watch Catch 22 for its WW2 satire, the imaginative direction, the well executed stunts and maybe above all these, the cast - and the humour that is so unreal, it's almost happening outside of one's mind and body.