First of all, the greatness of the book itself would almost be impossible to replicate on screen; that said, I thought it was well done. The characters, individually, were excellent. It was well worth the watch and felt it was no waste of my time at all.
187 Reviews
Not as good as the book, but that's okay.
runningfasterthanu24 May 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Mild show and book spoilers ahead.
I read the book a few years ago and loved it, so when I saw this while browsing hulu I couldn't resist. I went in not expecting much, but was pleasantly surprised. Before I say more I want to make two things clear. First, this is one of maybe a handful of novels where I do not see a need for an adaptation to be faithful to the letter of the novel, just the spirit. Second, I dont believe that there could be a great adaptation of Catch-22. It would necessarily sacrifice the humor or the depth. This adaptation errors on the side of humor, which I respect.
Now that we have that out of the way, I think this did a pretty darn good job of adapting both letter and spirit. I dont remember the book super well (time for a reread), but many of the plot points I do remember were there (a notable exception is the man who was presumed dead while still wandering around the base insisting on his continued health). The plot points that were there were as funny and as horrifying as I remember. The ones that did not ring a bell were as ridiculous and irreverent as I would expect and did not disappoint. I was thankful also to see that the show was just as happy to show the horrific moments of death as the ridiculous moments of incompetence.
As for acting, the actors you'll recognizing are as excellent as you would expect, if a bit over the top. The ones you dont know did just as well, though I am not so sure of Yossarian. He was good for the most part, but felt a bit wooden at times. I am not entirely sure whether this was a good character choice or the actors limitation.
In short, if you are looking for a slice of the humor you love from the book, but dont expect perfection, then check out this excellent limited series.
Now that we have that out of the way, I think this did a pretty darn good job of adapting both letter and spirit. I dont remember the book super well (time for a reread), but many of the plot points I do remember were there (a notable exception is the man who was presumed dead while still wandering around the base insisting on his continued health). The plot points that were there were as funny and as horrifying as I remember. The ones that did not ring a bell were as ridiculous and irreverent as I would expect and did not disappoint. I was thankful also to see that the show was just as happy to show the horrific moments of death as the ridiculous moments of incompetence.
As for acting, the actors you'll recognizing are as excellent as you would expect, if a bit over the top. The ones you dont know did just as well, though I am not so sure of Yossarian. He was good for the most part, but felt a bit wooden at times. I am not entirely sure whether this was a good character choice or the actors limitation.
In short, if you are looking for a slice of the humor you love from the book, but dont expect perfection, then check out this excellent limited series.
An impossible task, done as well as possible.
geezerwinfrow211-511-29863729 May 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Catch-22 is one of the greatest books ever written. It is a dense book, with a huge ensemble of 3 dimensional characters who all have fascinating backgrounds and engage in fascinating subplots. The novel's nonlinear structure and detached 3rd person narrative make it notoriously difficult to capture in film. I've read a lot of disgruntled user reviews unhappy with what was left out, and I understand the grievances of those reviewers. I also understand the limitations of the medium of film to fully capture the complexities of a novel as perfect as Catch-22. It's ironic. The ever growing complexity of the philosophical concept of catch-22 is essential for understanding the ever growing complexity of the novel, but if the film version were to attempt to demonstrate the complexity of the concept of catch-22 it would be too complex to be effective in the format.
There's no good way to tell this story on film. This version attempts to tell the story in chronological order. It makes the material more accessible, but it buries the climax. We meet Mudd 10 minutes before he dies. We meet Snowden 10 minutes before he dies. We get a glimpse of what effect these deaths have on Yossarian in the opening of the first episode, but part of the novel's success is in the slow unraveling of these mysteries. Knowing why Yossarian is naked in a tree reduces the effectiveness of Yossarian being naked in a tree. A large part of the success of the novel is hinged on the disorienting structure of the novel. That disorientation is a key part of understanding the bureaucracy of war. Without it, the story falls somewhat flat. Getting the events in chronological order makes them seem somehow more absurd and unbelievable than they seem in the fragmented arrangement of the novel. The chronology changes the significance of certain events. I think that is why certain important events are left out of this adaptation. A lot of reviews seem to suggest that the writers and directors don't understand the novel. I think that's harsh and poorly thought out. I think they understand the limitations of the medium of film as a method of delivery for the story. Philosophy is hard to record.
The performances are great. I wasn't sure what to expect, having so many actors I didn't recognize in key roles. I wasn't disappointed by any of the performances. The cinematography is great as well, and being able to visualize the flight missions in such a fully realized way added greatly to the viewing experience of the series. The music was well chosen, and the score well crafted. Every technical aspect of the series was well done.
In summary, this series is not perfect. If you want a perfect telling of Catch-22, read it. But watch this series anyway.
There's no good way to tell this story on film. This version attempts to tell the story in chronological order. It makes the material more accessible, but it buries the climax. We meet Mudd 10 minutes before he dies. We meet Snowden 10 minutes before he dies. We get a glimpse of what effect these deaths have on Yossarian in the opening of the first episode, but part of the novel's success is in the slow unraveling of these mysteries. Knowing why Yossarian is naked in a tree reduces the effectiveness of Yossarian being naked in a tree. A large part of the success of the novel is hinged on the disorienting structure of the novel. That disorientation is a key part of understanding the bureaucracy of war. Without it, the story falls somewhat flat. Getting the events in chronological order makes them seem somehow more absurd and unbelievable than they seem in the fragmented arrangement of the novel. The chronology changes the significance of certain events. I think that is why certain important events are left out of this adaptation. A lot of reviews seem to suggest that the writers and directors don't understand the novel. I think that's harsh and poorly thought out. I think they understand the limitations of the medium of film as a method of delivery for the story. Philosophy is hard to record.
The performances are great. I wasn't sure what to expect, having so many actors I didn't recognize in key roles. I wasn't disappointed by any of the performances. The cinematography is great as well, and being able to visualize the flight missions in such a fully realized way added greatly to the viewing experience of the series. The music was well chosen, and the score well crafted. Every technical aspect of the series was well done.
In summary, this series is not perfect. If you want a perfect telling of Catch-22, read it. But watch this series anyway.
A Respectful Adaptation Of The Classic Anti-War Novel BY Heller
PCT197018 May 2019
This series captures the essence of Joseph Heller's anti-war novel which I've read many times. Mike Nichol's tried to do so in his 1970 film, but fell short because of, in this viewer's opinion, the limitation of two hours not being enough time to adapt the novel. I believe the novel is a brilliant commentary on the lunacy of war as Heller saw it, which was ahead of it's time. This dark dramedy does an exceptional job displaying the satire and insanity that is expressed in the novel. This series has excellent direction, settings, soundtrack, costume and acting. However the cinematography is outstanding as well as the writing of Michod and Davies. All of the actors deliver superlative performances. In particular Abbott, Laurie, Stewart and Pullman stand out. Clooney's limited time in the series as Lieutenant Scheisskopf is worth it. His dialogue delivery, facial expressions and gesticulations are absolutely priceless. The same goes for Chandler as Colonel Cathcart throughout the series. The plot is set during WWII in Italy and revolves around a squadron of bombardier pilots with the central character being Yossarian A.K.A. Yo-Yo. He is the one man that seems to understand how egregious his situation is and the war is in general, pun intended. With the Germans retreating, Yo-Yo figures out that by convalescence he can get out of completing his required flight missions which starts out at 19. This is where Catch-22, which was coined by Heller, comes into play. Catch-22 is a diabolical military rule which states that if a man declares he is insane to get out of duty, well then he must be a sane man because you'd have to be crazy to fly bombardier missions to begin with therefore you are sane and you can't be discharged from duty. Essentially for all you readers that are unfamiliar with the phrase, it is a situation that is impossible to get out of. To top this off the maniacal Cathcart keeps upping the number of missions needed to complete one's duty and it always happens when a man is just a few missions from completing his duty. The series has all of the main characters from the novel; Yo-Yo, Cathcart, de Coverley, Scheisskopf, Milo, Aardvark, Nurse Duckett, Major Major Major ( that's not a typo) and more. The series does a marvelous job examining certain characters such as de Coverley as he navigates the war in the background as sort of a neutral character who hides in plain sight, Mess Officer Milo as he escapes flying missions by becoming a war profiteer, Major Major Major Major as he gets by solely because of having a name that was given to him as a practical joke by his father and Nurse Duckett who is on Yo-Yo's side but sees right through him.. As the missions grow from 19 to 25 to 30 to 55 the stakes get higher for Yo-Yo as he continues to try to find ways to beat the bureaucracy such as flying 11 missions quickly and handing in paperwork all at once before the missions can be raised again. We see the men during down time tying to enjoy a normal life during the most sinister of times. The series scrutinizes what lengths men are pushed to during the stress of war time and what lengths they'll go to in order to rid themselves of the madness. There are so many memorable quotes and scenes in the series. If I had to choose a quote it is when Scheisskopf asks a stenographer to read me back what I just said and the stenographer replies, "Read me back what I just said". The look on Scheisskopf's face is uproarious. My favorite scene would have to be when Cathcart is berating the squadron on how they missed this huge target in Rome only to have one of the men point out that it is Vatican City. The series is crisp, insightful, captivating, cathartic, duplicitous, gritty, daft, certifiable and blazing. In this viewer's opinion the series does a pronounced job in adapting the novel and respectfully conveys Heller's message. Catch-22 is beguiling and superior in the dark dramedy genre.
Fantastic
debdshaw6017 May 2019
The entire cast of this series is amazing. It has all the drama and humor but not as slap stick as the movie. I've been glued to the TV since it was released. You will fall in love with these characters and the actors who portray them.
There is one very graphic sex scene in the beginning and many scenes of violence, as you would expect. Some gore but not excessive.
There is one very graphic sex scene in the beginning and many scenes of violence, as you would expect. Some gore but not excessive.
A Fascinating Examination of War!
henryshear6 January 2020
The show is very unique in its portrayal of war. I have not read the book, but the absurdity and stupidity of war is highlighted time and again. The US military appear to be absolute buffoons with little regard for troops. Military figures are played brilliantly by Kyle Chandler as Cathcart and George Clooney as Scheisskopf.
The stupidity of Cathcart and harshness of Scheisskopf directly affect the protagonist that comes in the form of John Yossarian. Cathcart does not know how to order his men without the repeated assistance of Colonel Korn played by Kevin J. O'Connor. By way of highlighting Scheisskopf's brutality and anger towards him, Yossarian sleeps with his wife. Both are instrumental to the plot of the show in powerful roles.
John Yossarian is played by Christopher Abbott very well. He is able to demonstrate Yossarian's desire to leave the war and go home. His performance is amazing especially as the series continues because he starts to lose a grip on his mental state. War leads Yossarian to lose his grip on reality due to his loss of friends.
War is not painted as evil or bad throughout the show however. War is also shown to be the very definition of capitalism in the character of Milo Minderbinder played by Daniel David Stewart. He uses the war to fly to European countries to expand his business relationships using American planes. Minderbinder considers Yossarian his best friend and that dynamic is one of the more interesting plot-lines.
Yossarian's dynamics with his friends, Dr. Daneeka, and Nurse Duckett are very interesting too. The show is full of nuance and is far better than marketing has shown. I definitely suggest this show. Not only is it entertaining, but it is full of deeper meaning. Please watch the show!!!
The stupidity of Cathcart and harshness of Scheisskopf directly affect the protagonist that comes in the form of John Yossarian. Cathcart does not know how to order his men without the repeated assistance of Colonel Korn played by Kevin J. O'Connor. By way of highlighting Scheisskopf's brutality and anger towards him, Yossarian sleeps with his wife. Both are instrumental to the plot of the show in powerful roles.
John Yossarian is played by Christopher Abbott very well. He is able to demonstrate Yossarian's desire to leave the war and go home. His performance is amazing especially as the series continues because he starts to lose a grip on his mental state. War leads Yossarian to lose his grip on reality due to his loss of friends.
War is not painted as evil or bad throughout the show however. War is also shown to be the very definition of capitalism in the character of Milo Minderbinder played by Daniel David Stewart. He uses the war to fly to European countries to expand his business relationships using American planes. Minderbinder considers Yossarian his best friend and that dynamic is one of the more interesting plot-lines.
Yossarian's dynamics with his friends, Dr. Daneeka, and Nurse Duckett are very interesting too. The show is full of nuance and is far better than marketing has shown. I definitely suggest this show. Not only is it entertaining, but it is full of deeper meaning. Please watch the show!!!
Better Than I Thought It Would Be
Hitchcoc18 May 2019
One of the greatest books ever written, certainly as an anti-war film. I had never heard of the guy who played Yossarian, but he was amazing. His face is so emotive and he captured the complexity of his character. Yossarian is not a hero; some call him a bit of a coward, but he represents something in all of us. He doesn't want to die because some bullying general who never flies a mission. He has done his duty but they keep adding more missions every time he approaches his discharge limit. For those of you who totally missed the point and were expecting a regular war movie, did you get what the title means?
Catch-22 fans unlikely to be fulfilled by this wasted opportunity...
PushMaryInTheStream19 May 2019
If you were apprehensive about how well this was going to turn out, you were justified.
The good: As an adaptation, it's not too bad. Scenery and props look authentic. A couple of the scenes (particularly combat in the bombers) are well realised and tense. It's MUCH better than Mike Nichols' abortive film attempt of 1970.
The less-good: This is definitely NOT Catch-22. This is 'Catch-22 Lite' - a much simpler version in easy-to-understand and easy-to-digest morsels. Nothing too bitter, sharp, complicated or controversial here. Key satirical targets of the book (incompetence - of government administration, security forces, army commanders - the blindness of capitalism, gung-ho patriotism, systemic racism, etc.) are either watered down or omitted. Several key characters are conflated, so they lose their individual characteristics and become bland stereotypes. Other important characters are simply missing. So many story strands are left out that if this was a sock someone would be constantly darning it. The key storyline of Yossarian's significant journey is weakened in places by the lack of those supporting strands.
The book is a blazing and merciless satire filled with devices to make the reader empathise with the emotional and psychological trauma Yossarian is going through (temporal displacement; juxtaposed but dissimilar scenes linked by common dialogue; frighteningly indifferent rules, regulations, administrators; people in positions of corrupting power whose main concern is their own welfare; Kafka-esque terror at the surrender of personal control to unseen powers). This series jettisons most of that and replaces it with a simple chronological story using some of Heller's material where it suits and making up new things where it doesn't (witness the weak but perhaps more socially acceptable revised ending. Ouch!)
Casting, directing and screenplay opt for some poor choices here which don't help. Clooney is too old to play Scheisskopf. Laurie could never be the intimidating Major __ de Coverley. Cathcart, Korn, Aarfy, Major Major, McWatt, Nately, Orr and several others neither look nor act like their literary counterparts, weakening the story still further and making them into filler parts.
Summary: Catch-22 will always be a major challenge to film, its scope making it all but impossible to realise in a 90-minute movie. However, this is nearly 4.5 hours of TV which dragged in places because the pace was too slow and the story too tightly focused and limiting. In serial form like this it should be much easier to realise something similar in scope, message and power to Heller's extraordinary book. As such, it's rather a wasted opportunity.
The good: As an adaptation, it's not too bad. Scenery and props look authentic. A couple of the scenes (particularly combat in the bombers) are well realised and tense. It's MUCH better than Mike Nichols' abortive film attempt of 1970.
The less-good: This is definitely NOT Catch-22. This is 'Catch-22 Lite' - a much simpler version in easy-to-understand and easy-to-digest morsels. Nothing too bitter, sharp, complicated or controversial here. Key satirical targets of the book (incompetence - of government administration, security forces, army commanders - the blindness of capitalism, gung-ho patriotism, systemic racism, etc.) are either watered down or omitted. Several key characters are conflated, so they lose their individual characteristics and become bland stereotypes. Other important characters are simply missing. So many story strands are left out that if this was a sock someone would be constantly darning it. The key storyline of Yossarian's significant journey is weakened in places by the lack of those supporting strands.
The book is a blazing and merciless satire filled with devices to make the reader empathise with the emotional and psychological trauma Yossarian is going through (temporal displacement; juxtaposed but dissimilar scenes linked by common dialogue; frighteningly indifferent rules, regulations, administrators; people in positions of corrupting power whose main concern is their own welfare; Kafka-esque terror at the surrender of personal control to unseen powers). This series jettisons most of that and replaces it with a simple chronological story using some of Heller's material where it suits and making up new things where it doesn't (witness the weak but perhaps more socially acceptable revised ending. Ouch!)
Casting, directing and screenplay opt for some poor choices here which don't help. Clooney is too old to play Scheisskopf. Laurie could never be the intimidating Major __ de Coverley. Cathcart, Korn, Aarfy, Major Major, McWatt, Nately, Orr and several others neither look nor act like their literary counterparts, weakening the story still further and making them into filler parts.
Summary: Catch-22 will always be a major challenge to film, its scope making it all but impossible to realise in a 90-minute movie. However, this is nearly 4.5 hours of TV which dragged in places because the pace was too slow and the story too tightly focused and limiting. In serial form like this it should be much easier to realise something similar in scope, message and power to Heller's extraordinary book. As such, it's rather a wasted opportunity.
Wonderful rendering of the classic satirical novel
sharonkrusso17 May 2019
This is a very enjoyable watch, especially if you read the book and saw the movie way back when they were "a thing." The acting is superb and the battle scenes are realistic but not too graphically violent. I appreciate a director and writer who do not feel they must gross us out at every turn. It has a nice subtlety and that was lacking in the original movie. It's a bit drawn out at points and some of the "mood" scenes could definitely be shortened and I think this would enhance the overall series, perhaps reducing it to 5 episodes instead of 6. I found the sex gratuitous and initially turned me off from watching the rest of it all. Why or why do writers/directors feel they MUST add a woman's nude body to each and every series and film?
Well, no. It's way different from the book.
Maleplatypus19 May 2019
I know that the movie adaptation of a book is hard to perform - seldom succeeds - and this one proves it. Most of the actual humor (dark, subtle, dry, crazy) and the subtle message from the book comes from the extremely clever narrative and situations and dialogues arising from them, not the other way around. This series depicts only the circumstances (and even that in general), taking (randomly?) the pieces from the book and trying to connect them using... I don't know what (so called "fillers"?) but it's not functioning. It is simply not coherent. The novel Catch 22 itself is "sacred" and crazy as it gets (as well as every character in it). Extremely funny also (as much as war can be, that is). Read it several times, once a year at least (never gets "out of fashion" or becomes "obsolete" ). However, the cinematography and casting are excellent. Choice of locations also. But I think Mr. Heller did not have a movie/series in mind writing it (quite the opposite of MASH). Let me make a comparison: the original Blade Runner has almost nothing to do with the novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep (which is all about artificial vs. natural life). P.K. Dick also did not write the script for a future movie. However, both are masterpieces in their own category. Lord of the Rings suffers from almost the same problem. In all mentioned cases literary templates are simply not suitable for anything but reader's "visualization". In that sense Catch 22 series is a miss, but one has to appreciate the guts for attempting. Just read the book, and you'll remember it the rest of your life (and come back to it). Watch this series and you'll soon forget it. 6 stars for bravery (although futile).
A Decent Adaptation
Rachelleduc8518 May 2019
This is my favorite book. I watched the movie ages ago and hated it. This miniseries makes up for it.
The casting is amazing. I always envisioned Yossarian as young and attractive and this actor does him justice. The first few episodes had me rolling with laughter. Much like the book, as the story goes on, it gets darker.
I didn't like how the ending is completely different than the book. I wish they could have added a little more of the zany humor and I wish it would have been a few episodes longer.
Also if I had been writing, I would have added more foreshadowing of Orr and his flying crashes and how he was always trying to coerce Yossarian to fly with him.
Yoyo's A-HA moment was very anticlimactic. Other than that. It was pretty good. I binged them all on one day. When I watched I was watching for similarities to the book. I will probably watch again with fresher eyes as a series instead of an adaptation.
Too short. Hit and miss.
matthanallaway9 January 2020
Pros: Cathcart and Korn. Nately and his "woman" (mostly), Scheisskopf's parade obsession. Nurse Duckett's bigger part. Orr's subtlety. Excellent depiction of Major Major.
Cons: The brief flyover of Clevinger's trial. Too much time spent on Milo (well depicted, just took up too much space). Where was Hungry Joe? Where were Appleby and Havermeyer? Did Dunbar have any lines? Where's the maid in the lime green panties? Ex-PFC Wintergreen? Arfy's infuriating interactions with Yossarian? Every mission has the exact same amount of flak.
Mostly I just like that this was made, because I love the book. Could have been better.
Cons: The brief flyover of Clevinger's trial. Too much time spent on Milo (well depicted, just took up too much space). Where was Hungry Joe? Where were Appleby and Havermeyer? Did Dunbar have any lines? Where's the maid in the lime green panties? Ex-PFC Wintergreen? Arfy's infuriating interactions with Yossarian? Every mission has the exact same amount of flak.
Mostly I just like that this was made, because I love the book. Could have been better.
As a fan of the book, quite disappointing
timb-4800930 July 2019
Positive points, scenery and action shots look authentic, although the sun bleached effect is a bit overwhelming. Acting by the cast is enjoyable and suitable to the situations.
Negatives, I understand the need to unravel the timeline, but whole sections (and characters) of the book are ignored. I personally felt that the entire Eternal City/Yossarian goes AWOL episode was a waste. Also not going to forgive how Snowden only gets mentioned in the last episode.
Prefer the original movie, and the book is still one of my all time favourites.
Only one complaint.
Samthesham677 July 2019
I really enjoyed this series, the mix of comedy and drama made for a great viewing experience. The special effects were very good for a TV series, but as I have mentioned, there is one complaint about this brilliant series, and that is the sound. The volume for dialogue was ok, but whenever music was played over the top, the sound engineer seemed to think that the gain slider needs to be pushed up to MAX! I had to raise the volume for dialogue and quickly lower it when music played, really annoying. At first I thought it was my sound bar, but every other programme/film is fine. Very annoying!
As faithful an adaptation one could hope for.
dylaneichmann18 May 2019
Making a direct adaptation of any novel is next to impossible, and even more so with Catch-22. That being said, as someone who loves the book and has read it multiple times, I'm incredibly pleased with this series. George Clooneys direction has a very coen brothers feel, and I think goes well with the overall tone of the book, and makes for a great show.
A must watch!
shanecstuart18 May 2019
B-25 Mayhem
stephen-law682 August 2022
Having loved the book for many years and it's follow up Closing Time, and having seen an excellent production on stage, this did not disappoint. No it's not an archetypal war film and Heller designed the first chapters to disorient the reader but it's hits the point of the madness of war when capitalism continues unabated. Big congratulations to the casting team...spot on!!
What happened to the ending?
michaelarmer25 November 2019
This was a nice mini-series, not as good as the film and nowhere near as good as the book, but it was well made and well acted.
However, and it is a big however, they should have made it more sarcastic and humorous, if they intended to make a more serious version, it worked, but not in a good way. But the main fault was the ending, I was thinking when the 6th episode ended that there must be a second series coming, but as they had covered 80% of the story in the 6 episodes, I wondered how they were going to make another series of the 20% story remaining, I know they did not stick faithfully to the book, but that was not the ending! But it turns out THAT WAS the ending!!!, so that made it a big let down, the producers really need to get it back in the studio and finish it, perhaps with a special long episode, if not it has failed.
I gave it a 6 out of 10 for the acting and photography, it was visually beautiful.
However, and it is a big however, they should have made it more sarcastic and humorous, if they intended to make a more serious version, it worked, but not in a good way. But the main fault was the ending, I was thinking when the 6th episode ended that there must be a second series coming, but as they had covered 80% of the story in the 6 episodes, I wondered how they were going to make another series of the 20% story remaining, I know they did not stick faithfully to the book, but that was not the ending! But it turns out THAT WAS the ending!!!, so that made it a big let down, the producers really need to get it back in the studio and finish it, perhaps with a special long episode, if not it has failed.
I gave it a 6 out of 10 for the acting and photography, it was visually beautiful.
Good adaptation of a difficult book
soelir26 April 2023
I read Catch-22 a few years back. Not because I had to for school (it wasn't in our curriculum) but because I came across it in a charity shop and thought it looked good.
It was one of the most challenging books I've ever read, what with all the detail, the numerous characters and sub-plots. I'm not even sure I remember exactly what happened. I just remember it being a story about the futility and incompetence of war. And that it would be extremely difficult to translate to the screen.
I think this was a good adaptation. Granted, there's a lot missing, but the overall humour of the book is retained. It doesn't shy away from showing the brutality and it definitely left me with the feeling of futility and anger at the pointlessness of war.
It was one of the most challenging books I've ever read, what with all the detail, the numerous characters and sub-plots. I'm not even sure I remember exactly what happened. I just remember it being a story about the futility and incompetence of war. And that it would be extremely difficult to translate to the screen.
I think this was a good adaptation. Granted, there's a lot missing, but the overall humour of the book is retained. It doesn't shy away from showing the brutality and it definitely left me with the feeling of futility and anger at the pointlessness of war.
Competent, but adds nothing...
amazon-621-90222826 May 2019
The Mike Nichols 1970 adaptation is a masterpiece in virtually every way. Amazing cinematography, innovative de-constructed screenplay, absolutely perfect casting, and most importantly genuinely conveys the dark insanity of the war as Heller's novel portrays, the absurdity of the military, and the banality of evil. Spectacular in every respect.
Despite being 6 hours rather than 2, this really adds nothing, while falling short of the original film's concise storytelling. It's very pedestrian and TV movie in its approach looks more like an Abercrombie & Fitch commercial than a serious film. Interchangeable pretty boys that fail to differentiate themselves as characters.
It's competent and very watchable, but to me it falls well short of the film to an almost embarrassing degree. Not quite as bad a comparison as the TV version of "The Shining" to the Kubrick film, but damn close...
Despite being 6 hours rather than 2, this really adds nothing, while falling short of the original film's concise storytelling. It's very pedestrian and TV movie in its approach looks more like an Abercrombie & Fitch commercial than a serious film. Interchangeable pretty boys that fail to differentiate themselves as characters.
It's competent and very watchable, but to me it falls well short of the film to an almost embarrassing degree. Not quite as bad a comparison as the TV version of "The Shining" to the Kubrick film, but damn close...
good adaptation
SnoopyStyle18 June 2019
John "Yo-Yo" Yossarian (Christopher Abbott) joined bomber command to prolong his training and hoping to avoid a short war. He has to survive training under Scheisskopf (George Clooney) and later flying under the command of Colonel Cathcart (Kyle Chandler) who continuously raises the mission count needed to be sent home. He's a great bombardier but he can't deal with the illogical craziness of his own side. He is desperate to get out. Doc explains to him that if he asks to leave due to mental issues, he would show survival instincts and thereby proving that he's not crazy. That's the catch-22. Other characters include the wheeling and dealing Milo, the caring nurse Duckett, and Major Major who gets promoted to Major through incompetence like so many other characters.
Yo-Yo annoyed me at first. He whines so much although he's not without his points. It is very Fubar. It would be more appealing to have start him as an innocent and have the war turn him into a cynic. After awhile, I get the point of his character and the craziness does get to be fun. Milo is weirdly endearing and even Chandler is not an evil villain. The evil villain is the situation and the world. It's a screwed up world and everybody has a slice of it. Everybody deals with it in their own ways and Yo-Yo insists on fighting it. This Hulu miniseries is a good adaptation of the anti-war classic.
Yo-Yo annoyed me at first. He whines so much although he's not without his points. It is very Fubar. It would be more appealing to have start him as an innocent and have the war turn him into a cynic. After awhile, I get the point of his character and the craziness does get to be fun. Milo is weirdly endearing and even Chandler is not an evil villain. The evil villain is the situation and the world. It's a screwed up world and everybody has a slice of it. Everybody deals with it in their own ways and Yo-Yo insists on fighting it. This Hulu miniseries is a good adaptation of the anti-war classic.
Horrendously bad.
imdb-5972 July 2019
Having just read the wonderful book, I slogged through the first five episodes in hopes that something good would appear on the screen, only to finally quit partway through the final episode. That's how bad this is - learn from my mistake and don't waste your time.
Book>movie>this
marija-balac22 May 2019
Dumbed Way Down
perfect90918 May 2019
This is not Catch 22. It is a dumbed down story for those who need to be spoon fed. It takes a little from the book, passes it through a MASH filter and leaves it limp and bland. Do yourself a favor: read the book instead.
An antiwar satiric masterpiece
sdiama8 December 2019
I don't judge the adaptation. I judge a complete series. And as a series is great.
An antiwar satiric masterpiece. A hymn for the stupidity of the high ranked officers of the armies all over the world, that under the cover of "serving the country" they just serve their personal ego. A hymn for the unfortunate soldiers that have to follow blindly the "commands" of the brainless orangutans, given only to satisfy the higher-ranked orangutans.
An antiwar satiric masterpiece. A hymn for the stupidity of the high ranked officers of the armies all over the world, that under the cover of "serving the country" they just serve their personal ego. A hymn for the unfortunate soldiers that have to follow blindly the "commands" of the brainless orangutans, given only to satisfy the higher-ranked orangutans.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews