Catch-22

[Shaky]

Anyone watching this, then? I know it's not on in the UK for a while yet but it's available in many of the usual online areas following the US premiere. No spoilers, and I've only watched the first episode at the moment but... it was OK, I guess. Main issue is that the humour and delivery of the lines is very flat in places and I'm not sold on the washed-out digital look or the direction so far. Some of the cast are spot-on while others are pretty distracting (Clooney and Laurie). Christopher Abbott is a very decent fit for Yossarian and quite reminiscent of Alan Arkin at times.

A mere six episodes so will stick with it as a big fan of the book, mind.

[timebug]

I have seen episode one, and as a big fan of the book (like you!) it sort of failed to grab me,so far! There was something too sort of reverential about it, like 'we are making a serious attempt to show you that this is an IMPORTANT book...' . For all its faults the
1970 Alan Arkin film did have a better feel for the material (I.M.O.) Will tackle episode two and decide whether or not to persevere to the end!

[Shaky]

Yeah, for all it's faults the movie does manage a very good approximation of the book's unique stream of humour from the off. This first episode is more reluctant to go down that path but maybe that'll work in it's favour, going forward. It's a bit disappointing (so far) that the muted performances and directing don't make the brilliant lines sing like they should. No matter how grim Yossarian's situation is, the book is fast-paced and pretty zany and those are elements any adaptation needs.

[timebug]

Have now watched three episodes, and (IMO) it has not improved. It seems so slow and ponderous, compared to the book which zips along at a decent pace. And some of the cast really do seem to be 'milking it' for drama, as in 'wow! look how serious war is!' I will persevere and watch the remaining three episodes,having got this far, but it fails to achieve what I expected from it.

[sevendaughters]

Really disappointed to read this. Catch-22 is a favourite of mine but I feel it should be acted like you're on a mixture of crack and downers, like a real manic energy and then a fog of complete despair. I read the 'I see everything twice' scene like the War Room in Strangelove, this overwhelming accretion of absurdity. So slowness and worthiness sounds wrong. I am going to give it a chance and imagined O Brother-era Clooney nailing Yossarian. I think the film in the 70s is very good, actually, and Arkin does a super job.

[Ambient Sheep]

Oh this is a shame as, unlike Good Omens, the trailer made it look really good and my series link for next Thursday is already set.

I really didn't get on with the film at all; many years since I saw it, mind.  For a start, too much of the casting annoyed me, compared to the trailer for this one where everybody seems to be spot on and recognisable simply from looks alone.  Interesting though that -- unless I blinked and missed them -- they kept the aforementioned Laurie & Clooney out of it... I agree they'd both be jarring and Laurie especially so.

Ah well, we shall see what I think next week...

^{_{...well probably several weeks later knowing me.}}

[gilbertharding]

This is probably heresy, but I found the book... well, I thought it was great and all, the idea behind it - but I gave up reading it three quarters of the way through. I just thought 'well, I get the idea...'.

(Same thing when I tried Tristram Shandy and Don Quixote... only with those it took me much less time to 'get the idea'. Of course, I'm not stupid enough to really imagine I actually got the idea in any of these examples).

But I was looking forward to the George Clooney version.

[Shaky]

I gave up on this somewhere during the third episode which says it all, really. Not "bad" by any stretch but pretty flat and lifeless so far. Will finish the series off eventually, though, and to be fair it took a couple of abortive attempts before the glorious book finally clicked.

[Ambient Sheep]

Heh yes.  On first reading it at a rather young age, not really being au fait with the concept of non-linear storytelling, I felt a bit like the bloke in the hospital:

"I've read everything thrice!"


^{_{And I'm really annoyed because I meant to crowbar into the end of my previous post "Oh well, what the hell..." but then promptly forgot to do so by the time I typed it.}}

[Shaky]

Heh yes.  On first reading it at a rather young age, not really being au fait with the concept of non-linear storytelling, I felt a bit like the bloke in the hospital:

"I've read everything thrice!"


^{_{And I'm really annoyed because I meant to crowbar into the end of my previous post "Oh well, what the hell..." but then promptly forgot to do so by the time I typed it.}}

Yeah, I know what you mean. I liked a lot of odd, off-kilter comedy as a young 'un but Catch is such a unique piece of work perhaps there's no real training for it.

[timebug]

Finally watched the remainder over the last couple of days; Advice to anyone who loves the book,and is thinking of watching it:
DON'T! .Totally lifeless and flat (IMO) and it wanders away from the book in a few places ala Peter Jackson (I have a great idea! Never mind the book, this will work really well.....!) The casting was okay, but if only they had kept (more or less) to the book, and kept in most of the insane comic dialogue it woukld have been the hit series they were obviously hoping for!
An opportunity missed, sometimes by a mile....

[mothman]

You've turned me off this now.

[timebug]

Yeah, I had a conversation with a mate who watched it too; the book is his absolute fave and he (like me) reckons they pretty much killed it. Anyone watching this pile of shite with the intention of reading the book later, will run screaming at the very thought of doing so. If you have never read the book,(and it IS a devisive one), then please do so, before attempting this series.
Then, if you liked the book, the original 1970 film with Alan Arkin is just about acceptable as a 'rough guide' to the story!
Otherwise, just my two pennorth, but avoid this like the plague.

[Vitalstatistix]

I seem to be in a minority of one, but I thought this was absolutely superb. I urge people put off by the negativity above to give it a go and make your own minds up.

Okay, so the not so superb first. It is very, veerry different to the novel, as you might expect. It's rarely laugh out loud funny, in fact it's rarely funny at all, and the music is a wee bit shmaltzy at times. It's also narratively linear (personally I've no problem with this decision). I'd describe the overall mood as sombre. I love the book but I have no problem taking this as a thing in its own right.

And judging it by its own merits, well what a huge success. It's a beautifully shot, well considered, engrossing and wonderfully performed miniseries. The performances are all spot on, especially Kyle Chandler as Cathcart, and Abbott nails Yossarian's mixture of pained torture and wry deadpan in a way I actually think Arkin did too in '70. Clooney and Laurie are both a joy in their brief moments on screen.

The scenes where we're up in the plane with Yossarian really capture the terror and precariousness of the situation so brilliantly. Most war films dull my senses, but these astonishing scenes I found almost unbearably anxiety-inducing.

Easily the best war film/TV thing since Generation Kill, with which it shares a lot of similarities, most notably a bewildered frustration with the psychotic ineptitude of the war machine's bureaucracy.  Great stuff.

[phantom_power]

Starts on Channel 4 tonight

[olliebean]

I've never felt the urge to read the book and couldn't be arsed to download the TV version, as the setting really doesn't interest me. But I thought I might as well give it a try on Channel 4, since it's supposedly a classic comic novel.

20 minutes in, I was bored as hell and bailed. My housemate (who was also bored as hell) then read me the first page of the book and I learned more about Yossarian in that one minute than I did in those first 20 minutes of the TV thing.

Might give the book a go, but the telly version was doing absolutely nothing for me.

[Shit Good Nose]

Was there that much hair product available to American soldiers in dubbya dubbya two?


I thought it was okay.  Only the first episode, so lots of time left to flesh everything out a bit more.

Full disclosure - I love the book, but am also a MEGA fan of the film.  This series doesn't touch either (so far at least), but taken as another alternative adaptation of the book (as above the humour is more subtle and it's generally a lot more dramatic).

A big plus for me is that shaky-cam (one of my main bugbears of modern visual entertainment) is kept to an absolute minimum, which makes it unusually refreshing.

I'll stick with it.

[Bad Ambassador]

For a comedy it wasn't remotely funny. It was trying too hard to be Band of Brothers or Saving Private Ryan, with the swells of emotional music. It's like the writers of Lion and The Rover don't have any understanding of comedy or lightness of touch.

The characters were all too indistinguishable and looked alike, right out of central casting. At least with the film they made an effort to have a selection of odd-looking character actors and Martin Balsam taking a dump.

[gilbertharding]

For a comedy it wasn't remotely funny. It was trying too hard to be Band of Brothers or Saving Private Ryan, with the swells of emotional music. It's like the writers of Lion and The Rover don't have any understanding of comedy or lightness of touch.

I guess it's supposed to be funny... but it's not Fawlty Towers. It's not even Yes Minister. It's more... I dunno... A Comedy of Errors. Perhaps they should have left it for the Cohen Brothers.

Perhaps I'll try to re-read the book after all this is over.

[Bad Ambassador]

The book and film have a dry absurdity that's very funny. The series (or at least its first episode) don't seem to understand this at all. It's either too much (Clooney waving his arms around) or not there at all (the gunner blasted onto a neighbouring plane, which should be darkly funny but is played as the greatest tragedy since the Tay Bridge).

[Shaky]

The book is hilarious and has a lot of insane, wacky goings-on as well as pitch black humour. Ejecting those elements (intentionally?) is a big problem. The series feels more like a worthy 00's US WW2 drama.

[phantom_power]

The book is amazing. It has a reputation for being hard to read but I am an idiot and I followed it fairly easily. Unless I missed a lot of what was going on and my stupidity blinded me to the gap in my perception

[gilbertharding]

The book is amazing. It has a reputation for being hard to read but I am an idiot and I followed it fairly easily. Unless I missed a lot of what was going on and my stupidity blinded me to the gap in my perception

Just to be clear - I didn't find it hard to read. I found it boring. I'll try again though.

[Shit Good Nose]

I didn't find it hard to read either, just lots of characters and complicated wordplay.  But the basic gist of the story, sub-plots and shifting narrative are all fairly easy to follow, as long as you pay attention.

It's like Inception and Interstellar (regardless of whether you like them or not) - everything is explained pretty clearly all the way through as stuff happens, you just need to listen.

[Dr Rock]

This is probably heresy, but I found the book... well, I thought it was great and all, the idea behind it - but I gave up reading it three quarters of the way through. I just thought 'well, I get the idea...'.

(Same thing when I tried Tristram Shandy and Don Quixote... only with those it took me much less time to 'get the idea'.

You should read the first three-quarters of The Third Policeman, you'll love that.

[gilbertharding]

Funnily enough, I have read The Third Policeman, and did enjoy it. Well, the first three quarters of it, anyway.

On an unrelated note, when I read Midnight's Children I stuck it through to the bitter end, in spite of not enjoying it so much I was still seriously considering giving up  with two pages to go. I vowed after that I'd never do anything like that again.

[Johnny Textface]

Everything happens twice in the book is that right? It's been a while. Did anyone read the sequel?

[LynnBenfield69]

Favourite book, loved the film too. Finding it pleasant enough but not funny - not sure if that's cos I already know the gags or if they're delivered too self-consciously.

Clooney's channelling the Cohens acting-wise but the rest of the production isn't. At least it's nailing the message of the book if not the humour.

[Shit Good Nose]

Did anyone read the sequel?

When it first came out and not since.

All I really remember about it is that there were LOADS of pages where the (surviving) characters went over stuff that happened in the first book, like a sort-of best bits.  I also remember it did make me laugh a few times, but given that none of it really stayed in my memory, it obviously didn't grab me much.  I should probs dig it out from wherever the fuck it is and re-read it.

[timebug]

I abandoned the sequel 'Closing Time' after about forty or fifty pages,when I realised it was simply replaying 'catch 22's
'Greatest Hits'! The only humour was fairly badly recycled jokes from the first book, and the plot was totally absent from
the section I managed to read. Yet I have read Catch 22 about six times,and still find it funny. Each to their own,say I!