Comma 22 – Mike Nichols

si tratta di un film che non ha avuto grande successo nelle sale, probabilmente perchè la sua fama è quella di un film comico.
in realtà per una parte è un film surreale e folle, nella seconda parte è un film cupo, buio, triste.
sarà una delusione per chi ha aspettative, per chi cerca quello che vorrebbe vedere.
per tutti gli altri il film merita di sicuro - Ismaele

…Comma 22 è un film unico nel suo genere per svariati motivi. E’ una satira feroce, un racconto di guerra surreale, onirico, eppure concretamente viscerale, simile per certi versi a quello che cercò di fare Kurt Vonnegut nel suo Mattatoio n°5. Non vi è enfasi nel suo sognare, nel suo dislocare sentimenti e azioni in un’altra dimensione, anzi la pellicola viene costantemente riscaldata fino a quasi sciogliersi da una febbre materica che ha il suo focolaio in un direttore della fotografia straordinario, Dave Watkin, e alle disavventure di una genesi produttiva protrattasi per luoghi tagliati fuori dal mondo e tempi interminabili.

L’incredibile cast è realmente sfinito, snervato, destabilizzato da sei mesi di riprese in un luogo sperduto del Messico, in una base aerea completamente costruita per l’occasione, con la consegna, per la ricerca di un’illuminazione piena che coinvolga soggetto e sfondo, di riprendere ad una sola ora del giorno: le 14e45…

da qui

…Still, I thought perhaps Nichols would pull off something. Not a movie that would please the cultists, maybe, but at least a movie that would work on its own terms. His failure on this front is especially disappointing. "Catch-22" the movie is essentially a parasite, depending on the novel for its vitality. Nichols doesn't bring much to the party.

His challenge in directing the movie was to somehow catch Heller's tone, that delicate balance between insanity and ice cold logic. Everything in the book was crazy because it made sense, a paradox illustrated in the case of Yossarian, the hero. Yossarian didn't want to fly any more missions over Italy. Why? Because they were shooting at him and someday they would hit him and he would die…

da qui

…It's a movie about madness and the whole pointlessness of war. It shows this well and in an amusing way. The story is cleverly written but again, it's also pretty shallow all. The movie gets is message across but I feel that it's not as powerful or effective than it could had been. The movie does get better about halve way trough, when things start to take a more serious shape.
Still it's of course a perfectly watchable and amusing movie to watch!

da qui

…Because the film is a funny (or “amusing” if you want to make a distinction… can’t say I ever laughed out loud) satire, pointing out the absurd logic that is used to justify any action, particularly in times of war.  But it does feel like things are missing.  Certain scenes seem to come out of nowhere.  With the exception of Yossarian, there’s barely a well-realized character in the bunch.  On one hand, this suits the comic madness of the material… in the proper context, caricature is perfectly acceptable.  However, one can imagine that in the form of a novel, which has an inherently different sense of pacing, these events and characters would be more significant, satisfying and resonant.  That is to say, I think the movie mostly works on its own terms but when it doesn’t work, I sympathize with Heller’s fans.

What an awesome cast, though.  Alan Arkin, Martin Balsam, Buck Henry, Jon Voight, Richard Benjamin, Anthony Perkins, Charles Grodin, Bob Balaban, Orson Welles, Art Garfunkel, Bob Newhart, Norman Fell, Martin Sheen, Jack Gilford.  Because the center is (almost) always Yossarian, it doesn’t feel like a “let’s throw a bunch of stars at the audience” move, but simply great casting of characters.  It’s a delight to see these folks because they have such distinctive presences.  And again, it’s perhaps a failure of the translation from page to screen that I wish could have seen more of some of them.

da qui