Hottoceame The Age of Commercialism

Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Mathilde the Guild Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

Richard Dominguez No Matter How many Times I Watch This Movie I Am Always Amazed At How Like Kurt Vonnegut's Book It Is ... Billy (William Pilgram) Finds Himself Being Tossed Back And Forth Along His Life's Timeline, Reliving His Past As Well As His Future ... There Is So Much About This Story That Is Relevant To All Our Lives ... How Universally Large A Life Can Be In It's Impact On Others And Yet How Minuscule Our Lives Are In The Scope Of Existence ... Vonnegut Touches Not Only On Historical Moments In Our Lives But More Importantly On The Minute Details ... What We Realize (Without Having It Bashed Over Our Heads) Is That Billy Is Us And We, All Of Us Are Billy ... Vonnegut Address' The Most Important Of All Questions, Should We Make Up For A Past, Work For A Better Tomorrow, Should We Have Been Born There Instead Of Here, Should We Make A Left Turn Instead Of A Right Turn, Etc .... In This Brilliant Work That Reminds Us Of The Total Lack Of Control That We Actually Have In Our Lives And The Illusion We Create By Thinking That We Can Control Our Lives We Find A Kind Of Peace And Flexibility That Allows Us To Address The Answer To The Above Questions ... That It Does Not Matter, The Only Thing That Matters Is That We Make The Best In All Ways Of The Only Thing That Does Matter ... Now ...

framptonhollis The novel upon which this film is based is my all time favorite book, and the biggest flaw of its movie adaptation is that it doesn't really live up to the greatness of the novel. Of course, I do not believe that any movie adaptation good do Vonnegut's style much justice, and this film definitely makes an attempt and, for the most part, succeeds admirably. I know that it is somewhat unfair to criticize this film for not being as good as the book, but I do have a few genuinely good reasons to complain a little. There was plenty more great material from the book that could be adapted to the screen that is just simply ignored here (they could have done something very interesting with the character of Kilgore Trout). The book manages to be both more funny and sad than this film, which is a little unfortunate.However, this movie is overall pretty great. I loved the editing and visual style, it captures the structure of the book with sheer perfection while also being purely creative and original. The acting is also quite well done, despite a majority of the actors being mostly unknown. Everyone does a great job, especially Ron Leibman as Paul Lazzaro.Although I previously stated that this movie is not as funny as the book, it is still very funny. There are darkly hilarious bits scattered all throughout this dark classic, and it captures the essence of Vonnegut's brilliant satire and humor very well.Definitely recommended for anyone curious.

clanciai It might seem a puzzling enterprise to make a comedy out of the Dresden firestorm leaving 135,000 innocents dead, but George Roy Hill actually succeeds with this. It's a marvel of a film, its composition, Glenn Gould providing the music (mainly Bach, of course,) with splendid acting all the way, the hilarious comedy elements actually stressing the tragedies and horrors, and the science fiction element threatening to disturb the character at first but managing even to bring that home. Of course, a Dresden film can't have a happy ending, so George Roy Hill has to find out another method to reach a pleasing conclusion, so he makes up some astonishing artificial fireworks. This is ingenious innovation all the way with considerable hard stuff of realism to digest as well on the way, and at times it is hard to survive some of the ordeals. The truth is, though, that the Dresden chapter was a hundred times worse than what the film catches a glimpse of, and if you want to learn more of the truth there is a number of unendurable documentaries. This film presents the problem and even in an acceptable documentary way while at the same time it's a most enjoyable and admirable film. Anyone must love it.

Patricia "Slaughterhouse-five", directed by George Roy Hill, was less than what I was expecting it to be. I feel like if I had not read the book before the movie, there would have been a lot of unresolved questions that the book answers. However, there were a few components of the movie that made it understandable as to why many people enjoy it. The music score was excellent; each song fit the scene incredibly well. For example, when Billy proposed to Valencia, the song went like; "He's her Billy, she's his Val". I also thought the cinematography was excellent and gave the same feel as the book; jumping around from place to place, much like Billy does because he becomes "unstuck in time". I do believe this movie was supremely casted; Michael Sacks does an excellent job at portraying Billy Pilgrim as timid and a little awkward. Sharon Gans plays Valencia excellently because she's a bit overbearing and annoying in both the book and the movie. I had difficulty liking the movie because the screenplay left out such important aspects of the book that I believe could've made the movie better. Like the ending of the book is "poo-tee-tweet" as Vonnegut explained at the beginning of the novel and the movie ends with Montana Wildhack and Billy having their child on the planet of Tralfamadore. Nonetheless, putting the greatness of a full novel into a two-hour movie is a difficult task, and the movie was made in 1972, before we had these crazy special effects and high expectations for movies. For the time period it was filmed, the movie is tolerable, but I do believe the book was exceedingly better.