Solemplex To me, this movie is perfection.

Pluskylang Great Film overall

Salubfoto It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

Kien Navarro Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Hitchcoc I got hooked by Kurt Vonnegut early on. I must say that I thought to myself many times, you just can't turn these book into movies, from "Sirens of Titan" to "God Bless You Mr. Rosewater." I guess "Slaughterhouse Five" is Vonnegut's magnum opus. It is a wonderful book, but it banks on time travel and a kind of cerebral narration. The movie tosses these things around for us and we get to see visually what is going on with Billy Pilgrim, but it is disjointed and disappointing. There are striking moments, especially having to do with World War II prisoners and the cruelty of the Germans. However, Vonnegut was most taken with the Dresden fire bombing, where people suffocated as the fires sucked the oxygen from the air. The city was destroyed. I had the good fortune to visit Dresden this summer. It has been completely rebuilt to look like it did before the war. Remarkable representation of the human spirit. War is, indeed, hell. How I felt for those people who were really not responsible for that war but paid a huge price.

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.

vubrandon George Roy Hill's screening of the novel "Slaughterhouse Five" by Kurt Vonnegut is a classic, old fashioned-style film that hilariously captures Billy Pilgrim's experiences during and after the war. The use of flashbacks and comedy movie show us the seriousness and the negative side effects of war, but does not fail to entertain us. The film is very funny throughout, which may take from the horrors and stress one may experience during war, but makes it easy for any audience to watch and enjoy.The main character, Billy Pilgrim, is played by Michael Sacks who perfectly embodies the nature of Billy Pilgrim. He is a tall and innocent looking character which excellently portrays the essence of a young boy in war. Many of my colleagues including myself, do not particularly enjoy films or books regarding war. However, due to the comedic fashion of this film, Hill's version of "Slaughterhouse Five" can be enjoyed by an audience of all ages and interests. One of the first scenes I found to be funny was when Billy was first found by a group of American troops in the snow. The troops question Billy at first, and hold him down as they survey the land for enemies. A situation that in reality must have been extremely scary, was actually quite funny as Billy lays in the snow obediently as the troops argue between each other discussing what to do with Billy. If that wasn't funny enough, the entire group then becomes captured by a group of enemy troops, which starts Billy's journey as a prisoner of war.One component of the film that I thought was very effective in capturing the essence of war, was the use of flashbacks through the eyes of Billy. Periodically throughout the film, a scene in "real time" will often change to a scene in previous times that share common sights or interactions. The switch between war times and post war times, and the future and the past, work well to embody the traumatizing effects that war zones can have on people. PTSD, also known as "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder" is an ongoing disorder that many retired war veterans will experience in their lives. I often hear and see of people who drop the the ground and take cover when they hear anything that resembles the sound of a gunshot, such as a firework or the slamming shut of a book. The use of flashbacks in this film really captures what it is like to live in a society after years of war. The performance of Billy Pilgrim's children in the book also play a role in successfully embodying the spirit of the war times. Billy's kids are concerned for their father when he starts spieling of the planet Tralfamadore and his new mistress Montana Wildhack. Perry King, who plays as Robert Pilgrim, does a great job at showing his concern for his father, especially in the scene when Robert goes to Billy's house to find him laying on the bed in darkness. Billy's son sits by his bed and talks to him of his own war experiences hoping to help his father return to his old self. This intimate moment was successful because of the staged relationship between son and father, executed by well casted actors who look so natural in the film.Although I absolutely enjoyed this movie, certain aspects due however fail to truly represent the horrifying nature of war itself. The film itself is Rated R for nudity and language but I believe the main purpose is to entertain the audience using war as a plot, as opposed to truly focusing on the horrors of war. The funny scenes keep the reader from experiencing the stress and anxiety of a war zone, which I feel is very important in a war movie, especially one about "Slaughterhouse Five". The flashbacks work well to give us a sense of the traumatizing aftermath of war, but the humor of the movie restrict the audience from feeling the war deep down inside.

Al_The_Strange Chances are you may have heard of Slaughterhouse-Five; it's one of the highly-tutted classics of science fiction, penned by the ever-eccentric Kurt Vonnegut. As of this writing, I've never actually read the book, but this movie seems to capture the gist of things. It's a very strange, surrealist story that chronicles a man's life and death through a series of random time-jumps. The man was a prisoner in WWII (and the actual slaughterhouse was his residence), before raising a dysfunctional family afterwards, and then being abducted by aliens. Yep, strange stuff indeed.The film will be most memorable for the rough and dirty war scenes, the sporadic family outbursts, and the scenes on Tralfamadore. Parts of it drag a little, but there's enough interesting scenes to pull the film together and maintain interest, especially for fans of sci-fi, war movies, or bizarre cinema in general.I have no idea how close of an adaptation this movie is to the book, but on its own merits, the film does an interesting job of using its random narrative structure to show the character at the different phases of his life; really, it shows somewhere between three to five different narrative strings at once. Some scenes run into each other, with characters in one timeline finishing off dialogue from another, or scenes mirroring each other so that they're intercut together. It makes the film run as one long and smooth stream of consciousness, while exploring the character's life, memories, and psyche in full. In a way, you probably could interpret this whole film as the memories, memoirs, and dreams of a man who's either mentally insane or dead.If there's anything to complain about, it's just the sheer randomness of the story, for even with its constant focus on the main character, it never settles on any specific plot structure or tangible form.The film has quality photography and really excellent editing. Acting is a bit over-the-top, but it gets the job done really well, and the writing is not bad. This production has fine-looking sets, props, and costumes. Music is not bad either.For bringing a literary classic to life, the film is worthwhile seeing. As random and strange as it is, I'd recommended some caution: rent it and see what you think for yourself.4/5 (Entertainment: Pretty Good | Story: Good | Film: Good)