I've been meaning to watch his for some time, finally did. In hindsight, I think I've seen it before and forgot. For all the literary jabber about Kurt Vonnegut, I wasn't sure what to expect since I hadn't read much by him, but I expected 'good' or 'though provoking'. Instead I got "meh" and "what?". The acting was pretty good, the story was odd in that our central character is travelling back and forth over his lifetime, not at his control, and we're along with him as he jumps from one point in time to the next. There are some parallels between periods in his life that are reflected well, but I kept wondering if we're supposed to take him as really travelling thru time or just nuts. Ultimately, I didn't really care too much about him, and certainly not about any of the other characters. I didn't take away any insights or reflective questions. I simply endured to the end and hope to not watch it again. I won't recommend for or against watching, you take your chances.

While the film falls shy of greatness, it certainly did deserve the awards it won, such as the Prix de Jury (3rd Place) at the 1972 Cannes Film Festival. And, given how many films from the 1960s and 1970s have been pigeon-holed, due to their cultural limitations, it's refreshing to see a film that reflects its era- the 1940s through 1970s, yet does not wallow in it. While one can argue with the film's philosophical posit that everything is connected and predetermined, the presentation, or the art, of the ideas, is excellent. On a personal level, one of the things I find most refreshing about this film is how there is not a single character in it that looks like a movie star. All the main and supporting character roles are played by average looking actors. I sometimes just get tired of looking at films where, even if good acting is involved (such as the films of a Michelangelo Antonioni or Federico Fellini, much less the schlock that Hollywood cranks out), the people all look like perfect mannekins. Another refreshing thing about this film is that it's one of the rare examples of a film (especially considering it was a big studio Hollywood film) set in World War Two era Europe that has nothing to do with the Nazi genocide of European Jews. It's simply next to impossible to make a film on the Holocaust that does not fall into terminal PC preachiness. This film, however, shows the war from a unique perspective; one where humor and the flaws of individuals are on full display, rather than the stridency of a political ax to grind.Slaughterhouse-Five may or may not be a great film (I vote no), but it is a film worth watching. While it does not break as much ground in its art form as its source material does in its, it is a film that sticks with the viewer, forcing one to cogitate upon what it has imparted, Whether or not that means one is time tripping like Billy Pilgrim is up for debate.'Poo-tee-weet.'

The story is weak and strange. At some moments the protagonist (Billy) resides in a WW2 situation, at some points in time he lives a life in the present time (1972) with a wife and kids. For no reason the protagonist just knows that his plane is gonna blow up. During the disaster he manages to survive (not explained how... and it's not believable). Then his wife becomes hysteric and kills herself by accident, which also isn't very believable. Then in the end for some reason Billy gets transported to an alien planet which seems utterly ridiculous. It doesn't have a purpose at all... Then he suddenly tells someone that he sometimes 'timetravels' to the future and sees his own death. Which we are then allowed to see. Why wouldn't he escape his death if he know it was coming that minute? All very strange and unbelievable. But in the end it felt like i watched 3 movies. A movie about a ww2 POW. A movie about a family man in 1972, and a movie about some guy kidnapped by aliens. In no way these different parts of the movie are connected and it all just seems very strange. Besides that the acting is very mediocre at it's best. If I were you, i'd decide to just watch something else. It's not a very enjoyable movie, but also not the worst one i've watched so i'll 'reward' it with a 3.

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)