Movies only a Moron Would want to See

Robert De Nario as Fearless Leader

Jason Alexander as Boris

Rene Russo as Natasha

Special Effects as Bullwinkle and Rocky.
Yes. This is real.
I suppose it might come off in a Roger Rabbit sort of way, but why would anyone want to make or see or be in this project? On the face of it, it sounds terrible.
Speaking of terrible, isn't it time someone drove a stake through George Lucas' heart? STAR BORES part one, subplot fifteen, cliche eight is about to land on at a theater near you. WHO CARES?!?!
Hollywood is so void of ideas that every single tv show that once had a rating of at least 15 is now being made into a movie. The Mod Squad? The Wild Wild West? Get Christy Love?
And the Arnold is remaking Planet of the Apes???

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!

Movies are no more mononic now than they were in the 80's and 70's.
The proof is Megaforce. Howard The Duck. All of the Bruce Lee "biography" movies.

------------------
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter Thompson

Slythe So....this makes you happy? As long as they keep making movies, who cares? What's your point? That we should accept this and not expect better?

That's a lame stance for a fellow who has Hunter S Thompson in his sign off.

Just pointing out that 1. Movies are not any worse than they were before and 2. If you look for crap, you will find crap.

------------------
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter Thompson

That Bullwinkle movie is gonna suck. The crappy animation is what gave Bullwinkle it's charm.

There have always been crappy movies. Elvis made 33 of them. We need crappy movies. They provide an endless source of jokes. I still laugh when I recall John Wayne playing Genghis Kahn.

Slythe So....this makes you happy? As long as they keep making movies, who cares? What's your point? That we should accept this and not expect better?

No, you don't have any right to "expect better." Know why? Because it isn't your fucking money that makes those movies (as long as you aren't buying tickets) that's why. Your tax money isn't being used, the government isn't funding these films--these are corporations using their own money in the hopes of making profits. If you own stock in one of the publicly-held ones, maybe you can complain. Otherwise, take your money and make your own movies, or spend on something for which you have more utility.

In any capitalist society, producers will produce for the market the products which bother the least amount of people, and use the least expensive sources of ideas available, often repeating features (in broadcating, they call this the 'parsimony principle'). You don't want any? Don't buy any.

------------------
** Phil D. **
"Not only is the world queerer than we imagine,
it is queerer than we can imagine."
--J.B.S. Haldane

http://www.ohthehumanity.com/ -the worst movies ever made. Movies only a moron would like.

No. Bad movies don't make me happy. However, I don't find their existence particularly distressing since:

a. I am not forced to watch them.

b. As previously stated, they can still provide amusement (e.g. "The Green Berets").

c. There are more good movies available than I have time to watch.

Also, Its spelled De Niro, not De Nario.

[[b. As previously stated, they can still provide amusement (e.g. "The Green Berets").]]

"These are men, America's best ... "


A classic in manly bulldada, indeed. "Men who jump AND DIE ... "

I think General Patton would have a problem with that job description.

Actually, in the Green Berets, the sun sets in the east!
Without evil, how could good exist-without MANOS HAND OF FATE(the REAL worst movie of all time), how could FLIGHT OF THE PHOENIX exist. It's all a matter of what you want out of a particular movie, I guess.


------------------
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter Thompson

Among more recent movies, I thought "Starship Troopers" was pretty bad. The plot and dialog were suitable for a 4th grader but you wouldn't want them exposed to the violence and nudity.

Well now, crappy movies are an entirely different subject. I think the world would be a poorer place without all those giant insect and Japanese Atomic Bomb Mutant movies. And I like most of the stuff I've seen touched by the low-budget cross dressing whiz kid Ed Wood. I would much rather watch Plan 9 from Outer Space and Bride of the Monster than anything remotely connected to Saturday Night Live.
But all that's a different matter. I shudder to think of kids being exposed to Bullwinkle for the very first time in a live action adventure. No matter the cast, or how badly I spell their names. I fail to see how anyone could have thought a Bullwinkle movie was a good idea in the first place, but I'm easily confused. I suppose the Jetson's aren't far behind. And then Wacky Races and Super Chicken.
I'll stay home and watch Raymond Burr act super serious in Godzilla. But maybe I should start working on that bomb shelter first.

Among more recent movies, I thought "Starship Troopers" was pretty bad. The plot and dialog were suitable for a 4th grader but you wouldn't want them exposed to the violence and nudity.

You missed the whole point! Hint: remember Dr. Doogie's uniform? Uh huh...

The movie was an exercise in propaganda. Replace 'humans' with 'Nazis' and 'bugs' with 'Jews'. Also, note how every man in the movie is an example of the Übermann. How Michael Ironside is a fascist who justifies military dictatorship for the good of the people. How the main character finishes by embracing such ideas.

The brilliance of the film lays in the fact the public swallowed that and still rooted for the fascists. It goes to show you can wrap any idea, however fascist, into nice special effects, and people will agree with it.

Guys, you're missing the point.

Crappy movies are good!

Any fans of Ed Wood out there? He's my personal hero!

Speaking of crapfests, I recommend "The Mummy (1999)" to any fan of Ed Wood. the movie is craptacular, and nothing short of an Ed Wood movie with some snazzy one-liners thrown in and millions for special effects.

But, oh man, the story blows.

Speaking of crapfests, I recommend "The Mummy (1999)" to any fan of Ed Wood. the movie is pure crap, and nothing short of an Ed Wood movie with some snazzy one-liners thrown in and millions for special effects.

But, oh man, the story blows.

Favourite Woodesque blunders (insides for those who saw the movie):

"Let's say they get there by plane! Erm, but there's only two places... That's alright, we'll put the other two on the wings!"

or,

"Alright, the bad guy is defeated. Oh, shit, we forgot to make the whole place crash down dramatically! Think of something, quickly!"

Also, the level of blatant plot placement devices is enough to groan (the book, the Egyptologist with an Egyptian mother...) Add to this the fact it steals from Army of Darkness, Indiana Jones and Bram Stoker's Dracula, and you got yourself craptacular entertainment!

Another troubling issue from "Mummy - 1999:"

When the Mummy took the eyeballs of the nearsighted American, why didn't the Mummy need glasses?

Another troubling issue from "Starship Troopers:"

The Troopers obviously come from a technologically advanced society. However, when the they get their ass kicked by the bugs, they have no artillery, armored vehicles, close air support, etc. I think a few hundred well designed thermonuclear devices would have brought a prompt end to the war, the movie, and the audience's suffering.

When the Mummy took the eyeballs of the nearsighted American, why didn't the Mummy need glasses?

He did need them! Why else would he approach everyone menacingly instead of attacking, if it weren't because he couldn't see a damn thing? :)

When the Mummy took the eyeballs of the nearsighted American, why didn't the Mummy need glasses?

He did need them! Why else would he approach everyone menacingly instead of attacking, if it weren't because he couldn't see a damn thing? :)

Also, he mixed up the Egyptian queen and the clumsy Egyptologist. That guy needed glasses badly!

Jason Alexander as Boris

In my opinion, Jason Alexander should steer clear of animation. Disney's The Hunchback of Notre Dame was actually a pretty good movie of you fast forward through every scene with talking gargoyles.

I think Danny De Vito and Angelica Huston would be the obvious choices for Boris and Natasha.

i liked this movie. one word. cockroaches. unless you wanted to destroy the planet, destroy the best chance of learning how to defeat the bugs (by destroying the brain bug) and possibly irradate much of that system, i don't think brute force would win. tho' you do have to wonder why they seemingly used regular bullets, and not special ones that would rip up exoskeleton and what not. or bullets laden with borax....


Another troubling issue from "Starship Troopers:"
The Troopers obviously come from a technologically advanced society. blah blah blah. I think a few hundred well designed thermonuclear devices would have brought a prompt end to the war, the movie, and the audience's suffering.

I think Danny De Vito and Angelica Huston would be the obvious choices for Boris and Natasha.

Does Hollywood not remember that they already tried a live action movie based on these characters?? Does Hollywood not remember it's crushing failure?? It couldn't have been long ago because I remember the scathing review in Entertainment Weekly. Called "Boris and Natasha," it starred Dave Thomas (not the Wendy's guy) and Sally Kellerman in the title roles. I would have thought Hollywood would have learned by now but, silly me, Hollywood never learns.

------------------
"I hope life isn't a big joke, because I don't get it," Jack Handy

Ah yes,

Sally Kellerman who peaked as Hot Lips Hoolihan in the "Mash" movie, and Dave Thomas, the SCTV veteran who peaked as one of the McKenzie brothers in "Great White North."

Take off, eh?

----------------------

If there's a bustle in your hedgerow, don't be alarmed now... - L. Zepplin

As a rule of thumb (but not Siskel's) I avoid movies that have critics mentioning the special effects. "Must See Special Effects" I take as a code for "There's no story."

Yes, I don't go out much.

Did anyone else actually read the Heinlein beek "Starship Troopers"? I have to admit that I did not see the movie, but from what I saw and heard of it, the resemblance to the book is superficial at best. The book was actually a decent story and a relatively good satire.

I, for one, am a particular fan of really crappy movies that know how crappy they are and make fun of it. The Evil Dead series (culminating in Army of Darkness), is perhaps the best and most hysterical example of this.

TheDude

Sally Kellerman who peaked as Hot Lips Hoolihan in the "Mash" movie, and Dave Thomas, the SCTV veteran who peaked as one of the McKenzie brothers in "Great White North."

That's something else that puzzles me. A handful of years ago, this was the best they could do. Now the current project has got not only Jason Alexander and Rene Russo, maybe not exactly "A-list" actors themselves, but DeNiro?? What the--?! Why??

From what I understand, the Thomas/Kellerman movie didn't actually feature Rocky and Bullwinkle, so maybe they think this movie will be different? I don't know. I get the feeling that the people that make movies don't go to the movies. They go to premiers to schmooze and party, but they don't just go to a movie to be entertained. That's how clueless the Hollywood types seem, anyway.

------------------
"I hope life isn't a big joke, because I don't get it," Jack Handy

"Plot? Ha! Characterization? Ha! A Jedi needs not these things..."

As a rule of thumb (but not Siskel's) I avoid movies that have critics mentioning the special effects. "Must See Special Effects" I take as a code for "There's no story."

You know, they said that about:

Star Wars episodes 1, 4-6
Bram Stoker's Dracula
The Matrix

They also said that about The Mummy, but it was more like, 'On the positive side, this movie has, er... Must-see special effects!'

In my opinion, Jason Alexander should steer clear of animation.

GASP!!! What about Duckman????????

About Starship Troopers:

Yeah, I read the book AND saw the movie. I could not believe that the movie didn't have the powered armor that was in the book. I mean, come on, this was a major part of the book, and it would have made perfect product tie-ins.

I'm generally disappointed by "science fiction" movies anyway, since they seem to rely on special effects rather than plots.

Excuse me while I check the subscription expiration date on my "Analog".


------------------
Lynn the Packrat

And what about "Dune?" The movie was hard to follow even if you had read the book. Without reading the book you wouldn't have a clue at to what was going on.

And what about "Dune?" The movie was hard to follow even if you had read the book. Without reading the book you wouldn't have a clue at to what was going on.

Boy that sucked. David Lynch, if you can't stick to a book's plot, then don't do adaptations! Paul Atreides was supposed to be 14 year-old, and Atreides matured more slowly. So we're a far stretch from Agent Cooper.

And let's not even talk about the miraculous rain scene at the end that made no sense at all.

I don't think there really are "must-see special effects" any more. The technology is such that any scene or event that a human can imagine can be realistically portrayed on a movie screen. Technologically, there's not much room to grow. With the quality maxed out, about all they can do is increase the quantity of special effects, or perhaps revive "smell-o-vision" or "rumble-vision."

You know, they said the same thing when King Kong first came out. It appeared to everyone as if there could be no finer special effects, that everything could now technically be represented on film.

The guy who invented go-motion (forgot his name) had a name for that: he called it artefacts. An artefact is a visual cue that you're watching a special effects and not a real take. What matters in order to hide the artefacts is not the precision of the special effects, but rather, the ignorance of the public.

Making SFX is a little like prestidigitation. Everyone knows that they're seeing a trick, but there has to be no way to know how the trick works. If that happens, you suspend disbelief even though logic tells you otherwise.

Same goes with films: as our understanding of SFX improves, the artefacts begin to emerge. Right now, we believe that SFX can represent everything because we have Computer-Generated Imagery. But as the public's mind begins to grasp the exact working of CGI, the artefacts will begin to emerge again.

This has already begun: the public is more aware of image retouching techniques now, and they're keenly aware of implausible perfection in SFX. New SFX specialists have to purposefully "dirty" their image in order to make it appear real. This was not the case five years ago.

Star Wars: The Phantom Menace will be unbearable to watch fifty years from now, as we will see directly through the veil of SFX, and perceive the artefacts underneath.

I figure "The Phantom Menace" will be unbearable to watch tonight, let alone 50 years from now. The other Star Wars movies already show their age. But Star Wars is more about selling happy meals than anything else. It has become a giant toy industry. The movies are reduced to commericals for products.
Taken just as movies, the Star Wars series is like watching WWI dogfight scenes patched together with the weakest possible reading of the legends of King Arthur one could hope to find. While they can offer some amusement, they're not very good and they most certainly aren't science fiction. Fantasy yes, but not sci fi.

As for DUNE...it did have the line "Send in the flying fat man!" which has to count for something. I read Starship Troopers ugh, 24 years ago, and decided to skip the movie. Only Stephen King is improved by film; all others suffer.
Ugh!! I just remembered I sat through The Naked Lunch...gawd. What a nasty piece of crap that was! The book is actually a lot of fun.

I don't think there really are "must-see special effects" any more. The technology is such that any scene or event that a human can imagine can be realistically portrayed on a movie screen. Technologically, there's not much room to grow. With the quality maxed out, about all they can do is increase the quantity of special effects, or perhaps revive "smell-o-vision" or "rumble-vision."

Only Stephen King is improved by film; all others suffer.

That's because you can't worsen King by putting him on film. See what happens when he writes the screenplay directly: you're stuck with an horror (in the bad sense) called Sleepwalkers.

[[ {{In my opinion, Jason Alexander should steer clear of animation.}} Daniel

GASP!!! What about Duckman????????]] Eris


Ah, Discordian Goddess, you shall forever occupy a favored place in my heart for this most outstanding indignation.

And, hey! What the hell are YOU staring at?!?

Hey, speaking of Duckman, I found the funniest tidbit of information...

The guy who wrote Duckman is currently writing scenarios for the WWF. :)

About "Starship Troopers":

Absolutely the worst movie of all time. Not only was the powered armor missing, but so were the bugs' telepathic humanoid allies that that switched sides. And where was the line: "Bugs, Mr. Rico! Zillions of them!" But no movie could make a Heinlein story watchable. Heinlein's books all have the same fault: an interesting story line, but no plot. "Starship Troopers" was his best, in that the story eventually had an ending. Most of the rest of his stuff just degenerates into a discussion of his social theories on incest, fascism, etc. Lazarus the Long-winded would be a better name for one of his characters.

A few thoughts on "Dune":

Ewwwwwww! Where did the 19th century costuming come from? And are those things supposed to ornithopters? Quite possibly the most pompous movie ever made.

And talk about terrible movies: How about "Lord of the Rings"? Or the "carefully researched" "The Hobbit" which depicted the One Ring set with a stone? (A major point of the book was that the One Ring was easily identified as it was the only Ring of Power that had no stone.)

None of these movies had the redeeming feature of movies that are so bad that they develop their own cult following like "Dark Star" and "The Rocky Horror Picture Show".

Then there is the "historically accurate" and "carefully researched" "Pocahontas", which was neither. We can forgive Disney for "Aladdin" (a movie true to the original story would have been rated NC-17), but what about "The Little Mermaid"? I hope Hans Christian Andersson haunts Eisner for that one.

The "Wall Street Journal" described "Phantom Menace" quite accurately: it appears to be nothing so much as a very long trailer for the next two episodes rather than a movie. Sort of like "Star Trek: The Movie" which spent an inordinate amount of time lovingly depicting the Enterprise in space dock. But back to the Menace: isn't there any adult supervision for this oversexed 8 year old product of a virgin birth? So was his mother the product of an immaculate conception or what? Kind of gives new meaning to the Force, eh? And what about the unfortunate title? Everyone from Jay Leno on down has been ripping on it, or off it. The US in Yugoslavia is the phantom menace, for example, because of its ineffectiveness.

Speaking of phantoms, how about Casper? Another childhood hero destroyed by a greater devotion to special effects than to story line.

Oh, and for those who say, "well just don't watch these bad movies" remember, the movie critics are often the worst judge of movies around: remember the raves that "Pulp Fiction" got? Speaking of which, I don't know which was the worst part of that movie: was it the language, the scenes lovingly depicting drug abuse, the violence as a lark, the nonexistant scripture quotations, or was it John "Revolta" Travolta? Or maybe it was the fact that movie bore no resemblance to a pulp novel at all?

I loved Pulp Fiction for exactly the reasons you list above. It was an anti-movie. It wasn't supposewd to be a high drama art flick. It was satrirical.

Pulp Fiction was QT jacking off into a brown paper bag. An "anti-movie". What a load of crap.

Do not forget -- to a large extent , form IS substance.

Pulp Fiction was QT jacking off into a brown paper bag. An "anti-movie". What a load of crap

Don't make me get medieval on yer ass, muthafucka. . . .


------------------
>^,,^<
KITTEN

He who walk through airport door sideways going to Bangkok. - Confucius

LOL. Interesting pick up line...

Seriously though, if you're looking for a movie with nothing but subplot, and not much of it, stilted dialog that passes for cleverness and cheap laughs then get "They Saved Hitler's Brain." The entire cast changes half-way through the movie, something so daring and awful even a Hollywood pansy like QT wouldn't try it. Face it, QT wants to be the next John Waters, but lacks the balls. So he makes movies that only mean something to him. And maybe his boyfriend, Zed.

Okay, MUST wade in:

1. For those of you pointing out that "Starship Troopers" was an (extremely clumsy) metaphor for fascism: Yeah, we got that -- it still sucked.

2. Never having read the book, I found "Dune" too incomprehesible to be truly bad. In other words, I didn't leave the theater thinking, "boy that movie was rank!" I left thinking, "Wha?"

3. The worse movie I recall seeing was a crappy little comic-book adaptation called "Darkman". Anyone remember that one? TRULY awful -- incomprehensible plot, crappy acting, and ridiculous dialogue (example: "If you're not going to kill me, I have things to do!") I thought the writer and director should have been taken out and shot.

4. "Pulp Fiction" is gratuitously violent, unnecessarily profane -- and awesome.

Being a movie junky I too must wade in.

Starship Troopers: I enjoyed it. Loved the effects. Thought it was alot of fun (A quality that gets overlooked by too many). And I did enjoy the satirical commentary. I thought it was less a commentary on Fascism than it was about the spin doctoring and glorification that the media is responsible for. All in all a solid movie, but not a one to add to my culturing.

Pulp Fiction: Again fun. Not intended to be taken seriously and was shot in one of the most creative ways posible. I love the non linear nature of the story line and the final closure tying it all together. Also I enjoyed the fact that it is not so much a white/black, good/evil story. Alot of gray areas.

The all time worst movie ever shown: Hands down Coolworld. It was a very clumsy interweaving of live action and animation, that took itself seriously.

By the way Joe Bob, if your gonna split hairs it DeNiro, not De Niro.

Egospark and cjcambell: I get the impression that you guys have never remotely enjoyed a commercially acceptable movie. If you don't have to stay up until 4 am and/or specially order it from the video store you won't like it.

Funny how all the papers who gave PM a bad review are being quoted and copied and referenced. Yet no words about good reviews. Do you think theres any false motivation here? Fact is negativity sells, ergo Littleton news coverage. I don't give a squirt of piss what the papers write about PM, I enjoyed it. I think you guys bashing it are reveling in the rebellion and feel like your setting some counter-culture attitude. I'd say you remarks are more disingenious than the "lemmings" who go and enjoy this hypefest.

------------------
The facts expressed here belong to everybody, the opinions to me. The distinction is
yours to draw...

Omniscient; BAG

Bashing a film with as many flaws as PHANTOM MENACE has nothing to do with rebellion or counter-culture. It's simply a matter of perception. The only people who ascribe ulterior motives to this are those who feel the need to dismiss criticism of the film itsel--as if it were somehow beyond criticism. (Well, it is, in a way: no matter how disappointing it is, the lemmings you mention will go anyway, and probably go again, in the hope that they can make their idol's newest work surpass TITANIC at the box office.) But you don't have to be mean-spirited or particularly cynical to spot what's wrong with PM; you just have to like good movies, and wish this one (with all the money and resources it had) had turned out better.

Omni Well, jeepers. Why on earth would I go to the BBQ Pit and start a thread called "Big Hollywood Movies I Really Liked"?
That would be sort of foolish, don't ya think?

For big-budget dumb movies, you can't beat Independence Day, in my opinion. I rarely see films in the theater (mommyhood'll do that to ya) and this was probably the only one I saw that year. The teeming millions were oohing and ahhing and I was laughing out loud.

------------------
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds" -- Albert Einstein

Bad movies are very plentiful in our world.
DUNE: my favourite bad film of all time! Especially Sting in the end fight scene when he bites Kyle Maclaughlin's hand while smiling. That's quality movie-makin' right there. And what was Patrick Stewart even doing in that movie??
Bram Stoker's Dracula: Decent cast (wonderful Gary Oldman!)good original story. AWFUL adaptation. I laughed through the entire thing.

Also, no one mentioned that DeNiro/Billy Crystal "gem" Analyze This. Now that Sucked with a capital "s".

Omniscient wrote:By the way Joe Bob, if your gonna split hairs it DeNiro, not De Niro.

By the way, Omniscient, if you're going to split hairs it's "you're" and "it's" (not that I insist on splitting hairs myself ;) )

Funny how all the papers who gave PM a bad review are being quoted and copied and referenced. Yet no words about good reviews. Do you think theres any false motivation here? Fact is negativity sells, ergo Littleton news coverage.

So, would you pay $7.50 to see that in the theater? Maybe you should mention it to Lucas...

I don't give a squirt of piss what the papers write about PM, I enjoyed it. I think you guys bashing it are reveling in the rebellion and feel like your setting some counter-culture attitude. I'd say you remarks are more disingenious than the "lemmings" who go and enjoy this hypefest.

Bullshit, oh all knowing one. My primary goal in smearing TPM lies in hopefully steering people away from paying to see it. It's abundantly clear that Lucas judges his own work on one over-arching criteria: how much money it makes!

Don't believe me? An up and coming filmmaker visited Lucas at the Ranch and fawned over his work. This person remarked that they thought THX-1138 was one of Lucas' finest and most artistic films, to which Lucas replied with chagrin (and in all seriousness): "But that one didn't even make any money!" Yikes!!

My thinking is that if TPM fails to earn as much as he thinks it should, with any luck George will realize he messed up big time on this utterly uninspired cinematic lardball and call in a real filmmaker as he did on The Empire Strikes Back. That way, there will be a much higher probability that the upcoming sequels will actually entertain most viewers!

To defend TPM or encourage others to see it is to guarantee the next one will be no better -- and possibly even worse (if that's possible) -- than this inexcusably horrible waste of film stock!

...didn't see Phantom Menace... have never seen Star Wars or any of its sequels... have no interest in seeing any of the above... loved Pulp Fiction... hated Starship Troopers... I am completely incapable of finding political innuendo in Starship Troopers, Lion King, or any other movie that's been blasted for having political innuendo... yes, I realise that I haven't used any actual punctuation yet... yes, I realise that I spelled realise with an S rather than a Z... am wondering if I'm a moron for thinking that this thread would contain small lists of movies that each person thinks only a moron would watch... am wondering if I'm a moron for not realising that, it being a BBQ thread, there would only be arguing going on... just in case anyone cares which movies are crap IMHO (aside from the aforementioned):
PECKER
GUMMO
URBAN LEGEND (Jared Leto is droolworthy enough that it was worth it, though)
LAST ACTION HERO
THE LOST WORLD (sequel to the wonderful JURASSIC PARK)
...am still wondering if I'm a moron to think that anyone's going to give this post a second thought before delving back into the Phantom Menace debate... enjoy arguing everyone... I'll see you in MPSIMS

Hugs!
Chris

Hey now. The Last Action Hero was great, It was a lot better spoof than all that Lesle Neilson crap.

http://www.voicenet.com/~xavier/scripts/ mocks the plot of practically every movie to come out during the past year or so.

------------------
"[He] beat his fist down upon the table and hurt his hand and became so
further enraged... that he beat his fist down upon the table even harder and
hurt his hand some more." -- Joseph Heller's Catch-22