This film is based on Stalinist Dalton Trumbo's short novel which was an amazing slavish service to Joseph Stalin an his ally Adolph Hitler. In case anyone doesn't know the history, Trumbo published the short novel shortly after the Hitler-Stalin pact and alliance -- and about two years later Trumbo denounced his own novel a the same moment Stalin denounced the Hitler-Stalin pact when Hitler surprised his ally Stalin by to invading the USSR in 1941. As the educated among us know, "Johnny Got His Gun" was just a part of Trumbo isolationism propagandizing against helping the UK against fascism during the period when the fascists and communists were allied. From 1939 Trumbo spoke out against any assistance to the UK, Against any support, even moral support of small European countries (like Greece, the Balkans, and the Baltics) being eaten up by the Axis or Soviet militaries -- and said the reports of persecutions of Jews were exaggerations. This is exactly the Soviet propaganda line during the Hitler-Stalin pact. The moment the Stalin was attacked by his erstwhile ally, Trumbo immediately reversed, again exactly along the Soviet propaganda messaging, to a RABIDLY pro-war -- insisting the US immediately get in the war to help the Soviets, and this was before Pearl Harbor. In fact one week after Stalin-Hitler alliance broke up, Trumbo demanded that all copies of "Johnny Got His gun" be pulled from all bookstores. Trumbo then promulgated a number of pro war tracts, including of course "Sixty Seconds over Tokyo and he became extremely pro war in his public speaking. After "Johnny got His Gun" Dalton wrote in 1940, published in early 1941, "The Remarkable Andrew" also staunchly isolationist -- and then after selling movie rights, tried to stop it being made into a film in 1942. of course when the communists had an interest in the US returning to isolationism, Trumbo was resurrecting, again right along with communist lines, "Johhny Got His Gun" as a film during the Vietnam war period. That is the context for this piece of propaganda in both the novel and the film. On the film itself, I agree with the NYTimes 1971 review which said the screenwriting was terrible, the dialogue forced and awkward, the performance by Robards a low for that otherwise great actor, and Tim Bottoms in way over his head in the lead.

This unique movie has many powerful moments and could have been a masterpiece, if it were less pretentiously directed. There are some strange and rather absurd "fantasy" sequences that don't really work - for example, Donald Sutherland is billed as "Jesus Christ", and he isn't very convincing in the role. Still, it's an important movie, and well worth watching.

This old movie is just completely boring Astonished at the high reviews for this to be honest

I found this movie really terrible. It has a bunch of no-name actors and the plot stinks. It sort of reminds me of a movie like escape from L.a. It sucks. It is not really possible for a man to lose his speech, hearing, sight and all his limbs with just one low quality rocket. It's unrealistic. This film, I didn't enjoy and I'd rather be in the state the gimped soldier is in this than actually watch it again. Yep it's just that bad!

Some years ago I read "Johnny Got His Gun"and it changed my life and the way of my thinking.A perfect book with a unique subject and very interesting from the first page until the last. So when I decided to see the movie,I thought that I would see something incredible.But I was completely wrong. The excellent writer Dalton Trumpo proved himself as a totally untalented director.Not even a 10 percent of the meaning of the book,someone can see.The actors were extremely bad,especially Timothy Bottoms whose performance was rather ridiculous. Its a pity that someone else didn't have the chance to make it a masterpiece, as the book is.

A quadriplegic, who also lost most of his face from a WW1 bomb during that conflict, leaves us under no illusion of the futility of war and the insanity of those who lead us into them. As impacting a film as you're ever likely to see.

I am the type of person who can sit down and enjoy almost any type of movie. Yet, how dare the big-shots at Hollywood put out this sort of nonsense? Sure, its message is sincere but I found this movie to be very boring. The kid's fantasies are screwed up but not worth paying attention to. And the scene with the boss was just pure drudgery. If you want to watch an anti-war flick, you have many options. I wouldn't recommend this one.

I saw this movie on public Greek TV (original version with subtitles), and was glued to the screen until the very end. I would say that it develops in three modes. One is the horrible black and white present, one is the colorful past (memory) and one is the surreal world of Johnny's dreams where he is conscious of his injury! I haven't understood how the scenes with his father in the past add up to the movie very well. The acting isn't superb and some lines could have been different. The black and white cinematography is very convincing and the scenes with the last nurse are tremendous! Aside from the downsides of war which are evident, the movie also deals with how the system is willing to suppress its own fabricated heroes when they fall short of its ideology. One of the best Hollywood movies ever made, chiefly due to its powerful script. 8/10

I became an instant pacifist when I saw this movie at the age of 16. Prior to this, I had been a supporter of the war in Vietnam, and had fully intended to enlist when I was old enough. My father, a veteran of WW2 and Korea, took me to see this movie when it was first released, to help cure me of my delusion about the glory of war. He was very successful in that undertaking. While I haven't seen the movie in 34 years, I cannot deny it had a major influence on my life. I'll never forget the horror I felt in seeing that poor soldier trapped in his mind. I would strongly recommend telling anyone who is pro-war to see this movie. You may help turn on others to the horrors of war.

source: Johnny Got His Gun