January 07, 2003
Catch Me If You Can (2002)
[4 - Good]Led with impressive performances by Leonardo DiCaprio, Tom Hanks and Christopher Walken, Catch Me If You Can is a charming movie. The movie is masterfully written and crafted to give it a smooth and polished finish that keeps the audience enthralled by the story and not distracted by reminders that we are in a theater. This could be my personal affinity for stories of confidence games and grifters talking, but in addition to being a well-made movie I also found the story to be fascinating.
Catch Me If You Can is based on the true story of con artist and forger Frank Abagnale Jr., who managed to pass as a doctor, an airline pilot, an attorney, and a history professor; all while successfully fabricating and cashing fake checks to keep a wealthy lifestyle; all while under 18 years old. Anyone who has seen a preview for this movie knows what the movie is about, what will happen and how the movie will end. Spielberg still manages to create an air of excitement and anticipation that keeps the audience engaged as they wait to see what trick Frank will pull off next, making Catch Me a top notch grifter movie.
During the movie I became aware of games Spielberg and (I assume) his cinematographer, Janusz Kaminski, were playing on us to keep the pace and excitement of the movie up. I left the theater feeling as though I had just sat through a lecture in professional filmmaking. Every camera move, every reveal, the acting by DiCaprio, Hanks and Walken, all seemed to exemplify good, honest, and professional filmmaking. There was nothing groundbreaking or radical in the production, it was simply a case of great moviemakers giving their best to the audience.
Right right and right! Excellent film, well acted, and quite humorous to boot. Wanna hear a knock-knock joke? Dicaprio's father and the relationship protrayed with his son was most interesting to me. Hanks almost became Leo's "true" father by the end of the film.
I love Tom Hanks. Movies like this are WHY I love Tom Hanks. I would like to start a thread about his son Collin Hanks who did a masterful job acting in Orange County, the only MTV film worthy of owning to date. Orange County has a great message and a well rounded script with a classic performance from Jack Black (another comedy fave of mine). Lots of celebs snuck into this one, even Kevin Klein got a piece of the action. Tom Hanks handed down the acting genes it seems.
Posted by: Flava on January 7, 2003 01:55 PMSpeaking of Leo, GANGS OF NEW YORK is on my must-see list. I've heard it ranked from best movie ever to boring and pointless. I am now hooked and must see it for myself. PLEASE POST A REVIEW ASAP, LEOPOLDO!
Posted by: Flava on January 7, 2003 02:06 PMHmmm... I had heard mixed reviews for Gangs of New York and had been waiting for it to come out on DVD. I am curious enought that I may make an excursion to the theater for it though.
Posted by: Leopoldo on January 7, 2003 02:17 PMSaw it last night. It is a fun movie, getting back to the level of film that Spielburg excels at (ie, popcorn flicks). 4 is a fair rating.
I'd like to know what games you noticed by the cinematographer/director...
One complaint: I wish Spielburg would get away from bookending his movies. It felt slow and depressing the way it started and ended. I guess the ending has a mildly positive finish, but if Spielburg had just used a different narrative structure I think it could have been more fun.
Think about the way Tarantino structured Pulp Fiction. I'm not saying CMIYC should be that non-linear, but just the idea of what Tarantino did. You end with a very fun, positive ending and begin with a very exciting ending, though both items are linearly right next to each other and somwhere towards the front-middle of the timeline. And it still all made sense.
I would have liked to see the movie start with something more fun, at least. Beginnings set the tone. Think about Spielburg's openings to Raiders, Jaws, or Close Encounters. Awesome openings. You are firmly planted in your seat after the first 5 minutes. I was squirming in the first 15 of CMIYC. I think a lot of the main character's past and homelife could have been better served up as flashbacks.
Posted by: Nick on January 13, 2003 10:07 AMMost of what I would call cinematography tricks had to do with the placement of the camera. Spielberg moved the camera freely, quickly and often during any scene where Frank was on the run. He created a fast and frantic atmosphere that was very effective in creating a hurried feeling. He also played some games with reveals on characters, panning up from someone's feet for example, that gave a positive air of expectation.
I very much agree that Spielberg seems to be challenged with the opening and ending of his movies. Near the end of CMIYC I started to feel like I was back in the theater watching AI with what seemed like end points slipping by one after the other. Unlike AI I stayed engaged until the end of the movie, but it did create a sense of unease. I think a bit of editing for pace near the end would have helped.
Yeah, AI. I actually think the best parts of that were the Kubrick-esque beginning and ends, and got more frustrated with the middle. I can see how people could definitely be squirming at the end of that movie.
I liked the moodiness of the beginning up until he is left in the woods. After that it goes down hill in a hurry. There are decent moments, but overall....
Then the end gets back to that moodiness, that dark cerebral tone. For me, the end and beginning of that were the best parts. Too bad Kubrick died.
To me, both AI and Minority report suffered from Spielberg's hand. His tendency is to add Disney elements to movies, and sometimes those movies suffer because of it. Tone is very important to me in a movie. It's part of why LOTR: TTT suffered in my estimation. It didn't have the consistent, bold tone of the first one.
Id just like to say that Catch Me If You Can was the best movie I've ever seen. If you havnt seen it yet, do to the movies NOW!
Posted by: Manny on January 16, 2003 06:42 PM
