Catch Me If You Can

redowl90 said:Honestly, I have no idea what anyone found boring about this movie. For me, it flew by, unlike something like Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, which felt way too drawn out...

And don't even get me started on the music and that opening sequence?? My god, it was absolutely intense (in a good way)...

Overall, the movie is solid, definitely worth a watch... And honestly, if you're one of those cynics who just can't stand Spielberg, maybe just stop watching his movies altogether...

I don't know about you guys, but I felt every single minute of that movie—mostly because I "figured out" the ending two hours before it actually happened (and no, I'm not psychic)

That opening sequence was such a cliché-ridden mess—I mean, he runs away from it and then just escapes because they slap some giant "T" on the screen representing an Executive Producer's initials. wow, how original!

After seeing stuff like this, I really don't get why people obsess over Spielberg. Look, I'm a tolerant person, but I truly don't see what's so spectacular about this film. It feels like they took a perfectly good story and ruined it with unnecessary dramatization. Gross.

P.S. That critic clearly hasn't a clue. He didn't catch the mother being unfaithful, he just made a clever deduction, and his old man wasn't stealing from employees.

Given all the garbage coming out of Hollywood lately, this movie is actually watchable...
I've got a thousand complaints, but Spielberg actually pulled it off:
No grit, no guts, nothing.😁

Walter Alvarez76, you’re only replying to my post to troll me, but I still maintain that the critic didn't actually watch the movie, and it seems like you haven't either. Without getting into the actual quality of the film—since I didn't mention its merits in my previous post and don't intend to debate that—I will lay out why I believe the critic hasn't seen it. I thought quoting a specific paragraph from his review would be enough to show those who have actually watched the film that he hadn't, but apparently, I’ll have to be more explicit.
critic:"...It's based around the character of Frank Abagnale (Leonardo DiCaprio), whose French slut mother enjoyes shagging men off the street "
film: Frank's mother, while certainly a slut as the critic rightly suggests, doesn't just sleep with any random guy off the street; she sleeps with wealthy businessmen because she's motivated by money and a comfortable lifestyle, rather than love (or perhaps to her, money equals love)... personally, I might have respected her more if she were hooking up with people from the streets instead of her husband's wealthy (former) friends.
critic:"and things get even worse when the walking pater (Christopher Walken) gets cought robbing from his employers"
film: Frank's father is a private contractor who was defrauding the government through tax evasion, which is made very clear in the movie, so I truly don't understand why anyone would take a critique this poorly written—one that fails to grasp the fundamental events of the film—seriously. 👎
QED
PS, Walter Alvarez76, you are responsible for my longest post ever on the IMF.😉

ruggedjackal46 said:I don't know about you, but I felt every single minute of that movie differently because I "predicted" the ending two hours before it actually happened (and I'm no psychic)

Okay, that doesn't really hold up, considering you knew the gist of it before the movie even hit theaters here in the States. You already knew the synopsis: a young Frank was the biggest con artist in the USA and, once caught, started working for the FBI. That's the whole premise—it’s basically poking fun at Americans being so incompetent they had to hire a criminal to solve fraud cases...

The choice to have Spielberg start the film with Frank already caught was purely a directorial decision. He likely thought it would make a stronger impact on the audience and help bolster what is otherwise a fairly mediocre directing job throughout the rest of the film. Still, despite its flaws, this remains Spielberg's best work since Amistad...

damien said:Given all the absolute garbage coming out of Hollywood these days, this movie is actually quite watchable...
I might have a thousand complaints, but Steven Spielberg really pulled it off here:
It’s completely bloodless and sanitized 😁

👍 👍 👍

redowl90 said:Look, that argument doesn't hold water, because you knew all this before the movie even hit theaters here... You already knew the synopsis: young Frank was the ultimate con artist in the USA, and after getting caught, he started working for the FBI... That’s the whole point of the movie: it’s essentially mocking Americans for being so incompetent they had to hire a criminal to solve their own fraud cases...

Um... from what I've read about the film since, Frank Abagnale actually did work for the FBI in real life, so maybe it wasn't some stroke of screenwriting genius, but just following the actual facts of the story.😕
And please, don't lecture me on "points" of the movie. The only real point of this shallow flick is to entertain the audience—which clearly failed for me, so my complaining is perfectly justified!

As for that choice to end where it begins? It’s a trope we’ve seen a thousand times. In my opinion, though, they handled it poorly this time; jumping from the end back to the past felt totally disorganized.
I really don't see how anyone calls this a masterpiece, because honestly, Spielberg's movies tend to get on my nerves. And I don't just mean his typical commercial blockbusters; even E.T. was so tedious I could barely sit through the whole thing. Ugh.

Not bad, certainly not bad... though Tom Hanks is just plain boring here. Leonardo DiCaprio manages to surprise me occasionally, but I’ve noticed that only seems to happen when the plot revolves entirely around him. In Gangs of New York, he was pretty much useless—Daniel Day-Lewis is the one actually carrying that entire film on his back.
Anyway, the whole thing flew by for me, and I've always had a soft spot for those fast-paced, entertaining movies that don't overstay their welcome.

Lily Collins said:All in all, I wasn't exactly blown away. There were a few decent moments, but the rest felt incredibly dragged out. It ends on a happy note since the guy ends up doing alright.

"A FEW"??? "A FEW"???
The movie was virtually unwatchable even with two double espressos and an immense amount of sheer mental willpower.
We really ought to start labeling these things for the brave souls—the true adventurers who step into a theater ready to face mediocrity—noting, perhaps, how many shots of espresso will be required to endure such shallow and tedious brain massage...
If only to spare the innocent victims, so they might be fully aware of what they are charging into...

The only redeeming quality is the father figure; a solid performance...

The movie was great. It’s funny and the dialogue is spot on.

The movie was killer 👍 (and when I say that, considering Leonardo DiCaprio is my absolute 👎 )

It was a pretty standard movie for me. The opening hook definitely grabs you, but at its core, it feels like nothing more than a tribute to the >. Compared to other solid films I’ve watched lately—things like >, >, >, or even >—it didn't really stand out as better or worse. My only real worry is that, much like some other forgettable flicks, it might slip my mind in about a month.

Honestly, it bugs me whenever people claim a story is "based on true events." It feels like a cheap way to plug plot holes. If you label something as real, nobody can argue with the logic or say it isn't believable. It's like, who cares if the pacing is off or the characters act weirdly if you're telling me it "actually happened"?

That being said, aside from the initial hook, I actually liked the underlying theme—the idea that anyone can be played, that people are inherently naive, and that no one truly knows you better than what you choose to tell them. But then again, I suppose that’s just how life works.

This movie is absolutely incredible!👍
I had such a blast watching this, and honestly, Leonardo DiCaprio stole the show. He plays his part so perfectly (exactly how Steven Spielberg intended) by showing that he’s always got everything under control, especially during that hilarious scene where he’s posing as a fake professor, and then just carries that energy through the whole film. The contrast between his actual persona and the cover story he puts on is fascinating. Everyone just falls for his charm and how convincing he is—even Tom Hanks, who looks like a total amateur and a complete fool 😛 when things go sideways, up to that guy who’s basically acting like a father-in-law-to-be waiting to hand over his daughter...😉
Then again, it’s not just about the attitude; it's his raw talent, sharp intuition, and sheer cunning that make him great.
Bottom line—this movie is a solid five stars! 👍

Solid movie... actually, it was great... 8/10

The absolute highlight for me was that bit where those two guys keep messing with Tom Hanks, acting like he’s this super stiff, uptight guy who can't loosen up. So then, just to prove them wrong and show he actually has a sense of humor, he offers to tell a joke... and then
Tom Hanks: 'Knock, knock.'
Them: 'Who's there?'
Tom Hanks (struggling to find an actual punchline): 'Ah, GO FUCK YOURSELVES!'

😂 😂 😂

The movie is great. Honestly, the only people hating on it are the ones who just can't stand Steven Spielberg. It’s sitting at like a 93% on Rotten Tomatoes or something. Anyway, it was fun and the time just flew by. Someone earlier tried to compare this to Confessions of a Dangerous Mind. That movie is actually boooooring. In the most literal sense of the word.

This movie is seriously awesome.👍

And honestly, all this talk about Leonardo DiCaprio... people mostly just hated on him early on because he was that cute kid everyone’s little sisters were obsessing over, right? But man, the guy is actually a phenomenal actor!

As for Tom Hanks, you either love him or you don't! (A little nugget of wisdom there, I guess!🤔 )

But yeah, bottom line—it's definitely worth a watch!

Honestly, it wasn't even that bad.
If this flick were pure fiction, I’d say it was basically impossible.
But, you know...
They didn't really dive deep into how he pulled off all those tricks.
Maybe they just didn't think it mattered for this story?
Personally, I think it should have.

When Steven Spielberg isn't being forced into a corner by producers demanding a half-billion-dollar blockbuster, he can actually deliver something high-quality and genuinely funny. And if Leonardo DiCaprio actually connects with a role, he’s capable of playing someone intelligent without being grating. Even Tom Hanks seemed natural and actually invested in his character here. All things considered, it's a more than solid film.

I’m signing off on this, word for word. 👍

Honestly, the movie was just okay... felt a bit slow to me.

Man, this movie is just incredible... seriously, the directing is a total masterpiece and the acting? Even better!