A Lot of Money Spent on a Slight Story

Rating: 5/10 (22 December 2005)

Is "Catch Me If You Can" an indicator of the end of Western civilization? How to justify the enormous amount of money and talent that went into creating a slight entertainment with zero significance? As my son pointed out -- the idea was to make a profit and they doubtless are.
The cleverly done details overwhelm the substance, almost hiding the lack of any.
The opening credits by Nexus Productions are a marvelous salute to similar animated openings, like "The Pink Panther" and "The Man with the Golden Arm," period classics by noted graphic designers like Saul Bass.
John Williams captures the Mancini feel of "Peter Gunn" etc. with the finger clicking accompaniment to the opener.
The cinematography by Janusz Kaminski, costumes and art direction stunningly continue the period feel, as well as expensive use of appropriate songs like "Look of Love," so we really do see all the money on the screen. Because Steven Spielberg doesn't spend $1,000 where he can spend $100,000. The camera is constantly moving back to reveal huge, decorated sets, and swooping around to show us just how much environment has been re-created.
This is to Spielberg's oeuvre what "Ocean's 11" is to Steven Soderbergh's. It feels like Spielberg was trying to do a tribute to Billy Wilder, without the cynicism that he simply can't do, but the film is dedicated at the end to the late Bruce Paltrow. Wilder would never see family deterioration and recreation as a motivator as Spielberg does, with a recurring theme of Christmas Eve reunions, complete with a wide-eyed little girl (with a similar divorce propulsion as in "E.T.").
Leonardo DiCaprio is much better cast here than "Gangs of New York" as a protean teen-ager, while Tom Hanks is his usual obsessively dedicated employee. Christopher Walken is marvelous in a small, fatherly role and even gets to dance very briefly.
But I kept wondering whether this story would have held up as a little indie film and decided it would not without the gloss.
(originally written 2/20/2003)