Catch Me If You Can: 8/10

Rating: 8/10 (26 December 2002)

Catch Me If You Can starts off with a boom with a very suave opening credits sequence, where sample people are chasing/being chased and using the credits to hide. Very clever, like the rest of the movie. Then we go to Marseille, France, where Carl Hanratty (Tom Hanks) is talking to Frank Abagnale, Jr. (Leonardo DiCaprio) and he is released from prison. We are then taken six years earlier, to 1963.
Frank's father, Frank Sr. (Christopher Walken) is a grifter of sorts, but nothing major. He's being investigated for tax fraud. And when Frank's mother Paula (Nathalie Baye) is caught cheating, Frank leaves home and first tries out theft in his father's petty ways. Soon he gets way over his head and becomes infamous for writing checks, and soon he's stolen over $4 million. But Hanratty and the FBI is close onto Frank, but always one step behind.
I have got to hand it to Steven Spielberg-taking a concept that people like I haven't heard of (gotta read the book!) and manipulating it into a multi-layered story of cat-and-mouse. Of course, it could have been better if there had been more sub-plots. It's mainly Frank having fun and Hanratty chasing him. Also, Hanratty's person needed more depth, but I'll talk about that later.
Catch Me If You Can has a good deal of humor for a movie billed as a drama. Its opening credit sequence and Frank's schemes took most of the humor. During his first day at a new school, at a French class, there's no teacher, so why not act as one? That was his first step to stardom, so to speak. I love how he made the checks at PanAm (I'll keep it a surprise). The first half was better than the second half, because it was funnier and more involved. The first half had information about the family and his jobs as a PanAm pilot, doctor, and lawyer. Of course, he hasn't had any training, and it's always worth a laugh to see him struggle. The second half took itself too seriously, and had the now-famous Spielberg fake ending, but at least it wasn't as severe as AI or Minority Report.
Depth of the characters, you ask? The movie focused most of the time on Frank, Jr., of course, but we do know some about Frank, Sr. His mother was very underdeveloped and could have been utilized better. Hanratty, we don't really know much about, so it's hard to get deep into his character (but you did get to like Frank). We do learn about his past at the end, but that's kind of unnecessary, isn't it?
Leo, I'm not sure if he deserved a Golden Globe nomination, but he was very good. I enjoyed his `dapper dan' attitude, which is what the whole movie was like. It didn't find itself serious (until the end), so it allowed some sort of suave cockiness, which added to the fun and the authentic feel of the 60s (not that I would know, of course). Hanks, with his usual Southern accent, seemed fine (nothing like The Green Mile, though). All of the supporting characters knew their parts (and the one-liners didn't overact or anything!). Jennifer Garner, as a prostitute, is waster and not really needed, mainly just to get to the overlong 140 minute runtime.
It's really fun and unpredictable (except the ending); you don't know how Frank is going to conjure up his next scheme. Sure, it tried to get sappy at the end, but it made you feel good, and that's what great movies are all about.
My rating: 8/10
Rated PG-13 for some sexual content and brief language.