A cat-and-mouse chase that doesn't know which direction to take ...

Rating: 7/10 (28 October 2011)

"Catch Me If You Can" is a fitting title because I really tried to catch the appeal of the film and I almost managed until a final act that confirmed me one thing: a good story doesn't necessarily make a good film, a pity because the movie had great potential but  only as a comedy.
This is the film's problem; it's so ashamed of its comedic tones that it uses the moodiest drama as a counterpart. You have two levels in the film, when it's funny, it raises the humor to the level of greatest comedies reminding of good old Billy Wilder or Frank Capra's classics, and I mean that for the two acts, but when it's dramatic, boys it's so depressing I wonder if it's still the same film I'm watching and if it didn't actually convince Scorsese to hire Di Caprio as his new protégé. If only for one thing, I blame the film for having introduced Leo's new serious side.
I'm aware that Frank Abagnale Jr.'s back-story carries many serious undertones, but come on; the guy is a con artist, and the premise is so entertaining, why should we care for the whole torment inhabiting his heart? Although I admit I love the whole father-and-son relationship and I thought Christopher Walken delivered a great performance, the story of Frank Abagnale Jr. was begging for more and more comedy. The material was shamefully wasted in Spielberg's attempt to make a serious character study out of this.
And if it remained true to the first comedic premise, who else could have done a better job as a 'straight man' than Tom Hanks as Hanratty? He was a constant enjoyment as long as he was fooled by Leo -their first encounter is one of the funniest movie moments of the 2000's- but when the cat-and-mouse situation turned to his advantage, and Frank ultimately decided to help the FBI and become a new Hanratty, I couldn't help but be disappointed. I was waiting for the punch line, but I know, I know  this is a true story.
Well, let's admit this is not any con artist, this one was real, but that would have provided twice the excitement, even as a drama. Franks impersonated an airline pilot, doctor, assistant attorney general and history professor, and some of these exploits were made before he was 21. Well, I'm sure if a poll survey was made after the film's viewing, the majority would agree that the 'pilot' part was the most covered, with the most details about his growing craftsmanship as a fraudulent checks' maker. But how did he live as a doctor? How did his life consist on when he was a secret agent? The different chapters of his lives were so unequally covered that all we had to do, is to trust Leo's talent and sex appeal: if he did it once, he can do it anytime. I'm sorry but when you spend so much time on very depressing parts, why do you apply shortcuts on the most exciting ones?
And are we supposed to believe that Frank's talent relies more on his sex appeal than a developing expertise? I'm certainly not a feminist, but the way women were depicted in the film was offensive and killed off all the charm of seduction. There is a part where the flight attendant welcomes the pilots with a sort of sexy wink in her eyes: if at that moment, you can't guess that Leo will bang her in the next scene, you haven't seen enough movies in your life. There are absolutely no redeeming female characters in this film, their whole purpose is to serve as a foil for Leo's charm, falling in the most obvious and degrading traps like compliments about their eyes, or a necklace. What was a cute running-gag became a blatant exploitation of women regardless of their differences: from the sensitive nurse to the over- glamorized hooker, not to mention the poor flight attendants applicants, all smiling around unknowing that it's only their sexy butts that are used as a cover.
The whole film works as a fantasy anyway and not just for the chicks. It's so stylized that it was impossible to get any hint of realism even in the scenes that rang true, script-wise. The movie had one of the most memorable and stylized opening credits, the whole setting was trying so much to look 60's to the tiniest details, the cars, the clothes, the girls fashions, everything was aesthetically great looking, but at the end it was just like too 'sanitized'. I had the feeling I was watching an idealization of the 60's rather than a true biopic, maybe Spielberg is more at ease with World War II when it comes to the realism of a setting, but "Catch Me If You Can" was a fantasy on that level.
This is why it should have kept the comedic tone, and spends more time on the other chapters of his life, yes, it wouldn't have fitted the title, which was about a cat-and-mouse chase, but let's face it, at the end, after two long hours, it was becoming too redundant. Once he's caught, another time, he escapes etc. etc. and any attempt to focus on the deep relationship between Hanratty and Leo was just bullshit, one was doing her job and the other wouldn't have cared less of becoming his friend, or working with the law. He was in a dead- end and had no choice. So at least the film, could have been an entertaining story of how you can fool the system with a nice creativity, but it chooses to be a biopic with cringe-worthy voyeuristic value.
A nice try, an excellent premise, but a movie that doesn't know which direction to take, and this is saying a lot, coming from a Spielberg film.