Definition: You will be given a review about a book, an item, a place or a movie. After that, a question is given that you should answer using a certain span of the review. Your answer should be from the review itself and should not contain extra words, and should not be a combination of different spans. If there's no direct answer to the question, answer with a part of the text that is the most relevant to the question. See the examples for clarification.
Input: review: Ok, not evil, but whatever.This lighthearted offering from Steven Spielberg is superior to 'The Terminal' but not quite as infectious as his beauties like 'E.T.'. It is fun and exciting and engaging, but I find it also to be slightly forgettable. It is one of those films that leaves no complaints while in the midst of enjoying it, but it isn't one that you're going to remember three days later.Make sense?The film tells the true story of con-man Frank Abagnale Jr., who by the time he was 21 had made a living at deceiving and 'stealing' from the government. He was a pilot, a doctor, a lawyer, all the while never being any of those things. He was, simply put, a genius. Carl Hanratty was the FBI agent who was on his tail for years, never quite getting close enough to catch him (well, eventually), always one step behind.One thing to describe this film is 'jovial'. It is a happy fun film. Within the restraints of the genre it works nicely. It does lack the 'human' element that could have really set this film apart (and made it more memorable). While the film remains exciting and entertaining it lacks that gut punch that could have made this movie 'mean something', and in the end it would have completed it. That said, happy is what happy does, and happy does a lot for this film. Not only is the plot rather boisterous, but the performances are all just so delightful. Leonardo DiCaprio captures the suave and childlike adorableness of Frank Jr. rather remarkably. A lot of my cinephile friends consider this one of his best performances. I kind of agree, since it really capitalizes on everything that makes him such an endearing actor. This is a far better performance than his confused turn in 'Gangs of New York', which was released the same year. Tom Hanks is perfectly matched here, for he really understands how to play up the genre here. As many know, I am not a gigantic fan of Mr. Hanks, so for me to praise a performance takes a lot from me. But, as anyone who knows me knows, I consider his lighthearted 'non-baity' work to be his best (see 'Big' and 'That Thing You Do' for examples). Christopher Walken may not be the most jovial character in the bunch (and he does insert the films only 'human' element) but he nails his character.Also, look for Amy Adams in a scene stealing supporting role!All in all, 'Catch Me If You Can' delivers a very strong and very likable experience. It's a film that may not 'stick with you', but it is a film you will have no quarrels with watching again and again.
question: Is that movie good?
Output:
exciting and engaging