Larry Mudd, the answer’s yes to the question in the first paragraph. But he didn’t do it the same way.
According to the book, Frank Abagnale currently works for the FBI’s Financial Crimes Unit and teaches at the FBI Academy. He gives speeches across the country and works with banks and other businesses to beat guys like him. Sure, he was a con artist, but unless you know something we don’t (and can prove it), you can’t say he’s still conning people. I’d say he’s atoning for his crimes more and in a way that benefits more people than most criminals ever do.
Thanks, Cardinal. (You do realize how funny the non-spoilered part of your post is going to look to folks who haven’t seen the movie/read the book, right?)
Jeez, what’ll it take? He’s spent the last 30 years making up for the things he did when he was a teenager; without evidence of recidivism, that’s good enough for me.
I thought it was a great movie, although I agree with Otto that that one scene could have been cut out altogether. Other than that I didn’t think there was anything gratuitous despite the length of the film; indeed, I would have rather seen a little more development of the Frank-Carl affection (although I understood the relationship without needing more).
I found it good but not great. Couldn’t entirely get into it, but may have just been my mood. I also didn’t find the Frank/Leo character all that charming - there was very little made of the people he screwed over, especially the Brenda (?)character. I felt really bad for her and her family. The movie was just too light on the effects Frank had on other people. I found him to be kind of an ass
It does look a lot like a “clamshell” video cover and I thought for a second it was too but I did determine it was a book (not sure if he turns it slightly or what but I could tell after a second it was a hardcover).
I was surprised that I liked this movie despite Dicaprio. I thought he fit the role pretty well (contrast this with his sometimes-I’m-Irish-sometimes-I’m-not accent in Gangs of New York). Even Tom Hanks, who I usually don’t think is all that good, fit his role really well too. It’s no Oscar winner, but at least it wasn’t a waste of a coupla hours. Anyway, I just have have one question about Catch me if You Can.
What’s with that little girl who’s just sitting there playing the harmonica in the window when Frank goes to his mother’s house on Long Island? I guess it’s Frank’s half-sister or something? Why must Spielberg insert some saccharine sweet superfluous little kid in every single one of his damn movies?
Actually, Hanks stepped in at the last minute for Catch Me If You Can, because DiCaprio’s commitment to Gangs of New York went longer than expected, delaying the start of production for CMIYC. The fella that they had lined up to play Hanratty had previous obligations for The Sopranos.
I think Hanks did a great job, but I’d really like to know how it would have turned out if James Gandolfini had been able to do it as planned. I think it would have been pretty cool.
I saw Catch Me if You Can just a couple of days ago. Boy, was that a good movie. I like Leo in this movie which is a surprise, cause normally I don’t like him. Tom Hanks was fantastic in his role; I wouldn’t be surprised if he snags a supporting Oscar nomination. It’s refreshing to see a movie that’s not a sequel.
Otto the book explains that, (to Frank at least) that is the one time he took money from a particular person and not a large faceless company.
In the book
He even pays back a lawyer who posted bond for him that he paid for with a bogus check. I don’t know if that is in the film or not but young Frank really felt that taking money from a bank or from Pan Am was no big deal. He later starts feeling bad because a person at the bank may have gotten in trouble or fired because he fooled them.
In the book also there are contrasting prisons. One in France and one in Sweeden. Are both of these in the film?
StickyIcky–[spoiler]The little girl is not superfluous-- the supposed motive for Frank’s crimes, as we have been told more often than I would have thought was strictly necessary, is that he sees his comfortable family life as something that has been stolen from him by a faceless ‘them.’ Again and again, he tells his father “I’m going to get it all back.” He’s not talking about mere money. He thinks his mother left his father because the nice things have all disappeared. He was driven by a fantasy that somehow he could reclaim all the material things that his father lost, which would somehow reconcile his parents. This is shown again and again, for instance in his naive assertion about his parents seeing each other at his wedding, “When she sees you in that suit…”
The scene at the window shows him finally understanding that the things he really wanted to restore are irretrievable. He’s just found out about his father’s death, and the little girl is a concrete confirmation that his mother has settled into a new life of her own- one that she’s happy in. You can’t go home again. He no longer has any reason to evade capture, which is why he asks Karl to “Please, just put me in the car.” To me, that this scene takes place after he’s squeezed out of a tiny hold, and he’s still covered in muck, really reinforces the personal rebirth he experiences- Igni Natura Renovata Integra, and all that. Everything is completely destroyed, and now he has the opportunity to genuinely remake himself into a new man.[/spoiler]
I have to agree with everyone who says that the movie was just OK. It was pleasant enough, but certainly not something I would ever bother seeing again outside of coming across it on television or something.