This is topic Catch Me If You Can in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000476

---

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 12-25-2002, 08:00 PM:
 
What can I say - Frank Abignale is now one of my heroes. I loved this movie from beginning to end. The only thing I wonder - which parts are made up and which parts are real................

Steven Speilberg still kicks ass.
 

---

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 12-26-2002, 01:21 AM:
 
I also loved this movie. Di Caprio and Hanks give wonderful performances.

And Dennis, at least according to Spielberg, its all real .
 

---

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 12-26-2002, 02:03 PM:
 
In an interview with Frank Abagnale, it is all real. There are only two things that are left out of the film:

1. He claimed to have been a professor at Brigham Young University, however no one can verify that, and his recollections of his teaching there are not consistant with the runnings of a private school;

2. The way he was caught...

He was caught at a hot dog stand buying a hot dog when two detectives thought they may have spotted him. They approached him from behind and say "hey frank"... He turned around and said.. "yeah"...

He felt real stupid for that after all he pulled off...

He does however feel no pride for what he did, probably because he was caught and had to do some prison time.

He now works as a security and scam consultant for many fortune 500 companies.

He sold the script for 250 thousand dollars back in the early eighties, thinking what suckers they were. However now he feels that with the money it will surely do, he feels finally the duped one.

But he is not upset, he hopes people see the lines drawn to show that a life on the run really is not all that fun.

Dave
 

---

Posted by Daniel Boisson (Member # 1027) on 12-27-2002, 12:07 AM:
 
I too loved this movie. I went in expecting a great film being DiCaprio and Hanks directed my Spielberg, and that is definitely what I got. Definitely gonna see this one again......

Its really amazing he was able to accomplish all of this, at his age too.
 

---

Posted by Steven Privett (Member # 718) on 12-29-2002, 07:30 PM:
 
I too watched this film because if Steven and Tom go in and make a bad film, I want to see it. They didn't. I enjoyed the humor, twist and turns in this film. I usually just watch bits and pieces of a film, but i couldn't pull myself from this one.
Now another reason I couldn't pull myself away... when I saw Dicaprio on the phone and big as day it had a modular jack on the receiver. If it was in the 60's this doesn't exist yet. Started looking for mistakes after that. Good film though
 

---

Posted by Mitchell Cope (Member # 32) on 12-29-2002, 08:33 PM:
 
Well, I'm usually impressed with a Steven Spielberg film, but this one didn't do it for me. The story seemed weak and just wandered its course. I never bought the tie between Frank and his parents. Good acting, but this film was boring to me by the end.
 

---

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 12-29-2002, 10:19 PM:
 
If he sold the script nearly 20 years ago for $250,000 that's pretty good money for those days. I wonder why the movie took that long to be made.
 

---

Posted by Mitchell Cope (Member # 32) on 12-30-2002, 06:10 AM:
 
Mike asked,

quote:

---

If he sold the script nearly 20 years ago for $250,000 that's pretty good money for those days. I wonder why the movie took that long to be made.

---

quote:

---

Oh, and check out the "edited on the Moviola" credit at the end!

---

The Movioloa credit has appeared in other Spielberg films,as his longtime editor Michael Kahn has never made the switch to non-linear (or who prefers the old way of editing).
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-31-2002, 12:02 PM:
 
The January 2003 issue of Millimeter Magazine is scheduled to have an article about Steven Spielberg's love of "FILM" (especially during the hands-on editing process), despite his being one of the pioneers of digital imaging and CGI technology in movies.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-01-2003, 12:34 PM:
 
I'll give this film 3-starts out of 4.

I enjoyed the film. It did remind me a bit of "THE PRETENDER" with Tony Curtis. (It might be The Great Pretender...).

Ironically for me...I felt this film was well shot (I'm not Steven's biggest fan) and the performances were top notch. I'd probably preferred Matt Damon in the lead roll but Leonardio did fine.

The guy's life is pretty interesting...he stole and had free use of 4-million dollars (in 1960s money), when caught was thrown into prision for a maximum of 12-years but was released early to the FBI where he received a (manditory) job at the FBI, education and honest income which lead to a much more lucritive career.

The guy was clearly very smart for his ability to pull off what he did, to pass the BAR exam with only 2-weeks studying and to teach himself about conterfitting.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 01-05-2003, 11:36 AM:
 
I liked this film and was on the edge of my seat for most of it...but..
The more I think of it the more it troubles me though. This film really didn't stress enough the downside of being an outlaw. We saw a zillion funny, glamorous, exciting, scenes of life as a crook, but very few of the consequences. We now have a film lesson that shows how you can do deplorable crimes, get away with it, and in the end wind up with a high paying job and a happy family and home life.
I'm sure we will see a rash of copy cats over the next year or so.

There was one part where an overhead mic bobbed down for a second.
 

---

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 01-05-2003, 01:31 PM:
 
The couple that the wife and I went to see this film with remembered that there had been a Tony Curtis film that dealt with an amazingly similar situation. I too had remembered seeing this film although I couldn't remember the particulars. It turns out that It was "The Great Imposter" with Tony Curtis but was released in 1961, before the events of CMIYC. Could TGI been a training film for Frank Abignale Jr?
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 01-05-2003, 06:52 PM:
 
01/05/2003, Cinemark 17, Spfld OR, #10, 12:35PM, SR•D. Attendance about 200. Not enough light, kind of a milky, diffuse look to the image. Started slightly misframed, about a foot low, was eventually corrected when the feature started. The rolling stock was filthy. Two nasty lab splices that dropped to analog for a couple seconds. The SR•D sound was riddled from start to finish with audible "tics" that other Film-Techers have speculated is probably due to a very high digital data error rate (lots of F's).

Notwithstanding the above, I really enjoyed this. The film contains virtually no "Spielbergisms", those little excesses that he likes to throw in. Leo D-C is quite the charmer on screen -- he may be a butthead in real life, but he can act. Tom Hanks is very good as usual. John Williams' score sounds nothing like one of his typical scores, and that's a good thing. A good date movie.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-05-2003, 11:01 PM:
 
I don't know why Spielberg insists on giving his images a blurry/cloudy look, but that part wasn't Cinemark's fault. The film was shot like that.
 

---

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 01-06-2003, 01:34 AM:
 
I liked this movie, I cant believe someone could get away with all of that.

I do feel however that is sends the wrong message... Steal 4 million dollars and not only get away with it but get a good job out of the deal!

Tom Hanks' accent really annoyed me though, you dont "farge" checks you "forge" them.

Knock... Knock...
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-06-2003, 10:49 AM:
 
David Stambaugh wrote: "The rolling stock was filthy".

Unfortunately, "Rolling Stock" ads are usually NOT printed on KODAK VISION Color Print Film. If the film does not have a conductive anti-static layer like Kodak film, static charge can attract and hold dirt particles. Kodak VISION Color Print Film has also made significant improvements to protect against projector abrasion and the dirt it generates:

Technical Data

Kodak VISION Color Print Film Introduction
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 01-06-2003, 11:06 AM:
 
Some of the scenes in the movie did have a deliberate diffused-light look to them. The issue I'm whining about is the entire movie seemed to lack contrast and crispness, maybe due to being under-lit. That's just a guess though.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-06-2003, 02:31 PM:
 
Not to be picky John, but rolling stock is always the first thing on the roll. Kodak stock or not, it will look terrible at most theaters. (In other words, that's cheating.)
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-06-2003, 03:52 PM:
 
Just look at the difference when Kodak VISION Color Print film is used for the "rolling stock" ads and trailers, and you'll see the difference. Projector abrasion and static charge issues about rolling stock ads on other films have already been discussed on Film-Tech.
 

---

Posted by William Leland III (Member # 1400) on 01-07-2003, 03:46 PM:
 
I enjoyed "Catch Me If You Can". The movie was told very well and I liked John Williams' musical score. I think he blended the movie theme ( a thief ) well into music. I was a little hesitant to see another wonderful job by Mr. Big Tom Hanks. But he did a good job and didn't steal away from Leo.

Unlike David Stambaugh's movie my film was out of frame until the last 3 reels. I could see boom mikes in scenes and some shots you could not see the actors. I did notice bad lad splices and sound popping in and out.

It was funny to notice that the audience didn't complain about the framing, until the last few reels. The reason I didn't complain was because I movie hopped. I know bad on me but I worked for the company for 1 year and 8 months (no raise pay) and I was head projectionist.
 

---

Posted by Ray Brown (Member # 1449) on 01-17-2003, 05:49 PM:
 
Just got done previewing this movie. My two favorite scenes are when DiCaprio is fleeing the country and when his Mom offers to payback everything he stole.

I give this movie .
 

---

Posted by Arthur Allen (Member # 969) on 01-25-2003, 12:06 AM:
 
I saw this a few weeks ago at my first visit to Jack Ondracek's Redwood Cinema. It was strange not seeing ceiling tiles in the auditorium, but that must be part of the renovation. The sound was great and (considering the narrow room) could have passed for digital if not for the lab splice. The only serious complaint about the presentation was the preview for "Old School," which didn't seem to have much in common with this movie's audience. I heard one audience member say, "That's one movie I'm NOT going to see."

The only historical inaccuracy I can remember now is the modren pictoral Stop Ahead sign seen on the street as the FBI members drive to the hotel. Back in the 60's it would have been a sign that actually spelled out "STOP AHEAD."
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 02-03-2003, 04:03 AM:
 

quote:

---

when Frank was first trying on the pilot uniform, he told the uniform salesman that he was a "co-pilot," yet the jacket only had two gold stripes on the sleeve, which would indicate "flight engineer" and not "copilot/first officer."

---

I think in some later scenes he is wearing a jacket with three stripes but I am not sure. I also wondered if they had photocopy machines in that time.
I liked the movie very much.
 

---

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 02-03-2003, 05:11 AM:
 
Haloid Xerox Inc. introduced the first automatic, plain-paper office copier, called the Xerox 914 in 1959.

The first xerographic copier, the Model A, was introduced in 1949 by the Haloid Company.

Oddly, the Haloid Company was founded in 1906, the same year Chester Carlson (the inventor of xerography) was born (on February 8th).

As for the movie... I liked it. Sure it may have had some historical flaws, but what movie depicting the past hasn't? Heck, most movies don't even portray the present correctly.
 

---

Posted by Ray Brown (Member # 1449) on 02-03-2003, 07:40 PM:
 

quote:

---

The only serious complaint about the presentation was the preview for "Old School," which didn't seem to have much in common with this movie's audience. I heard one audience member say, "That's one movie I'm NOT going to see."

---

quote:

---

...when I proposed to go to the booth to show them the fingerprint on the lens back, the "senior technician" appeared, got pale when he saw the screen image and ran to the booth. He returned and apologized about "problems with the staff".

---

Film Done Wrong.

At least they had a "senior technician" on duty, who understood the problem and fixed it.
 

---

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 02-10-2003, 03:48 PM:
 
Well, when the manager spoke to the "junior technician" (or whatever they call him) on the intercom, that guy fiddled around with the focus knob and said "Now it should be OK!".

What made me really mad is that after he had been informed about the problem, he was unable to locate a fat fingerprint illuminated by 4.5 kilowatts of xenon light!
 

---

Posted by John Spooner (Member # 1565) on 02-11-2003, 11:47 AM:
 
Assuming the lenses were mounted in a turret, the "operator" must be clumsy to put a large fingerprint onto the lens element.
John Spooner.
 

---

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 02-11-2003, 04:36 PM:
 
Don`t bet on it. Once upon a time, I worked part-time in a theatre that had two operators, one of them lazy, the other one very skilled. I could always tell when the Bad Guy had been there because he left half a thumbprint on the lens close to that which had been used last.
The projector was a Bauer U4C 35/70mm with a (non-automated) revolver. Any time the Bad Guy changed the lenses, he gripped the lens next to him so stupid that there had to be a fingerprint.

When he finally left the theatre, first thing we did was change the lenses. There was virtually no coating left because of the constant fingerprint/cleaning action.

But regarding the CATCH ME... experience: You are right, it might have been some other kind of grease. I`ve seen projectionists clean the gate with paper towels that had grease or dirt on the reverse side, so it would touch the back of the lens. Sad but true.
 

---

Posted by John Spooner (Member # 1565) on 02-12-2003, 09:35 AM:
 
The point about the gate cleaning and the greasy cloth was good.
We do not have turrets in our theatres which makes it simple, so I remove the lens at the end of the film prior to cleaning the aperture area. Then there is no possibility of grease or suchlike getting onto the rear element.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-13-2003, 08:22 AM:
 
"Lens Cleaning" by Schnieder Optics:

http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/white_papers/lens_cleaning.pdf

"Lens Cleaning" by Edmund Optics:

http://www.edmundoptics.com/TechSupport/DisplayArticle.cfm?articleid=265

Another link:

http://medfmt.8k.com/broncleaningp.html
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-13-2003, 02:03 PM:
 
Ok, this is now 7 posts in a row that are NOT movie reviews. Take it into one of the other forums please.
 

---

Posted by Arthur Allen (Member # 969) on 02-27-2003, 06:44 PM:
 
Sort of on topic. In the afterword of the new paperback version of the book, they list Frank Abagnale's post-prison cycle of getting entry level jobs at retail and being fired once his employers are about to promote him but then look closer at his past. He finally worked as a projectionist, where the book quotes him,

quote:

---

I was making good money, but there I was, five nights a week, sitting in this small room, with nothing to do, really, save to watch the same movie over and over again. I thought to myself that I was smarter than that, that I was ignoring and wasting real talents that I possessed.

---

It was then that he got the idea to lecture to bank employees on check security.
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 02-28-2003, 09:04 PM:
 
I had understood that he worked for the FBI after his criminal career was over.
 

---

Posted by Arthur Allen (Member # 969) on 03-08-2003, 07:17 PM:
 
There were lots of differences between the book and the movie. I guess they thought it would speed things up in the movie if Frank got hired by the FBI right out of prison. I don't recall Frank peeling labels off bottles in the book, but the flight attendant front happened in both versions. He didn't do it to create a distraction, but more for the challenge of it. It paid off better in the book, while the movie the individual "students" were simply forgotten.
 

---