The goal of /r/Movies is to provide an inclusive place for discussions and news about films with major releases. Submissions should be for the purpose of informing or initiating a discussion, not just to entertain readers. Read our extensive list of rules for more information on other types of posts like fan-art and self-promotion, or message the moderators if you have any questions.
Catch Me If You Can (2002) is likely 100% BS; how well does it work when you know it's false?
I love this movie. I've watched it dozens of times and will willingly watch it many times more. But when I first saw it, I was under the impression that I was watching a (mostly) true story. Obviously I knew it wasn't a documentary and that characters, events, conversations and the like were altered to make them more cinematic. But I still believed the basic premise and storyline was what happened.
Knowing now that it's likely none of the events were even close to what really happened –if there was even as much as a germ of a basis to begin with, I am wondering if the film is still as enjoyable as a work of pure fiction or is everything that happens just too convenient to be taken seriously enough to enjoy it on its own? In other words: if this had just been a well-written screenplay from someone's imagination, would it still have had the same impact? For comparison, one of the things I could not personally get past in Forest Gump was the sheer number of coincidences that put Gump next to famous historical figures. At some point, I stopped enjoying seeing him as a witness to major historical events and just saw it as a convenient crutch for the writer to move the plot along. this makes me wonder if I would feel the same way about CMIYC.
Would like to hear from anyone who learned the story was fake before seeing the film.
It's even better now, knowing he grifted filmmakers into making a movie about his made up grifting. It's really the ultimate grift.
Guy who claims to have spent his life ripping off people who fail to fact check him makes a fortune off people who failed to fact check him.
Not really that much of a grift on Spielberg, since it was a massively successful film.
just ignore the whole "based on a true story" aspect.
its a great story told by excellent actors.
it not being 100% true does nothing to hinder the fact that its an enjoyable watch.
I'll do ya one better: stop interpreting "based on" as "reflecting reality" or "this is what happened"
it's more like 'It informed our screenwriting process"
I read the guy's book knowing beforehand it was bullshit and it was still really entertaining. Just treat it as total fiction with no pretense of truth, it's still fun.
The following tale is true. And by true, I mean false. It's all lies. But they're entertaining lies. And in the end, isn't that the real truth? The answer is: No.
My ex father in law is retired FBI who apparently worked on the actual case or in proximity. He hates the movie with a passion, lol
My uncle is retired from the NTSB and was one of the guys investigating Sully when he landed the plane in the river. Absolutely hates the movie. The investigators thought Sully was a hero, they weren't out to get him.
I could understand that, as the dude still goes around claiming he worked for the FBI for like 40 years, and apparently there is exactly zero evidence of him ever having been paid to do anything other than public speaking about his made up grifts.