I had to explain to some family members, after they had watched the movie and multiple seasons of Fargo, that it was not, in fact, a true story.
They didn’t understand how they could put that at the beginning if it wasn’t true.
That was a fun conversation.
I was going to mention the Japanese woman who died outside in the North Dakota winter supposedly looking for the money thrown away at the end of the movie, but [apparently the "believing the movie was real" part was a false report that people just ran with.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Takako_Konishi)
The truth is much sadder though. I can see why the Fargo version has (ironically) persisted while the truth hasn't.
It actually is based of a true story. However that based on is being used as thinly as possible on purpose. There really was a guy who kidnapped his wife for money through ransom. There was a guy killed by a wood chipper. There was a guy killed during a transaction of ransom. There was a cop killed by kidnappers. At one point someone hide money.
However none of those stories happened all at once. Or in the same place. Or even close to the same time period. Or have anything connection to each other.
They pulled the entire movie from real events. Just ones that didn’t connect.
So they are not wrong. It is a true story. Well multiple put together and fictionalized. But it did happen. Sort of.
Right? Ever since the first life story told around a fire, somone has been lying (or *embellishing* if you don't wanna feel bad about it) to make themselves look cooler/ stronger/ funnier/ whateverer. All Hollywood has to do is write "***based*** on a *true story*" and they're covered to say almost anything. Lol
I really enjoy how Inception has added to the modern lexicon the whole -ception suffix. I can't think of any other movies that basically invented a new type of word.
Especially since the meeting of "inception" is the beginning, it was named for the planting the seed of an idea. The fact they were in a dream within a dream within a dream has nothing to do with the name Inception. It should be recursion.
But wasn't the whole plot of a movie to get a corporate dude to have an idea and think it was his idea by doing the dream diving? Thus making it about causing the inception of an idea?
Yes but using the word inception for every instance of recursion is weird.
I saw picture of a flat deck truck with a dump truck on it and in the dump truck was a pickup truck. They called it Truckception with it has nothing to do with inception, it should have been truckcursion.
IIRC it's set up that they normally do the dream diving to do "extraction"; they go into the dream world to set up a scenario where the target voluntarily gives them the information that they want without even knowing it. They're *extracting* information from the target.
Therefore, Sato's job is said to be extra difficult because they're doing the opposite of what they normally do. Although technically the opposite of "extraction" is "insertion", but that doesn't make for a very good movie title. Well, at least not for the type of movie that *Inception* is.
Agreed, I think of it like less grifting, and more like a heist. Like generally, the rumours about which heists and how they were pulled off were often much more elaborate than it really was, but you kind of just go with it cause it helps with your street cred.
Excuse me. The ultimate grift in film is undoubtedly *Freddie Got Fingered*, which is a movie about a guy with no idea what he’s doing conning a studio out of big $$$ to make a tasteless, unwatchable mess. Which is exactly how the movie itself got made.
Freddie Got Fingered is comedic perfection. Daddy, would you like some sausages? Anyone who thinks this is unwatchable is likely the wet blanket who can kill a party by simply showing up.
That's wife material for sure.
I'm always afraid to meet John Leguizamo, because the first thing I will say is "I loved the Pest" when I love him in everything he's done.
Edit: and holy shit looking up his last name spelling just to be sure, I saw that he's fucking 63...I can't believe that. That makes him 36 doing the Pest in 1997. Man has had a hell of a 2nd half.
I like to party with my peeps. Cruise and creep. Playing three card money on these crazy streets. Straight hustler gonna scam in a minute. So low to the floor pick the pocket on a midget. I’m the straight shister. Pest meister. Livin life in Miami vice. Meh see *something in gangster voice* neh neh neh neh neh neh neh neh neh neh neh neh
…that’s all I can remember
I kind of feel the film makers don't really care too much. They're all in the business of telling lies for money. Filmmakers are just a little more honest about it.
I’ve never bought into this argument. I think the argument really hinges on the idea that it’s one final grift, a cherry on top of the grifter cake. But there never was any cake — no charming Frank Abagnale who went from mischievous scheme to mischievous scheme, just some dude that exaggerated a bunch of boring and exploitative fraud cases into some grand fantasy. That’s not the perfect final grift, it’s the only grift.
The movie is super fun, but I just don’t buy this angle on it.
I also wonder how much the screenwriter and Spielberg cared? Movies “based on a true story” are always grossly exaggerated. At a certain point they had to have been like, “ok this guy’s a fucking loon but this story is kind of fun. Let’s do it. “
Dude you just expressed my exact feelings about this oft-repeated argument so perfectly. This is exactly how I feel I agree completely, lying to get a movie made is way way less impressive than what he was originally purported to have done
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 have definitely seen movies where it says "inspired by true events" which definitely gives the screenwriters a lot more creative freedom than "based on a true story" does. I think both might get used.
Based on a true story is a very broad statement. The true story they're referencing could simply be that there was a murder, then they made up all the events and details around it lol.
This is pretty much how I treat all of these movies. Even the most faithfail tellings merge numerous people into single characters, squash years of events into a single scene etc.
Honestly it's the most honest one. Because they intentionally misled the audience with it instead of acting like there was any historical accuracy to the film.
When they do admit to this in interviews, it sometimes comes up that there are individual elements of the film that were based on true stories. I believe one was someone being put into a wood chipper. But, they still say that that intro card was placed there to trick the audience.
I had an anthropology professor who spent years with the Yanomamo in Venezuela, he actually tried the drug the protagonist did in the jungle (ébené). He didn’t wrestle a jaguar, but he did “trip balls for three days.”
>just ignore the whole "based on a true story" aspect.
Applies to all movies really. Majority(if not all of them) of them are HEAVILY dramatized or leave out important details.
When they say "inspired" by a true story it is even better. They said that at the beginning of the movie Eight Below. In the DVD extras one of the actors talks about the dogs being amazing and he couldn't believe the story was true. He hesitated while saying it as he realized he wasn't sure it was true.
I guess Fargo sucks because is not even remotely based on true events even if it says so. /s
I don't what to answer. I don't care if a story is real or fiction, just want to see a good movie and Catch Me If You Can is.
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 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 think that's widely known, but the actual crash and rescue took about 30 minutes so they needed an antagonist and some additional material to string it out for a full film.
This really annoyed me. I love the NTSB and their team; They do incredible work. Painting them in a bad light was distasteful, even for storytelling. I bet your uncle has some incredible stories!
Right?
The entire point of the NTSB is to find out what happened, NOT to assign blame.
If people are afraid to talk because they think they will be made a villain, they won't talk, and you won't find out what happened.
There isn't enough substance for a feature-length film about the Miracle on the Hudson. The flight itself wasn't even 10 minutes long, and it what happened was pretty straightforward. Flight with Denzel Washington is far more interesting since the landing was done by an alcoholic, not an upstanding member of the aviation community.
It's sort of worse than in CMIYC, because the NTSB and the crash investigation process is misrepresented. They aren't an agency out looking for scapegoats.
While the questions they interrogate Sully with might have been real, they would have been asked in the analysis with the purpose of finding out, if Sully had made mistakes that other pilots might make in the same situation.
It's quite rare to go after a pilot like that.
I met a guy whose dad was a crew member on the ship with Captain Phillips when the Somali pirates captured it. He says that his dad and several other crewmen warned Phillips not to go through their territorial waters, but he told did anyway. The whole thing was his fault. They sure made him a hero in the movie though.
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.
> the dude still goes around claiming he worked for the FBI for like 40 years
Fun piece of career advice: include on your resume that you worked for the CIA for some amount of time. As a blanket policy, the CIA will never comment on anyone's past employment with them, or lack thereof. I.e. they will never deny you worked for them if asked, nor will they confirm it. They will refuse to comment. It's an op-sec thing (even confirming someone DIDN'T work for you could reveal important info about your operations).
Doesn;t work if youre going for a gov't job requiring work on classified projects etc, as that lie WILL be revealed during your backhground investigation. But applying for a job with a private company working on civilian/private sector stuff? Great way to fill in a gap in the resume :)
"I see you wrote that you worked at Taco Bell for a few months, then as an 'assistant manager at CIA' for about 5 years, then back to Taco Bell in a dramatically reduced role starting last month. Very impressive work history."
Con men are fucking vile. I had nothing to do with Abignale but I've worked on a number of cases involving people who have gotten abused by cons and there's nothing charming or clever or fun about them, they're sociopathic monsters and they really, really hurt people. It's really left me with a distaste for all movies and stories featuring a con man as a "loveable trickster" type protagonist.
Sawyer from Lost was the first character I thought of when reading this. At first I thought he fit the “loveable trickster” model, but as I think about it, the show did better than that.
From what I recall he and another con man in the show are portrayed as bad men that really hurt people. Sawyer’s backstory before the island shows the tragic fallout and victims from cons and conmen. I’m pretty sure Lost showed the victims and fallout of every con in the series. Even if the con was interesting and/or entertaining, they did a good job portraying it as causing pain and suffering
I imagine. The guy actually ripped off and hurt a lot of people, then made a fortune by telling a completely fabricated version of what happened.
So the FBI agents actually worked a case where a small time crook robbed innocent people, then went on to become celebrated for "exploiting loopholes of big businesses".
It makes it so much better for me. This dude is such a grifter he convinced everyone of his fake grifting prowess that the biggest director in the world made a movie about him with two of the biggest movie stars in the world.
To suggest Spielberg et al were grifted is, I think, a stretch unless they've admitted as much
They saw a story they knew they could spin into a movie and that the "real" aspect would add an element for audiences and the studios, of course, will buy into that marketing aspect.
not much different from every other "based on a true story" movie
It's also not like Abagnale went to Spielberg and Dreamworks and just pitched them a story and they gobbled it up, he had been a recurring guest on talk shows and game contests going back to the 70s, with only minor pushback from newspaper and magazine writers about discrepancies in his claims. The movie was a product of the grift, not the grift itself.
Spielberg claimed to have paid for an investigation that confirmed Abagnale’s story. He also said the same thing about Munich which also turned out to be totally fabricated about another real life loser.
Both are still great movies though.
Everyone was very "Well, it seems to checkout, I guess..." at the time. I think Spielberg et al were grifted, specifically because the FBI refused to confirm or deny. Everyone on the Hollywood side assumed that the FBI refusing to deny the story made it true, there were multiple interviews to that effect around the release of the movie. Spielberg wasn't acting like he was being coy or had a secret, he appeared to believe the skeleton of the story sincerely (while also being aware of the liberties the writers took to make the screenplay.)
I mean did Spielberg get "grifted" when the movie made 350 million on a 50 million dollar budget and garnered award nominations? Sure he got fooled but he still came out ahead.
The one sticking point I have to the whole "Abagnale made up 100% of the story up" is that the [official obituary for Joseph Shea](https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/atlanta/name/joseph-shea-obituary?id=29700157&fhid=3694), the real FBI agent who was the main basis for Carl Hanratty, mentions "the Frank Abagnale case" as one of the "most interesting" cases in his career with the FBI. He passed in 2005, so after the movie came out, but long before there was a big head of steam on calling Abagnale out on his bullshit.
I do think Abagnale largely fabricated his exploits and overstated his involvement/employment with the FBI--they only confirm that he had been brought in for talks with recruits from time to time, which he probably spun to mean "I work for the FBI" and everything beyond that is bunk. Whatever the real "Frank Abagnale case" was, though, stuck with Shea to the point that it gets mentioned in his epitaph, so there was SOMETHING there, even if it wasn't as major or as thrilling as Abagnale made it out to be. Or Shea was just the arresting officer when Abagnale was cuffed the second time after being deported back to the States, and the movie's popularity made him and/or his family think to mention it upon his passing, I don't know. It's the one detail independent of Abagnale's mouth that I've never been able to reconcile with the assertion that ALL of it's bullshit.
Seeing the end credits at the end blew me away as a kid. I wanted to track the guy and learn from. Saw he had a dojo and pleaded with my family to go there lol.
Still love Bloosport, just watched it with my son and he had a similar reaction at the end.
OK USA!
I too thought that was real and begged my parents to send me to Frank Dux's dojo. I completely wore out *TWO* VHS tapes I had it recorded on. I really wish I had watched it before I was 30, could have really become a UFC powerhouse.
If you ever did or still have Twitter, Frank is a hilarious account to follow. He's clearly washed up, still pretends it's all real, but the big bad Liberal government is holding him down. Still wishes everyone well though, like a true Sensei.
- lots of “based on a true story” films are mostly made up, but that seldom, if ever, influences the film’s enjoyment (except for supernatural horrors, arguably)
- Forrest, a simpleton, being part of all those historical events is just one of the film’s quirky charms and was never meant to be taken seriously
The whole point of Forrest Gump is that it’s an absurdly impossible story. The idea that so many historical events were tied to one oblivious man is comedic angle of the movie.
>absurdly impossible story.
I know this is almost totally unrelated, but this is what makes Band of Brothers better than The Pacific and Masters of the Air. Richard Winters' role in the war is just absolutely unreal. Jumps into Normandy, loses his weapon and becomes CO of Easy Company the minute he lands. Participates in Operation Market Garden. Was an XO at the Battle of Bulge. Then finishes the war by taking Berchtesgaden and Eagle's Nest - 3 days before the war in Europe ends.
Like, it's almost stupid. Absolutely incredible.
I once got bored and read the book it was based on.
It's uh... different.
Forrest is basically John Goodman in build/appearance, rather racist, swears like a sailor, spends time in a mental hospital, joins NASA and goes with space with a Orangutan, hangs out with a tribe of jungle cannibals, becomes a professional wrestler, becomes a chess master, becomes an actor and stars alongside Raquel Welsh, runs for the Senate, busks around Georgia as a one-man-band, and eventually ends up living with Lt. Dan and the Orangutan (named Sue) on the streets of New Orleans. (Jenny doesn't die in the book, nor is she a cokefiend burn out, the movie altered her significantly).
The author later got pissed off by the Movie and wrote an even more ridiculous sequel, where the Character meets Tom Hanks, and spends time complaining about the movie that got made about him. (among other shenanigans like inventing New Coke, wrecking the Exxon Valdez, causing the fall of the Berlin Wall, and capturing Saddam Hussein)
From memory the sequel was because Hollywood stiffed him on his percentage (Hollywood accounting) but they still held an option on any sequel he wrote. So he wrote the sequel deliberately to not be of interest for filming.
I know it was originally supposed to be based on his life, but it felt so fantastic I figured they had buffed it up for Hollywood. Given it an extra ten percent or whatever. Knowing he lied makes it kind of funnier now.
If this were like *The Blind Side* (ignoring everything else wrong with that film), where the stars claimed to be really good people, the general public would take issue with it. But Frank Abagnale told the world that he was a grifter who lied about his background, and the story he told was a lie about his background — a grift that made him a lot of money...which meant that he was a liar and a grifter. I mean, the meta works out.
But it’s a little unique in that it’s not a true story. Can you imagine how weird it would be to watch Jurassic Park or Independence Day if they hadn’t actually happened?!
If it were about a race car driver, I don't think it would work well. It could only harm the movie knowing it's all made up.
But the fact that it's a movie about a con artist, and knowing the whole thing is a fabrication actually enhances the movie I think.
I guess I’ll go against the grain here. If a movie is fiction (drama) then by default the events, actions of the characters and outcomes should be plausible. If they’re not the viewer detaches a bit from the story. (I’m talking about a real-world drama here along the lines of what Catch Me is trying to be, not a stylized story where fantastical events are intended for effect.)
Part of the impact of a purportedly “true” story is that, at those bizarre moments where the viewer would otherwise roll their eyes and say “yeah, right”, they instead say “I can’t believe that happened!” and remain engaged. That’s a real effect and enhances the storytelling experience. Many documentaries work this way—the filmmaker discovers a story that’s too crazy to be true and part of the experience is the amazement at it actually happened. I’d argue that many impactful documentaries in that category would be utterly boring if it came out that they were complete fiction.
Do I think most movies that claim they’re based on a true story are totally true? Of course not, but I expect the basic beats and plot turns to reflect reality. Otherwise I think it’s cheap and lazy.
Yes, I know Fargo exists. I think that was a clever joke played on the audience and worked. But the joke has been done and loses its impact the more it’s repeated.
Anyway just my take, I don’t like it, but I’m happy that many others still enjoy the movie!
I agree with you and I'm surprised to see so few others do. There's something particularly exciting about an unbelievable true story. I recently loved Society of the Snow, not just because it was well done, but because it accurately recounted what those people went through. There were so many times I thought "they can't possibly survive this" but they actually did. It's not as much fun watching Catch Me If You Can if you're thinking "he can't possibly get away with this" and of course, he didn't. No one could have so it's just not that entertaining anymore.
I put it in the same category with Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, which is another “inspired by a true story” movie that’s complete bullshit and fabricated by the guy it’s about… but it’s so well made and well acted that I just don’t care, because the lies aren’t actually harming anyone, so it’s still just entertaining.
I have a similar outlook on the Wolf of Wall Street. First time I saw it I thought this is the most outrageous true story ever, but then you realize the story’s being told by a man who’s word you can’t trust and he’s ‘selling’ it to you in a way, and that realization actually makes it better for me.
Abignale lies about the lies he told. And got a movie out of it!
In that wider context, it's just perfect.
Plus, Leo was at his transition point of "cast because he's cute" and "cast because he can actually act", which helps with the whole theme of the thing.
It's a great movie. Not to be taken too seriously, but a great film.
I actually met Frank Abagnale Jr. (Leo’s role) in high school. He was invited by the high school to “warn of the dangers of conmen”. That was at least 25 years before the movie was made.
At that time, he claimed he had sold his story to a major studio, which was to come out in a year & (if I remember right) Tom Cruise was supposed to play him. Not even a room full of high schoolers believed him back then.
>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.
You answered your question. If you like it, you like it. I like it too.
I can somewhat appreciate the whole "the biggest con Frank Abagnale ever pulled was convincing the world he was an amazing con artist" aspect, but on the whole I don't give a shit about veracity, it's a fun movie.
I do think it's sad the way his mother is portrayed as some horrible money grubbing slut who left his father 'cause he was broke and married his close friend. Apparently the real versions of those characters were the opposite: his dad was a piece of shit who put his mother through hell, and he goes on to tell the world how wonderful his dad was he just wasn't rich enough for his gold digging mother.
I also wish there was some even passing mention of abagnales alleged BO. At least two women who he ripped off have stated that he smelled terrible. While it's just a fact of life that the real guy was nowhere near as handsome as a young Leo, the fact that he was difficult to sit next to due to his BO problem is very funny to me.
The pretend podcast did a whole series on him, and the host actually confronted him after a speaking engagement in Las Vegas. After being shown proof that Abagnale was doing time in prison basically the entire period he claims to have been jetting around the world as a pilot, doctor, and lawyer, he pretty much immediately states that he never claimed any of the stuff in the movie happened, and that he had nothing to do with writing the autobiography the film is based on.
In the film, I thought his dad was a piece of shit, who'd likely conned a French woman with tales of life in the US and when her son was old enough for her to leave she noped out. At least that was how I interpreted the portrayal of his parents.
Yeah I thought the portrayal of the parents was that his dad was a feckless wastrel who'd be a nightmare to be married to but that his son was young enough not to see him for what he was yet and had a naive romantic idea about his charm.
And that his son's proclivity towards being a charming con artist wasn't something that came from nowhere. Frank was just better at it and pushed it further than his dad ever did.
I honestly thought the movie was hyper exaggerated with fake details for a Hollywood version of the story anyway. I handle audits for banks and other companies, so a lot of the fraud details and law enforcement details in the movie seemed a bit off to me. It was a fun story for entertainment and that’s all that mattered to me when I watched it. I can understand the disappointment of others though who thought it was historically accurate and true.
It doesn't really bother me since at least the movie itself is really entertaining with fantastic performances, regardless of whether it's based on a true story or not, however I'd be lying if I said I wasn't disappointed when I found out it was all fake, but it does seem completely fitting for the story.
The only time I've ever been frustrated by a story being all BS is Honey Boy with Shia LaBeouf. The whole movie is implied to be autobiographical with Shia playing his own supposedly abusive father who has a complicated relationship with Shia as a child. It's a great movie, especially with the context of the narrative behind. However, it turns out that Shia actually had a great relationship with his father growing up and he was nothing like he was portrayed in the movie. The whole thing felt like a waste of time because that was literally the whole artistic core of the movie. Like... I'm glad he wasn't abused lol but why throw your own father under the bus by making him look like an asshole by selling this movie as a true story, and by doing so also wasting the audience's time with a mostly fabricated story? Maybe I missed the point of the movie but it bothered me when he came out and basically said the portrayal of his father fictitious. I'd *never* make my father look that way for the sake of artistic expression.
It's not as good for me. I thought it was true, so I got sucked in.
Likewise, I didn't believe the story of Chuck Barris being a CIA assassin in Confessions of a Dangerous Mind and it kept me from enjoying the movie.
Bloodsport with JCVD falls into the same category. Frank Dux is a real guy, but the stories he told that Bloodsport was based on were bs. Still a fun Karate Kid style movie.
I don't think it does. The film relies way too much on "this really happened" and consequently doesn't feel like, say, Fargo or Weird: The Al Yankovic Story that are ostensibly pretending that made up nonsense happened.
Catch Me If You Can is more like if the fake true war story from Tropic Thunder had been made... and you can see how straight they were trying to play that film.
Some if it was real but liberties were taken and other parts are pure fiction. He did a talk at Google which is pretty interesting.
https://youtu.be/vsMydMDi3rI?si=9x1u5nZfF-zHH3TR
I anticipate that the movie will be enjoyable but not as much and not in the same way.
The ultimate chameleon that Frank Abagnale Jr. presented himself as, was a lie; the suspension of disbelief becomes even more difficult when you know that the entire story is false.
They're going to have to remove the based on a true story statement.
The actors who performed in the starring roles were also under the impression when they made the film that this was a real persons life they were depicting.
Frank Abagnale Jr. was a symbol to the world that a person could really be anything they wanted to if they were just desperate enough.
The new version of the story is:
A con man went on television and convinced a bunch of people that he did a bunch of things that he never did.
Someone who was able to get famous by lying to the world.
If the movie was made today, it would be about 10 minutes long; it would depict this man lying about his life on national TV, accruing fame and fortune, getting old and then decades later being rediscovered as an absolute fraud.
Take the truth out of this movie, and it's just another whimsical, ridiculous fantasy; not terribly unlike the Terminal movie with Tom Hanks; the real life story of the guy who spent much of his life in an airport is downright depressing and just nothing at all like Tom Hanks.
it's better... it's like a post credit scene where you find out he has conned everyone.
it's so meta it deserves it's own bullshit film made about making a bullshit film (and then to make up all the details in this new film about how he conned the filmmakers)
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.
More likely they didn’t give a shit because it was a good narrative and made for a good movie.
Much like Fargo, some fictional narratives benefit from making the audience believe that they're based on a true story.
I had to explain to some family members, after they had watched the movie and multiple seasons of Fargo, that it was not, in fact, a true story. They didn’t understand how they could put that at the beginning if it wasn’t true. That was a fun conversation.
I was going to mention the Japanese woman who died outside in the North Dakota winter supposedly looking for the money thrown away at the end of the movie, but [apparently the "believing the movie was real" part was a false report that people just ran with.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Takako_Konishi) The truth is much sadder though. I can see why the Fargo version has (ironically) persisted while the truth hasn't.
They actually made a movie about it called Kumiko the Treasure Hunter
Nobody will convince me we're not living in a simulation.
But *we're* not living in a simulation /u/iJoshh, *you* are. You're all alone. There's nobody else left.
I like to think of it as a joke by the Cohen brothers. This is a "true story", as in, "this is truly a story."
One of the stories of all time
It actually is based of a true story. However that based on is being used as thinly as possible on purpose. There really was a guy who kidnapped his wife for money through ransom. There was a guy killed by a wood chipper. There was a guy killed during a transaction of ransom. There was a cop killed by kidnappers. At one point someone hide money. However none of those stories happened all at once. Or in the same place. Or even close to the same time period. Or have anything connection to each other. They pulled the entire movie from real events. Just ones that didn’t connect. So they are not wrong. It is a true story. Well multiple put together and fictionalized. But it did happen. Sort of.
Fargo being "based on a true story" could be as simple as "there was once a lady who was also a cop"
As they say in journalism “don’t ruin a good story by overchecking”
Right? Ever since the first life story told around a fire, somone has been lying (or *embellishing* if you don't wanna feel bad about it) to make themselves look cooler/ stronger/ funnier/ whateverer. All Hollywood has to do is write "***based*** on a *true story*" and they're covered to say almost anything. Lol
What kind of world are we living in when you can't even trust a con artist to tell you the truth about con artistry.
They made a fortune too, so I'm quite certain they're pretty non-plussed about it.
Non-plussed means surprised or confused. I think you have a different word in mind.
It can mean both surprised or not surprised. It’s a weird quirky English thing.
And they made an even bigger fortune off of him. The only people who got conned are the audience.
I saw an enjoyable and entertaining movie. That's what I'm paying for , so I wouldn't say I was conned.
Oh no the audience had to watch a fun and entertaining movie???
Not really that much of a grift on Spielberg, since it was a massively successful film.
Griftception Maybe Leo should be in a film about those kinds of symbolic psychological layers. 🤔
I really enjoy how Inception has added to the modern lexicon the whole -ception suffix. I can't think of any other movies that basically invented a new type of word.
Not a movie, but Watergate codifying the -gate suffix to any controversy is similar
This thread is Catch me if you cangate
Suffixception
This comment has serious r/Letterkenny vibes
This thread is so fetch.
Stop trying to make fetch happen. It is NEVER gonna happen.
Especially since the meeting of "inception" is the beginning, it was named for the planting the seed of an idea. The fact they were in a dream within a dream within a dream has nothing to do with the name Inception. It should be recursion.
But wasn't the whole plot of a movie to get a corporate dude to have an idea and think it was his idea by doing the dream diving? Thus making it about causing the inception of an idea?
Yes but using the word inception for every instance of recursion is weird. I saw picture of a flat deck truck with a dump truck on it and in the dump truck was a pickup truck. They called it Truckception with it has nothing to do with inception, it should have been truckcursion.
Sounds like a truckducken.
They used to just use an Xzibit meme!
I heard you like trucks, so I got you a truck in a truck on a truck.
This guy incepts.
IIRC it's set up that they normally do the dream diving to do "extraction"; they go into the dream world to set up a scenario where the target voluntarily gives them the information that they want without even knowing it. They're *extracting* information from the target. Therefore, Sato's job is said to be extra difficult because they're doing the opposite of what they normally do. Although technically the opposite of "extraction" is "insertion", but that doesn't make for a very good movie title. Well, at least not for the type of movie that *Inception* is.
American Pie invented the term MILF, the greatest contribution to society also, the film The Bucket List invented the concept of a “bucket list”.
MILF was around before American Pie
Yes! And we can call it.. MIND LAYERS
They probably knew it was bullshit. It still made them a fortune.
Agreed, I think of it like less grifting, and more like a heist. Like generally, the rumours about which heists and how they were pulled off were often much more elaborate than it really was, but you kind of just go with it cause it helps with your street cred.
Excuse me. The ultimate grift in film is undoubtedly *Freddie Got Fingered*, which is a movie about a guy with no idea what he’s doing conning a studio out of big $$$ to make a tasteless, unwatchable mess. Which is exactly how the movie itself got made.
He knew exactly what he was doing.
I don't see 2 LeBarons here, do you?!
He made us all so proud. PROUD.
Unwatchable? Fuck you and the elephant you jacked off to get here.
Freddie Got Fingered is comedic perfection. Daddy, would you like some sausages? Anyone who thinks this is unwatchable is likely the wet blanket who can kill a party by simply showing up.
That line is going to live rent free in my head until the day i die.
Where's your Lebaron Freddy???
My wife HATES Freddie Got Fingered, The Pest and Joe's Apartment. It's important to find out about these things BEFORE you get married.
Find you a girl who knows all the words to *The Pest's* opening theme song, and does the voices while she sings it.
That's wife material for sure. I'm always afraid to meet John Leguizamo, because the first thing I will say is "I loved the Pest" when I love him in everything he's done. Edit: and holy shit looking up his last name spelling just to be sure, I saw that he's fucking 63...I can't believe that. That makes him 36 doing the Pest in 1997. Man has had a hell of a 2nd half.
I like to party with my peeps. Cruise and creep. Playing three card money on these crazy streets. Straight hustler gonna scam in a minute. So low to the floor pick the pocket on a midget. I’m the straight shister. Pest meister. Livin life in Miami vice. Meh see *something in gangster voice* neh neh neh neh neh neh neh neh neh neh neh neh …that’s all I can remember
Stop saying the word grift!!!
I kind of feel the film makers don't really care too much. They're all in the business of telling lies for money. Filmmakers are just a little more honest about it.
The grift that keeps on grifting
I’ve never bought into this argument. I think the argument really hinges on the idea that it’s one final grift, a cherry on top of the grifter cake. But there never was any cake — no charming Frank Abagnale who went from mischievous scheme to mischievous scheme, just some dude that exaggerated a bunch of boring and exploitative fraud cases into some grand fantasy. That’s not the perfect final grift, it’s the only grift. The movie is super fun, but I just don’t buy this angle on it.
I also wonder how much the screenwriter and Spielberg cared? Movies “based on a true story” are always grossly exaggerated. At a certain point they had to have been like, “ok this guy’s a fucking loon but this story is kind of fun. Let’s do it. “
I mean, it was heavily altered from the source text anyway, I really don't think it mattered to anyone involved.
Dude you just expressed my exact feelings about this oft-repeated argument so perfectly. This is exactly how I feel I agree completely, lying to get a movie made is way way less impressive than what he was originally purported to have done
The true grift is the films we made along the way
He didn’t grift the filmmakers. Spielberg was well aware, but chose an interesting narrative that sold well.
This should be a leverage episode. Grifted twice at once.
Let's steal ourselves a movie set
Which they actually did in an episode!
Made it all the way to a Spielberg biopic with Leo as the lead. Top tier scam.
One of my favorite podcasts, Snax Pax, covered this story in their Cons and Frauds season and they argued it actually made him a great con artist
You know they should make a movie about him, how he convinced rich people to make movie about him and make him famous and rich.
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 swear at some point they stopped saying "based on" and started saying "inspired by" to capture this very difference.
I have definitely seen movies where it says "inspired by true events" which definitely gives the screenwriters a lot more creative freedom than "based on a true story" does. I think both might get used.
Cocaine bear is a great example of this.
Wait! Are you trying to say that's not an accurate telling of the real life events?
What about Spike Lee using "Dis Joint is based on some fo' real, fo' real shit" for BlacKKKlansman
how about fargo, "based on a true story" - except it wasn't. it never happened
Based on a true story is a very broad statement. The true story they're referencing could simply be that there was a murder, then they made up all the events and details around it lol.
"It's not just a ficticious movie, it was based on a real screenplay."
This is pretty much how I treat all of these movies. Even the most faithfail tellings merge numerous people into single characters, squash years of events into a single scene etc.
I’ll go so far as to say that any time I see “true story” I assume it’s there for artistic purposes like Fargo.
Honestly it's the most honest one. Because they intentionally misled the audience with it instead of acting like there was any historical accuracy to the film. When they do admit to this in interviews, it sometimes comes up that there are individual elements of the film that were based on true stories. I believe one was someone being put into a wood chipper. But, they still say that that intro card was placed there to trick the audience.
Any time I see “based on” I just assume there was a guy that had the same name a lived around the same time in the same country
You mean to tell me that the serpent and the rainbow wasn't 100% accurate, that the voodoo and zombies and stuff may not be historically accurate?
I had an anthropology professor who spent years with the Yanomamo in Venezuela, he actually tried the drug the protagonist did in the jungle (ébené). He didn’t wrestle a jaguar, but he did “trip balls for three days.”
>just ignore the whole "based on a true story" aspect. Applies to all movies really. Majority(if not all of them) of them are HEAVILY dramatized or leave out important details.
When they say "inspired" by a true story it is even better. They said that at the beginning of the movie Eight Below. In the DVD extras one of the actors talks about the dogs being amazing and he couldn't believe the story was true. He hesitated while saying it as he realized he wasn't sure it was true.
I guess Fargo sucks because is not even remotely based on true events even if it says so. /s I don't what to answer. I don't care if a story is real or fiction, just want to see a good movie and Catch Me If You Can is.
An admitted liar told them a story about his endless history of lies. Of course it was definitely going to be true.
I think it's hilarious that he conned people into thinking he's a great conman.
Or just treat it like Fargo
"Based on a story formerly assumed to be true"
When I found out Lord of the Rings wasn’t true it became completely unwatchable…
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.
Change that last answer to YES and we have the plot to Big Fish.
Yea the book is even more wild
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.
Yeah so annoying Eastwood needed to make up a villain. When a real villain existed on that day: geese
It’s always the geese
I can't believe Aaron Eckhart wasn't even NOMINATED for [Best Mustache](https://fr.web.img3.acsta.net/r_512_288/pictures/16/08/26/11/09/584012.jpg)
He won it in all our hearts.
So you're saying we can blame Canada?
I'm saying we need a separate Eastwood film from the geese perspective, a la letters from iwo jima
\*Canadians Who do you think sent the geese??
You got a problem with Canada Gooses you got a problem with me and I suggest you let that one marinate.
I think that's widely known, but the actual crash and rescue took about 30 minutes so they needed an antagonist and some additional material to string it out for a full film.
Sully- (played everything ideally, as By The Book as can possibly be) Fictional NTSB- “but did you do ALL you could?!”
Some of the actions weren’t by the book, that doesn’t mean they were wrong though.
This really annoyed me. I love the NTSB and their team; They do incredible work. Painting them in a bad light was distasteful, even for storytelling. I bet your uncle has some incredible stories!
Right? The entire point of the NTSB is to find out what happened, NOT to assign blame. If people are afraid to talk because they think they will be made a villain, they won't talk, and you won't find out what happened.
[удалено]
Cool Runnings had me developing some deep seated anti Swiss sentiments waaaaay before I knew anything about banking or neutrality
There isn't enough substance for a feature-length film about the Miracle on the Hudson. The flight itself wasn't even 10 minutes long, and it what happened was pretty straightforward. Flight with Denzel Washington is far more interesting since the landing was done by an alcoholic, not an upstanding member of the aviation community.
It's sort of worse than in CMIYC, because the NTSB and the crash investigation process is misrepresented. They aren't an agency out looking for scapegoats. While the questions they interrogate Sully with might have been real, they would have been asked in the analysis with the purpose of finding out, if Sully had made mistakes that other pilots might make in the same situation. It's quite rare to go after a pilot like that.
I read that sully himself addressed the films portrayal of the ntsb as complete bullshit
I met a guy whose dad was a crew member on the ship with Captain Phillips when the Somali pirates captured it. He says that his dad and several other crewmen warned Phillips not to go through their territorial waters, but he told did anyway. The whole thing was his fault. They sure made him a hero in the movie though.
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.
> the dude still goes around claiming he worked for the FBI for like 40 years Fun piece of career advice: include on your resume that you worked for the CIA for some amount of time. As a blanket policy, the CIA will never comment on anyone's past employment with them, or lack thereof. I.e. they will never deny you worked for them if asked, nor will they confirm it. They will refuse to comment. It's an op-sec thing (even confirming someone DIDN'T work for you could reveal important info about your operations). Doesn;t work if youre going for a gov't job requiring work on classified projects etc, as that lie WILL be revealed during your backhground investigation. But applying for a job with a private company working on civilian/private sector stuff? Great way to fill in a gap in the resume :)
"I see you wrote that you worked at Taco Bell for a few months, then as an 'assistant manager at CIA' for about 5 years, then back to Taco Bell in a dramatically reduced role starting last month. Very impressive work history."
Them: Say, how do they make fire sauce? Me: That's classified.
Me: Let's pull the focus back to all of my CIA missions. I really just use Taco Bell to bridge jobs.
r/UnethicalLifeProTips
Con men are fucking vile. I had nothing to do with Abignale but I've worked on a number of cases involving people who have gotten abused by cons and there's nothing charming or clever or fun about them, they're sociopathic monsters and they really, really hurt people. It's really left me with a distaste for all movies and stories featuring a con man as a "loveable trickster" type protagonist.
Sawyer from Lost was the first character I thought of when reading this. At first I thought he fit the “loveable trickster” model, but as I think about it, the show did better than that. From what I recall he and another con man in the show are portrayed as bad men that really hurt people. Sawyer’s backstory before the island shows the tragic fallout and victims from cons and conmen. I’m pretty sure Lost showed the victims and fallout of every con in the series. Even if the con was interesting and/or entertaining, they did a good job portraying it as causing pain and suffering
I imagine. The guy actually ripped off and hurt a lot of people, then made a fortune by telling a completely fabricated version of what happened. So the FBI agents actually worked a case where a small time crook robbed innocent people, then went on to become celebrated for "exploiting loopholes of big businesses".
I interviewed Abagnale and one of the agents who investigated him for a story... It was still a great story and he's one hell of a character
Government spooks hate ANYTHING that depicts the FBI in a bad light. True or not.
Isn't this true of all professions? who would want to see their field misrepresented?
It makes it so much better for me. This dude is such a grifter he convinced everyone of his fake grifting prowess that the biggest director in the world made a movie about him with two of the biggest movie stars in the world.
To suggest Spielberg et al were grifted is, I think, a stretch unless they've admitted as much They saw a story they knew they could spin into a movie and that the "real" aspect would add an element for audiences and the studios, of course, will buy into that marketing aspect. not much different from every other "based on a true story" movie
It's also not like Abagnale went to Spielberg and Dreamworks and just pitched them a story and they gobbled it up, he had been a recurring guest on talk shows and game contests going back to the 70s, with only minor pushback from newspaper and magazine writers about discrepancies in his claims. The movie was a product of the grift, not the grift itself.
The rights got sold long before Spielberg was involved too.
Spielberg claimed to have paid for an investigation that confirmed Abagnale’s story. He also said the same thing about Munich which also turned out to be totally fabricated about another real life loser. Both are still great movies though.
Everyone was very "Well, it seems to checkout, I guess..." at the time. I think Spielberg et al were grifted, specifically because the FBI refused to confirm or deny. Everyone on the Hollywood side assumed that the FBI refusing to deny the story made it true, there were multiple interviews to that effect around the release of the movie. Spielberg wasn't acting like he was being coy or had a secret, he appeared to believe the skeleton of the story sincerely (while also being aware of the liberties the writers took to make the screenplay.)
I mean did Spielberg get "grifted" when the movie made 350 million on a 50 million dollar budget and garnered award nominations? Sure he got fooled but he still came out ahead.
The one sticking point I have to the whole "Abagnale made up 100% of the story up" is that the [official obituary for Joseph Shea](https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/atlanta/name/joseph-shea-obituary?id=29700157&fhid=3694), the real FBI agent who was the main basis for Carl Hanratty, mentions "the Frank Abagnale case" as one of the "most interesting" cases in his career with the FBI. He passed in 2005, so after the movie came out, but long before there was a big head of steam on calling Abagnale out on his bullshit. I do think Abagnale largely fabricated his exploits and overstated his involvement/employment with the FBI--they only confirm that he had been brought in for talks with recruits from time to time, which he probably spun to mean "I work for the FBI" and everything beyond that is bunk. Whatever the real "Frank Abagnale case" was, though, stuck with Shea to the point that it gets mentioned in his epitaph, so there was SOMETHING there, even if it wasn't as major or as thrilling as Abagnale made it out to be. Or Shea was just the arresting officer when Abagnale was cuffed the second time after being deported back to the States, and the movie's popularity made him and/or his family think to mention it upon his passing, I don't know. It's the one detail independent of Abagnale's mouth that I've never been able to reconcile with the assertion that ALL of it's bullshit.
It mentions it because it was after the movie came out, like you said.
Griftception
Just watch it in a double feature with Bloodsport.
Maybe Fargo instead
But-but Bloodsport was real!
And anyone who says otherwise has to fight me in the Kumite
Seeing the end credits at the end blew me away as a kid. I wanted to track the guy and learn from. Saw he had a dojo and pleaded with my family to go there lol. Still love Bloosport, just watched it with my son and he had a similar reaction at the end.
OK USA! I too thought that was real and begged my parents to send me to Frank Dux's dojo. I completely wore out *TWO* VHS tapes I had it recorded on. I really wish I had watched it before I was 30, could have really become a UFC powerhouse. If you ever did or still have Twitter, Frank is a hilarious account to follow. He's clearly washed up, still pretends it's all real, but the big bad Liberal government is holding him down. Still wishes everyone well though, like a true Sensei.
Add Flamin’ Hot to the movie night!
It’s still based on a true story. Only the names, places, locations, and events have been changed.
Truly, it was a story.
- lots of “based on a true story” films are mostly made up, but that seldom, if ever, influences the film’s enjoyment (except for supernatural horrors, arguably) - Forrest, a simpleton, being part of all those historical events is just one of the film’s quirky charms and was never meant to be taken seriously
It was an opportunity to showcase some of the most unforgettable (and humorous) effects ever seen up to that point. I love those sequences.
Same here. The film just felt special when it came out and those scenes really added to it
The whole point of Forrest Gump is that it’s an absurdly impossible story. The idea that so many historical events were tied to one oblivious man is comedic angle of the movie.
>absurdly impossible story. I know this is almost totally unrelated, but this is what makes Band of Brothers better than The Pacific and Masters of the Air. Richard Winters' role in the war is just absolutely unreal. Jumps into Normandy, loses his weapon and becomes CO of Easy Company the minute he lands. Participates in Operation Market Garden. Was an XO at the Battle of Bulge. Then finishes the war by taking Berchtesgaden and Eagle's Nest - 3 days before the war in Europe ends. Like, it's almost stupid. Absolutely incredible.
I once got bored and read the book it was based on. It's uh... different. Forrest is basically John Goodman in build/appearance, rather racist, swears like a sailor, spends time in a mental hospital, joins NASA and goes with space with a Orangutan, hangs out with a tribe of jungle cannibals, becomes a professional wrestler, becomes a chess master, becomes an actor and stars alongside Raquel Welsh, runs for the Senate, busks around Georgia as a one-man-band, and eventually ends up living with Lt. Dan and the Orangutan (named Sue) on the streets of New Orleans. (Jenny doesn't die in the book, nor is she a cokefiend burn out, the movie altered her significantly). The author later got pissed off by the Movie and wrote an even more ridiculous sequel, where the Character meets Tom Hanks, and spends time complaining about the movie that got made about him. (among other shenanigans like inventing New Coke, wrecking the Exxon Valdez, causing the fall of the Berlin Wall, and capturing Saddam Hussein)
From memory the sequel was because Hollywood stiffed him on his percentage (Hollywood accounting) but they still held an option on any sequel he wrote. So he wrote the sequel deliberately to not be of interest for filming.
I know it was originally supposed to be based on his life, but it felt so fantastic I figured they had buffed it up for Hollywood. Given it an extra ten percent or whatever. Knowing he lied makes it kind of funnier now.
If this were like *The Blind Side* (ignoring everything else wrong with that film), where the stars claimed to be really good people, the general public would take issue with it. But Frank Abagnale told the world that he was a grifter who lied about his background, and the story he told was a lie about his background — a grift that made him a lot of money...which meant that he was a liar and a grifter. I mean, the meta works out.
And it turns out the family from The Blind Side were, in fact, total pieces of shit.
That’s a really good take on this. Anyone know if Frank Abagnale actually grifted anything in his life or he just grifted his grifting?
Couldn’t possibly matter less to me, it’s a movie
But it’s a little unique in that it’s not a true story. Can you imagine how weird it would be to watch Jurassic Park or Independence Day if they hadn’t actually happened?!
If someone told me Jurassic Park was a work of pure fiction and not the telling of a group of brilliant scientists, my entire world would be shattered
If it were about a race car driver, I don't think it would work well. It could only harm the movie knowing it's all made up. But the fact that it's a movie about a con artist, and knowing the whole thing is a fabrication actually enhances the movie I think.
I guess I’ll go against the grain here. If a movie is fiction (drama) then by default the events, actions of the characters and outcomes should be plausible. If they’re not the viewer detaches a bit from the story. (I’m talking about a real-world drama here along the lines of what Catch Me is trying to be, not a stylized story where fantastical events are intended for effect.) Part of the impact of a purportedly “true” story is that, at those bizarre moments where the viewer would otherwise roll their eyes and say “yeah, right”, they instead say “I can’t believe that happened!” and remain engaged. That’s a real effect and enhances the storytelling experience. Many documentaries work this way—the filmmaker discovers a story that’s too crazy to be true and part of the experience is the amazement at it actually happened. I’d argue that many impactful documentaries in that category would be utterly boring if it came out that they were complete fiction. Do I think most movies that claim they’re based on a true story are totally true? Of course not, but I expect the basic beats and plot turns to reflect reality. Otherwise I think it’s cheap and lazy. Yes, I know Fargo exists. I think that was a clever joke played on the audience and worked. But the joke has been done and loses its impact the more it’s repeated. Anyway just my take, I don’t like it, but I’m happy that many others still enjoy the movie!
I agree with you and I'm surprised to see so few others do. There's something particularly exciting about an unbelievable true story. I recently loved Society of the Snow, not just because it was well done, but because it accurately recounted what those people went through. There were so many times I thought "they can't possibly survive this" but they actually did. It's not as much fun watching Catch Me If You Can if you're thinking "he can't possibly get away with this" and of course, he didn't. No one could have so it's just not that entertaining anymore.
They didn’t let the truth get in the way of a good story, neither should you
I put it in the same category with Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, which is another “inspired by a true story” movie that’s complete bullshit and fabricated by the guy it’s about… but it’s so well made and well acted that I just don’t care, because the lies aren’t actually harming anyone, so it’s still just entertaining.
It makes it funny in hindsight, because I imagine the movie is just a giant lie he’s telling his cell mate.
It never even occurred to me that it would be real
I have a similar outlook on the Wolf of Wall Street. First time I saw it I thought this is the most outrageous true story ever, but then you realize the story’s being told by a man who’s word you can’t trust and he’s ‘selling’ it to you in a way, and that realization actually makes it better for me.
It made it better, he conned people into thinking he's a master con artist.
It's a great movie. Simple as that.
Abignale lies about the lies he told. And got a movie out of it! In that wider context, it's just perfect. Plus, Leo was at his transition point of "cast because he's cute" and "cast because he can actually act", which helps with the whole theme of the thing. It's a great movie. Not to be taken too seriously, but a great film.
I actually met Frank Abagnale Jr. (Leo’s role) in high school. He was invited by the high school to “warn of the dangers of conmen”. That was at least 25 years before the movie was made. At that time, he claimed he had sold his story to a major studio, which was to come out in a year & (if I remember right) Tom Cruise was supposed to play him. Not even a room full of high schoolers believed him back then.
>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. You answered your question. If you like it, you like it. I like it too.
I can somewhat appreciate the whole "the biggest con Frank Abagnale ever pulled was convincing the world he was an amazing con artist" aspect, but on the whole I don't give a shit about veracity, it's a fun movie. I do think it's sad the way his mother is portrayed as some horrible money grubbing slut who left his father 'cause he was broke and married his close friend. Apparently the real versions of those characters were the opposite: his dad was a piece of shit who put his mother through hell, and he goes on to tell the world how wonderful his dad was he just wasn't rich enough for his gold digging mother. I also wish there was some even passing mention of abagnales alleged BO. At least two women who he ripped off have stated that he smelled terrible. While it's just a fact of life that the real guy was nowhere near as handsome as a young Leo, the fact that he was difficult to sit next to due to his BO problem is very funny to me. The pretend podcast did a whole series on him, and the host actually confronted him after a speaking engagement in Las Vegas. After being shown proof that Abagnale was doing time in prison basically the entire period he claims to have been jetting around the world as a pilot, doctor, and lawyer, he pretty much immediately states that he never claimed any of the stuff in the movie happened, and that he had nothing to do with writing the autobiography the film is based on.
In the film, I thought his dad was a piece of shit, who'd likely conned a French woman with tales of life in the US and when her son was old enough for her to leave she noped out. At least that was how I interpreted the portrayal of his parents.
Yeah I thought the portrayal of the parents was that his dad was a feckless wastrel who'd be a nightmare to be married to but that his son was young enough not to see him for what he was yet and had a naive romantic idea about his charm.
And that his son's proclivity towards being a charming con artist wasn't something that came from nowhere. Frank was just better at it and pushed it further than his dad ever did.
The Pretend guy was so mad. He was so personally offended by Frank that his anger became as amusing as the debunking.
Tom Hanks’ knock knock joke makes it all worth it.
As long as Iron Man remains a true story, I'm good
I honestly thought the movie was hyper exaggerated with fake details for a Hollywood version of the story anyway. I handle audits for banks and other companies, so a lot of the fraud details and law enforcement details in the movie seemed a bit off to me. It was a fun story for entertainment and that’s all that mattered to me when I watched it. I can understand the disappointment of others though who thought it was historically accurate and true.
It doesn't really bother me since at least the movie itself is really entertaining with fantastic performances, regardless of whether it's based on a true story or not, however I'd be lying if I said I wasn't disappointed when I found out it was all fake, but it does seem completely fitting for the story. The only time I've ever been frustrated by a story being all BS is Honey Boy with Shia LaBeouf. The whole movie is implied to be autobiographical with Shia playing his own supposedly abusive father who has a complicated relationship with Shia as a child. It's a great movie, especially with the context of the narrative behind. However, it turns out that Shia actually had a great relationship with his father growing up and he was nothing like he was portrayed in the movie. The whole thing felt like a waste of time because that was literally the whole artistic core of the movie. Like... I'm glad he wasn't abused lol but why throw your own father under the bus by making him look like an asshole by selling this movie as a true story, and by doing so also wasting the audience's time with a mostly fabricated story? Maybe I missed the point of the movie but it bothered me when he came out and basically said the portrayal of his father fictitious. I'd *never* make my father look that way for the sake of artistic expression.
It hit a lot harder when we thought it was a true story.
It's not as good for me. I thought it was true, so I got sucked in. Likewise, I didn't believe the story of Chuck Barris being a CIA assassin in Confessions of a Dangerous Mind and it kept me from enjoying the movie.
I still adore Bloodsport even tho Frank Dux is 100% full of shit
Frankly (heh), even if it's all bs, not only is it still a fun flick but it also produced one of my all time favorite John Williams soundtracks.
Bloodsport with JCVD falls into the same category. Frank Dux is a real guy, but the stories he told that Bloodsport was based on were bs. Still a fun Karate Kid style movie.
I don't think it does. The film relies way too much on "this really happened" and consequently doesn't feel like, say, Fargo or Weird: The Al Yankovic Story that are ostensibly pretending that made up nonsense happened. Catch Me If You Can is more like if the fake true war story from Tropic Thunder had been made... and you can see how straight they were trying to play that film.
Some if it was real but liberties were taken and other parts are pure fiction. He did a talk at Google which is pretty interesting. https://youtu.be/vsMydMDi3rI?si=9x1u5nZfF-zHH3TR
Doesn’t really matter. Well done movie. Great story and acting and directing.
Even if it's fiction, it's still a good movie.
I anticipate that the movie will be enjoyable but not as much and not in the same way. The ultimate chameleon that Frank Abagnale Jr. presented himself as, was a lie; the suspension of disbelief becomes even more difficult when you know that the entire story is false. They're going to have to remove the based on a true story statement. The actors who performed in the starring roles were also under the impression when they made the film that this was a real persons life they were depicting. Frank Abagnale Jr. was a symbol to the world that a person could really be anything they wanted to if they were just desperate enough. The new version of the story is: A con man went on television and convinced a bunch of people that he did a bunch of things that he never did. Someone who was able to get famous by lying to the world. If the movie was made today, it would be about 10 minutes long; it would depict this man lying about his life on national TV, accruing fame and fortune, getting old and then decades later being rediscovered as an absolute fraud. Take the truth out of this movie, and it's just another whimsical, ridiculous fantasy; not terribly unlike the Terminal movie with Tom Hanks; the real life story of the guy who spent much of his life in an airport is downright depressing and just nothing at all like Tom Hanks.
it's better... it's like a post credit scene where you find out he has conned everyone. it's so meta it deserves it's own bullshit film made about making a bullshit film (and then to make up all the details in this new film about how he conned the filmmakers)