 | |
List Price: $9.98 | | Label: Dreamworks Video
Salesrank: 9821
Released: November 23, 2004 |
| Our Price: $3.99 |
| Used Price: $0.45 |
|
MPAA Rating: PG-13 (Parental Guidance Suggested)
Media: DVD |
|
Editorial Review:
AFTER ARRIVING AT NY'S JFK AIRPORT, VIKTOR VIVORSKI GETS CAUGHT IN BUREAUCRATIC GLITCHES THAT MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO RETURN TO HIS HOME COUNTRY OR ENTER THE U.S. NOW CAUGHT UP IN THE WORLD INSIDE THE AIRPORT, VIKTOR MAKES FRIENDS, GETS A JOB & FINDS ROMANCE - ALL INSIDE THE TERMINAL.
Description of The Terminal (Widescreen Edition):
Like an airport running at peak efficiency, The Terminal glides on the consummate skills of its director and star. Having refined their collaborative chemistry on Saving Private Ryan and Catch Me if You Can, Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks mesh like the precision gears of a Rolex, turning a delicate, not-very-plausible scenario into a lovely modern-age fable (partly based on fact) that's both technically impressive and subtly moving. It's Spielberg in Capra mode, spinning the featherweight tale of Victor Navorski (Hanks, giving a finely tuned performance), an Eastern European who arrives at New York's Kennedy Airport just as his (fictional) homeland has fallen to a coup, forcing him, with no valid citizenship, to take indefinite residence in the airport's expansive International Arrivals Terminal (an astonishing full-scale set that inspires Spielberg's most elegant visual strategies). Spielberg said he made this film in part to alleviate the anguish of wartime America, and his master's touch works wonders on the occasionally mushy material; even Stanley Tucci's officious terminal director and Catherine Zeta-Jones's mixed-up flight attendant come off (respectively) as forgivable and effortlessly charming. With this much talent involved, The Terminal transcends its minor shortcomings to achieve a rare degree of cinematic grace. --Jeff Shannon
The Terminal (Widescreen Edition) Reviews:
A genuinely wholesome feel-good movie. 
2009-12-12 - I am amazed that "The Terminal" has received such negative reviews. I teach international university students, and every semester, they beg me to show them the movie. I have seen it at least 20 times, and never tire of it.
Mostly 5-star worthy, but not quite... 
2009-10-19 - Tom Hanks, as always, pulls off a brilliant performance, this time as Victor Navorski, a humble man from fictional central or eastern European Crakozia(sp?). Between the time he leaves home and the time Hanks arrives in the airport at NYC his homeland has undergone a military coup. This means that according to US customs rules Navorski's visa is no longer valid and he is therefore not allowed to enter the USA. It also means that he has no home to return to that is recognized by the USA, plus all of his homeland's borders are closed.
Navorski becomes the problem of the local customs official played seamlessly by Tucci. Tucci sees Hanks as a minor irritation, but as days turn into weeks, and weeks to months, Tucci reaches his wits end. Hanks, in the meantime, makes you truly believe that he can't speak English, yet as he learns he becomes a significant part of the inner workings of the international section of the airport (where he lives).
The first 4/5 or so of the movie are, in my opinion, a 5-star offering. Spielberg spins his magic throughout most of the movie, but the end of the show leaves me greatly disappointed. Though Zeta-Jones, who plays a beautiful flight attendant, comes through for Hanks, she is not able to come through for herself! A major disappointment.
3.5 to 4 stars
Unrealistic? It's inspired by a true story
2009-09-17 - From imdb:
Inspired by the story of Merhan Nasseri, an Iranian refugee. In 1988, he landed at Charles de Gaulle Airport near Paris after being denied entry into England because his passport and United Nations refugee certificate had been stolen. French authorities would not let him leave the airport. He remained in Terminal One, a stateless person with nowhere else to go. He has since been granted permission to either enter France or return to his own country. He instead chooses to continue to live in the terminal and tell his story to those who will listen. Reportedly, his mental health has deteriorated over the years. When given the opportunity to live in France, he refused because the documents did not name him as "Sir, Alfred", and he claims to have forgotten his native Persian language. Reportedly, he left the terminal in August 2006 to be hospitalized for an unspecified illness.
I enjoyed the movie; Tom Hanks is so versatile and well, haven't we all been stuck in similar Catch-22 type situations?
As a whole the film makes very little sense, but Hanks works a magic I very rarely see from him... 
2009-06-25 - A lot of people consider Tom Hanks to be one of the greatest actors of his generation. They laud his every performance, even the mediocre ones (and personally, I feel as though he has a lot of those). I mean, the man has two Oscar's so OBVIOUSLY he's amazing, right.
I am not a Hanks fan really. I think that he has been superb twice (in `Big' and `Cast Away'), and merely adequate most other times. In fact, I find his two Oscar winning performances to be near the bottom of his pile of performances, and I often find his ignored work to be his most inspired. Why wasn't anyone paying attention to him when he delivered delicious line after line in `That Thing You Do' or when he stayed in step with Leonardo DiCaprio in `Catch Me if You Can'? Why, instead, does he find himself nominated for boring and uneventful work like `Saving Private Ryan', or clichéd and flawed work like `Philadelphia'? Personally, I find him to be highly overrated and overpraised.
So, `The Terminal' was not very high on my list back in 2004.
I actually happened to see this film because my mother-in-law is one of those delusional Hanks fans and so we took her to see this movie while my father-in-law was away on business. Now, I will be honest right off the bat and tell you that this movie is rather ridiculous and that it is cliché ridden and completely unoriginal even if the so-called `plot' is original, but...and there is a but...Tom Hanks completely saves this movie from being forgettable and worthless. Yes, this is one of his best performances.
It's sad that this is one of his worst movies.
The film tells the `inspired by a true story yet nothing like the true story it was inspired by' story of Viktor Navorski, a middle-aged man who travels to New York from his home country in order to do something `mysterious'. While in the air his country goes to war and he walks off the plane a citizen of no where. Without legal citizenship he becomes a citizen of the airport, unable to fly home and unable to take a step on American soil. He makes a home for himself at the airport, making friends, getting work, falling in love; all the while the head of security, Frank Dixon, is desperately trying to get rid of him.
The plot is preposterous. There is so much that goes on here that makes no sense whatsoever it's almost as if the screen writer just gave up trying to make this believable. Between Viktor's sudden grasp of English to his remodeling of the airport, not a whole lot here is even remotely plausible. That's kind of sad, because this had the potential to be a really smart and really touching drama. Instead it is nothing but a clichéd, unrealistic kinda-sorta romantic comedy.
The performances, outside of Hanks, are merely serviceable, but I blame the scripting for that. Catherine Zeta-Jones is quirky and somewhat adorable, but the script doesn't give her real room to flourish, which is sad because this could have been a prime role for her. Stanley Tucci is spot on as the tyrant Dixon, but the film's final scene with him is contradictory (he is not painted as a playful cat and mouse type adversary, he's painted as a real creep, so his nonchalant attitude at the films end is out of place). The supporting players like Chi McBride and Diego Luna and Kumar Pallana and Zoe Saldana aren't really given much to do except clichéd one-liners and implausible plot points. Luna and Saldana's romance is ridiculous to say the least, and while Pallana is hilarious in every scene he is in, he winds up being nothing but a walking stereotype.
Yes, Tom Hanks is really the only reason to see this movie. He has a wonderful grasp of who Viktor is, and he makes us want to root for him, want to rally behind and support him. We fall in love with him, just as Amelia obviously does, and we understand why (because, obviously, we are not Frank Dixon). He has the `Romantic Comedy' charm, but he backs it up with a dramatic reality that gives weight to his character, even if the script is uninterested in giving him any.
Yes, `The Terminal' is entertaining. It has wit and ample amounts of charm, but I can't help but think of how much better this could have been if they hadn't gotten lazy with it.
Defies expectations, but not always in a good way
2009-03-19 - Hanks' acting is wonderful as usual. There are also some very charming moments between his and the other characters.
There are two main issues I have with Terminal. On occasion, Spielberg falls prey to his penchant for over-sentimentalization. For instance, do we really need four reaction shots of people fawning over a good deed Hanks' character does for a secondary character? In another part, dozens of characters rally around the protagonist in another sentimental scene, but the direction is so heavy-handed I literally groaned. I actually love sentiment, but a little subtlety goes a long way.
I also had problems with how certain plot and character threads played out. I won't give anything away, but let me just say, this movie is set up as a low key comedy, with a sweet romantic subplot; and sometimes it's okay for movies to just give into convention and go with their own flow. Instead, Terminal goes for a more philosophical conclusion that I found disappointing. It brings us in one direction with the romance plot and then whiplashes us into another.
Relatedly, I was disappointed with how little character development there is with regard to the three main characters - Hanks', Zeta-Jones's, and Tucci's. All three are pretty much the same at the end of the movie as in the beginning. The movie winds up giving way to themes related to fate and destiny that I just didn't like in relation to the rest of the film.
Having spent all this time criticizing it, I would still say it's a solid three star movie. Ultimately, on some level I can appreciate its attempt to defy expectations, and it never stopped being entertaining. If you're a Hanks fan, and if you go into it setting aside your expectations as to how a romantic comedy normally plays out, you'll probably find it enjoyable.
