The Terminal

The Terminal reminds me of a sweet and heavily praised lemonade in enticing packaging, which someone opens and leaves on the table for a week. It's simply too calculated and not very functional. Of course, Tom Hanks and Catherine Zeta-Jones continue to be among the most likable actors of their generation, Spielberg knows his craft, and the film maintains a certain level throughout. It's predictable to the point of misery, except for the final resolution, which makes me wonder why Hanks actually endured that crazy stay at the airport. If I had been considering three stars until then, at that point I was definitively convinced to give it a lower rating. The resolution is, diplomatically speaking, naïve, but it leaves me with a far more expressive phrase on my lips. The overall impression is influenced by an inappropriately chosen level of stylization and exaggeration. The relationship between reality and the absurdity of what is seen simply jars. Furthermore, the slogging message of family values and human solidarity gradually pushes Spielberg to the very brink of kitsch. Perhaps the weakest creation that I have had the opportunity to see from his workshop... Overall impression: 45%. (11.03.2010)

It's the little things that make this film great and in a way brilliant. Unfortunately, that only applies to the first half. Once the main character gets jaded, the plot starts to get more American and isn't as entertaining. Victor Navorski's character certainly has a lot in common with Forrest Gump. I really enjoyed his good-heartedness and ingenuity. And given the situation he's in, there are a few elements from Cast Away as well. It's no fun crashing at an airport... unless Tom Hanks is the one crashing there. 4 stars. (30.11.2011)

The first half of The Terminal is fantastic. The endearing and sophisticated episodic humour and another captivating (previously unseen) setting for Tom Hanks’s masterful acting make for a simple yet irresistible movie without even the smallest flaw in its beauty. However, that beauty fades with the entrance of the bad guy and a love story, and the film slips to the level of a standard family movies of the kind for which the services of Chris Columbus and co. are usually engaged. Catch Me if You Can was more coherent, more precise and more distinctive. (06.10.2004)

This movie just skims the surface and never goes into depth. The screenplay isn’t one of the best ever, the whole storyline involving Catherine is pointless, but still... Spielberg is too good a director and Hanks too good an actor for this movie to be merely mediocre. It’s more like a pleasant relax movie that gets to you; it’s much better in the first “short stories" part than in the second part where it is too focused on the love story and obligations from the past. (27.02.2005)

Very nice thing. The first half, with the brilliantly confused Hanks and his delicious accent, is very funny and brisk, the love story with the stewardess (the really beautiful Zeta-Jones) is pleasant, the non-clichéd climax goes against the established templates – I had imagined something else, but I’m glad Spielberg (and the screenwriter) surprised me. Even the ending was within acceptable limits, there was no violent playing on emotions (so typical of Spielberg). Also a huge compliment to the production team who built a fully functional airport hall especially for this film, hats off to them. A small surprise to me was the poor financial response from American audiences, could the Hanks-Spielberg star pairing no longer be a sure bet? Together with overseas earnings, Terminal just about paid for itself. PS: A message for golfista: you're wrong, kid. Considering that about 50 percent of the revenue goes to the cinema operators, with 218 million earnings, that's about a hundred million for DreamWorks, so as I said – Spielberg probably wasn't too happy. (13.01.2005)