The Terminal is the type of movie (if you can call it that) I would expect to see from a second year film student. The kind of film that is based so heavily on Hollywood formula that it almost forgets to finish telling the story.
It's craptastic and sucktacular.
This movie is plagued by way too many subplots — to the point that even the main plot is dumbed down to becoming just another subplot and one that doesn't really provide any resolution. In fact, none of them do. I still don't know why half of the plot-lines were even included in the movie.
For instance, the love interest between the foreigner and the stewardess never amounts to anything considering it was advertised as a part of the major plot in the movie. A good hour of spent on the love plot and yet in the end neither of the characters comes away having learned anything, or grown from the experience — they don't even end up together.
I counted at least six other sub-plots with similar train wreck transitions.
The Terminal happens to also be the worlds longest cinematic commercial. Product and logo shots were constantly forced throughout the movie while brand names were worked into the script. The audience is continuously hammered over and over again with so much blatant advertising that it shares just as much screen time as just another subplot.
Be prepared to indoctrinate your brain into using the following brands: CNN, Borders, Starbucks, Swatch, United Airlines, Baja Fresh, Burger King, Hugo Boss, Baskin Robins, Discovery Channel Store, Dr. Pepper, Brookstone, Panda Express, Ramada Inn, Planters Peanuts, and Motorola.
There were a few more but it's hard to recall this morning with my Spielberg/Hanks Eleven Buck Chuck hangover.
I don't like to use this space to review products but after my experience at the movies last night, I needed to vent a little and hopefully save you from spending $11 per person to see what should have been another entertaining movie from Hollywoods cutest actor/director couple.
Instead The Terminal is a mish-mash of poor directing, editing, photography and studio greed (note that I did not mention acting) — the kind of "movie" that usually goes directly to video.
Join the fray by reading through and commenting at the end.
Flight Cancelled?
Well, it is a sad day on earth when a Spielberg/Hanks flick gets stomped on by a film like Dodgeball.
Then again, your review was pretty spot on. The film was formulaic, and poorly executed. You also brought up an interesting point about blatant advertising being forced upon the viewer. I am glad I am not the only who is offended by this. Ticket prices are sky high, and yet I still have to watch advertising before the trailers, and during the film. It is pathetic and greedy on the part of the studio and the director.
Sigh. This is too much of a rant already
*runs off to get a Mocha Frap no whip*
There's some delicious full-bodied roasted irony in the title typo - from "Fight" to "Flight." However, I'm so overwhelmed with the notes of Sumatran mountain-flavor that I can't possibly figure out what it is.
That would be my attempt at English after a few hours of sleep, and in a hurry to beat the lines at Disneyland.
That's a shame, really. The trailers made it look so good. Oh well--there's a reason, I suppose, that my wife and I never go to the movies, but wait for the DVD release. A reason, of course, aside from (a) having two kids, which makes a sitter + tickets + dinner and/or refreshments cost-prohibitive, and (b) finding time to go.
It's funny; I just watched Jaws last weekend and was sort of thinking that Spielberg wasn't as bad as I thought her was. Too bad about his new flick.
And I know Zeta-Jones is gorgeous and all, but ever since starring in Chicago, marrying Michael Douglas, and doing those stupid phone ads she just comes off as an Irritating Cow.
[No udder comments, please.]
$11???
Thank Dog for the faux-student discount my old student ID still affords me. (Shh...)
The Terminal was different. It moved slowly and didn't amount to anything spectacular as part of the overall message. The movie was about patience and resolve for a cause. Tom Hanks doesn't charge through the Terminal, instead he waits there and forms all sorts of wonderful relationships all while ultimately achieving his goal of that last signature (hopefully that was too vague to be a spoiler).
You say that it follows the typical Hollywood guidelines and fails, when it actually doens't do either. It is a film that has no place in major release, it should be shown at Cannes not The Chinese Theatre. I applaud Hanks/Spielburg for taking their careers in a different direction if just this once.
What blows me away is how few reviews mention the fact that this is all based on the true story of some poor guy who's been living in Charles de Gaulle airport for the last 8 years. Apparently Dreamworks paid him a " very small sum" and made him sign a piece of paper stating he wouldn't sue them. So all in all I'm glad the film sucks I hope Dreamworks looses a bucket load of cash on the thing.
The real man, Nasseri sounds like he has a bit of shell-shock: Snopes has the story.
I liked the movie enough, though I thought the Catherine Zeta-Jones subplot really was unnecessary since it didn't amount to much. Loved seeing Kumar as always.
Did anyone think that this was reminiscent of Cast Away in some form? Tom Hanks stranded in an airport instead, with more people?
No no, "you just didn't get it!" Arghh. Don't you all hate it when people say that?
Well, it couldn't possibly have been worse than The Chronicles of Riddick could it?
Rojo, the difference is that Riddick wasn't directed by Steven Speilberg nor did it star Tom Hanks — both names which have become synonymous with better quality movies.
Riddick is a B movie with a large special effects budget. And I can't wait to see it.
I'm curious to know what your response was to Catch Me If You Can, the last Spielberg/Hanks co-operation. I quite enjoyed that one, finding it to be thoroughly entertaining while bucking the standard 3-act formula just enough to be fresh, but not so much as to be challenging to mainstream audiences.
Also, an unrequested recommendation: Stander will be the surprise hit of the summer. Be sure to catch it this August. I saw it at the Toronto Film Festival last September, and it's got a near-perfect combination of entertainment and poignance. Sadly, it does adhere to the 3-act formula pretty strictly, but hey -- it works!
Greg, thanks for the warning. I have a visceral reaction to bad movies — which makes me want to not even go at all. I find the wasted effort and dollars so repulsive that I end up angry and nauseated at the end of a poorly executed film. I'm not sure why I don't feel equal offense at a bad CD or an awful TV show, but a horrid movie makes me want to scream. There is no excuse for a Speilberg or Lucas or Hanks to make a lousy film — only bad judgement and a lack of caring.
Among your many criticisms, Greg, there are two that stand out in particular. I'm not sure how they co-exist. You say the movie is formulaic...and yet that it does not resolve its many subplots.
Let's take the story of Vic-and-chick as an example. Even if your conclusion that "it never amounts to anything" were true, would you have preferred that they ended up together? Would that not be formulaic? Is it more, or less, "Hollywood" to include an obligatory romance which finishes with candy and balloons?
Or, must the characters themselves demonstrate to you what they have learned, or how they have grown? Often a complaint about "Hollywood" is its lack of faith in the intelligence of its audience. The complaint is valid: how often we groan when a script spoonfeeds us with consequences and implications that were mind-numbingly obvious! Would you...prefer that?
Perhaps you would have liked it neither way, since it is already too "Hollywood" to ward off your cynicism. That's not a flame; cynicism can be eye-opening, in moderation.
But also consider: the function of a concurrent story alongside the main story is possibly not that it either 1. resolves the way you expect it to just because you harbor assumptions about how it should transpire (if assumptions regarding "how it was advertised" is a problem, blame yourself, or trailers, but not movies), or 2. resolves at all.
I have no problem with you hating the movie--I confess I did not, though--but I would like to wake up those who are ranting and have not even seen it. Usually it is better to form critical opinions on one's own than to take others' for granted.
I agree with Eric. This movie wasn't formulaic. If it were, Vix would have ended up with Amelia, and everything would have ended happily. But it ended just how life does -- people don't just change when they fall in love with someone. The Amelia/Vic plot demonstrates that. People are afraid of change, and in the end the movie proves that sometimes in life, no matter how hard you try (and we all know Vic tried REALLY hard), sometimes things just don't work out in the end. And I think if the romance had been requited, then it would have taken away from Vic's real motive in coming to America, to fulfill the promise.
I really enjoyed this movie and I encourage people not to just take someone else's word for it, and to see it themselves. (If you're worried about the $11, go at matinee time.)
On a side note - I enjoyed Chronicles of Riddick a lot. Probably more than I should have (I liked Pitch Black a lot too), but it's nice to see a new sci-fi universe unfold. It has it's moments. I'll just say that the end reminds me of Conan.
I think those ranting, whom have not seen the movie, are tired, as I am, of being a victim to the ever-increasing prices (including the matinee which is now $7) of Hollywood's crap. In this case the brand name tag-team of Speilberg/Hanks has produced some really great movies but completely failed to deliver quality or entertainment. Towards the end it was like sitting through an off key performance of La Boheme.
In this case I think the story had a lot of promise but I'll say it again, the directing and editing of this movie was horrible that should not be confused with art house style. Just as Tom suggests I think Steven Speilberg's mind was elsewhere during this film. Though I shouldn't have been so surprised when his buddy, George Lucas, completely destroyed the future of the Star Wars franchise with the release of his latest crap.
Pontiac has the Aztec, Speilberg has The Terminal.
Mike, I did like Catch Me If You Can. It may have been formulaic but well directed, editing, and acted. It was entertainment worth the full price of admission.
I was somewhat doubtful about the success of this movie, yet I hoped for the best. I'm sorry to hear it sucked.
Pontiac has the Aztec, indeed...
What a shame to hear a Spielberg flick deserves a crappy art-house thumbs neutral. It's bound to happen, though. As much of a Spielberg fan that I am, I know the man isn't perfect. Still though, I haven't seen the movie yet so I'll hold my tongue (man, will I get ripped a new one if I claim to like it)
I have not seen The Terminal, but I admit reading through all of these comments, whether for ill or not, I feel like seeing it (maybe because $6.50 is the most I ever have to pay to see a movie). See, you guys have done it. You've sparked controversy that might make me waste that $6.50!
On a side note, like Naz, I did find Chronicles of Riddick to be superb. I never saw Pitch Black (now I need to!). If there is a way that you find it to be shoddily produced or boorish, it's probably because you have little respect, or love, or sci-fi. The detail in the movie was amazing, and I'm not speaking in terms of pixels here. What's even better about the movie is that it isn't completely about looking pretty. It has an interesting plot, not altogether completely original of course, which I'm sure would be better if I had seen Pitch Black. In any case, though I like action movies I like movies that make me think. Perhaps I though more about this movie since I hadn't seen it's predecessor?
Kind of liked it, myself. And though saturated with Hollywood formula, I was glad that phony-country foreigner and hot, naughty flight attendant never truly connected ... as it was very un-Hollywood (well, unless you count non-Hollywood made but Hollywood supported "Lost in Translation").
Look, it's a fun movie with a good message. I think critics are looking to gain nirvana from watching a Spielberg/Hanks film. Yet they hail praise for "ET" - which is uber-formula driven ("Free Willy","The Golden Seal", and many other films leveraged this same formula) and the first successful project to use product placement.
Just two cents from someone in the business of making movies.
Oh, and for those who may not know, "ET" was directed by Spielberg (forgot to mention).
ET may have been uber formulaic but it did not suffer from uber commercialism, uber bad direction, and uber poor editing.