DreamWorks Distribution | Release Date: June 18, 2004
8.1
USER SCORE
Universal acclaim based on 322 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
260
Mixed:
40
Negative:
22
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
10
bookersJul 27, 2016
I love this movie, it's has a unique atmosphere, which is delivered by directing, camera and great cast. Tom Hanks portreyed Viktor marvelously. This movie is something that I enjoy going back to and watching all over again.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
RainbowDenixJul 24, 2016
Another great movie from Spielberg with Tom Hanks in the lead role. Nice comedy, great story and acting makes me wanna watch it again! 8/10 absolutely outstanding
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
10
thatcriticmahaApr 18, 2016
Tom Hanks at his finest. This film is the very definition of heartfelt.
The terminal is a fantastic Rom-Com filled with laughter, tears, and fleeting moments of pity that all come together to form a classic. For those living under a rock and
Tom Hanks at his finest. This film is the very definition of heartfelt.
The terminal is a fantastic Rom-Com filled with laughter, tears, and fleeting moments of pity that all come together to form a classic. For those living under a rock and have never seen Tom Hanks in a film before would not be judged for thinking he is eastern European. His performance as Viktor Navorski, a man from the fictional country of Krakozhia is magnificent. The ease in which he performs his role is awe inspiring. But he is far from alone. Stellar performances from Catherine Zeta-Jones and Stanley Tucci help to make a brilliant story based of true events. The scenes with Hanks and Tucci are particularly of interest. The accompaniment for this film is beautiful and perfectly reflects the mood in each scene.
Overall The terminals a brilliant film that deserves to watched, loved and appreciated by all.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
FilmClubMar 27, 2016
With cinemas currently providing little refuge from disasters both natural and manmade, this buoyant, optimistic fable seems to share in the late Ronald Reagan's optimism for America. Tom Hanks stars as an immigrant unable to leave in a NewWith cinemas currently providing little refuge from disasters both natural and manmade, this buoyant, optimistic fable seems to share in the late Ronald Reagan's optimism for America. Tom Hanks stars as an immigrant unable to leave in a New York airport. Pic should quickly pilot its way to the helmer's usual numbers for non-genre fare.

Fanciful as it sounds, the premise of “The Terminal” is rooted in fact — specifically, the case of Iranian expatriate Merhan Karimi Nessari, who has, since 1988, resided in Terminal 1 of Paris’ Charles de Gaulle Airport. (Previously, Nessari’s story was the inspiration for the 1994 French pic “Lost in Transit.”)

Here, Hanks plays the Messari-inspired Viktor Navorski, who touches down on American soil only to discover that, during his flight, a political coup occurred in his fictional Eastern European homeland. Informed by businesslike Homeland Security officer Frank Dixon (well played by Stanley Tucci) that he is unable to return home or to seek asylum in the U.S. until our government recognizes the new regime, Viktor is ordered to stay put in the airport.

Dixon reasons it’s only a matter of time before his virtual prisoner escapes into the Big Apple and becomes some other agency’s problem. But Viktor wants to enter the U.S. legally, for unspecified reasons that may concern the tin of Planters peanuts he carries around like a family heirloom.

Restricted to the confines of the airport’s glittering, glass-and-steel international transit area, Viktor patiently goes about making himself a home, while the film evolves into a gentle satire of the dilemmas of immigration and the resilience of this new American’s entrepreneurial spirit.

Screenplay slyly observes the terminal as a home to an entire community of uprooted persons — from Indian emigre janitor Gupta (scene-stealing Wes Anderson regular Kumar Pallana), who takes perverse pleasure in watching people slip across his freshly-waxed floors, to Mexican food-service worker Enrique (Diego Luna), who pines for the affections of a beautiful Customs officer (Zoe Saldana).

There’s also knockout United Airlines flight attendant Amelia Warren (Catherine Zeta-Jones), whose meet-cute with Viktor owes itself to a waxy, Gupta-generated tumble. Embroiled in an unsatisfying affair with a married man (Michael Nouri), she finds herself drawn to Viktor’s honesty and warmth, and able to relate to his feeling of living in an airport (which she initially mistakes as a metaphor).

Yet, while Viktor and Amelia continue to rendezvous, their relationship becomes neither the focal point of “The Terminal” nor a full-blown romance. And while Zeta-Jones is excellent at revealing Amelia’s sad, delicate dimensions, she ultimately isn’t in that much of the movie. Of course, that’s part of pic’s point — that in this crazy, mixed-up world, we rarely have time to stop and savor the things that really matter.

For a movie about a man whose very nationality lingers in limbo for months, “The Terminal” lacks any significant sense of conflict, and an 11th-hour subplot involving Art Kane’s famous Harlem jazz portrait feels like something out of left field. But at its best, “The Terminal” finds Spielberg working in the breezy, freewheeling fashion that dates back to his early “The Sugarland Express” and his recent “Catch Me if You Can.”

Spielberg does not appear to take himself or the material too seriously, and his steadfast refusal to see the proverbial glass as less than half-full is more inspiring than cloying. In Spielberg’s world, it’s possible for an immigrant to learn fluent English by reading a Fodor’s travel guide. And, in a summer when the likes of “Troy” and “The Stepford Wives” are what pass for old-fashioned Hollywood entertainment, it’s a pleasure to spend time there.

Astonishingly, pic’s massive, detail-perfect set is just that — not a real airport terminal at all, but an exact replica constructed by production designer Alex McDowell in a Palmdale, Calif., aerospace hanger. (A few exteriors were shot in Montreal.)

Though relatively minor compared to his superb work on the new “Harry Potter” pic, John Williams’ score still offers an enjoyable coupling of typically Holst-ian fanfares and more adventurous, klezmer-influenced riffs.

Perhaps pic’s greatest technical pleasure, however, is the lustrous, color-saturated cinematography of regular Spielberg lenser Janusz Kaminski, whose work here registers at the opposite end of the spectrum from his signature faded hues and blown-out lighting schemes, resulting in a visual luxuriance that harks back to Spielberg’s classic collaborations with d.p. Allen Daviau (“E.T.,” “The Color Purple,” “Empire of the Sun”).
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
marc5477Feb 20, 2016
What a fun film! I think this is one of Tom Hanks best performances. Its almost a throw back to 80's style sappy films but it does not go overboard. The character development was superb and even though some of the characters were notWhat a fun film! I think this is one of Tom Hanks best performances. Its almost a throw back to 80's style sappy films but it does not go overboard. The character development was superb and even though some of the characters were not believable, they remained memorable such as the security staff and the port administrator.

This movie is about a guy from a fictitious country who gets lost in the paperwork because his country ceased to exist while he was in flight. The shenanigans begin when his passport is rejected by US customs and the administrator of the terminal fails to communicate with him due to language barriers. From here everything goes haywire. The administrator cant get rid of Mr. Navorski (Tom Hanks) and and Mr. Navorski cant speak English and cant find anyone to help him translate what he sees on the TV (about the war in his country). Since his passport is not valid he cannot enter the USA and the airport authorities have no where to send him since his country no longer has any flights going to it. So what does he do? He starts learning English by comparing two travel guides, one in his language and one in English (recall this is pre-cell phone days). Along the way, he finds ways to make money so he no longer has to eat crackers with ketchup, lands a job, befriends a crazy Indian, goes on a date with a stewardess, helps a baggage handler meet and marry the girl of his dreams, helps people around the terminal in various ways, and eventually confronts the terminal authority that had him trapped (with the help of his new found friends).

Its not supposed to be believable any more than Big was believable, and there are plot holes a plenty but it is a fun movie and was never meant to be taken very seriously. I highly recommend this movie.
Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
8
SEROJJan 12, 2016
Another great movie from Spielberg with Tom Hanks in the lead role. Nice comedy, great story and acting makes me wanna watch it again! 8/10 absolutely outstanding
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
SpangleDec 22, 2015
The Terminal is not exactly the most original film in terms of structure, nor is it the most daring Spielberg-directed film in existence, but it is still really good. Incredibly funny and cute, The Terminal features a great performance by TomThe Terminal is not exactly the most original film in terms of structure, nor is it the most daring Spielberg-directed film in existence, but it is still really good. Incredibly funny and cute, The Terminal features a great performance by Tom Hanks that really exceeds the overall quality of the film. It is incredibly safe and adverse to taking too many risks, but still manages to be an interesting look at this man's life in an airport after a crisis in his home nation leaves him stateless. Regardless, it is very entertaining and can be quite charming and moving at times in ways that only Spielberg films can. Somehow, that movie magic is still present in this film set solely in an airport terminal. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
solomsApr 17, 2015
A good comedy, but nothing that we didn't saw yet. For Steven Spielberg I expected more. Tom Hanks did a great job, but for a comedy? There are people more fun and talented for this kind of movies. There are a drama too but it sounds likeA good comedy, but nothing that we didn't saw yet. For Steven Spielberg I expected more. Tom Hanks did a great job, but for a comedy? There are people more fun and talented for this kind of movies. There are a drama too but it sounds like many other movies that I just saw. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
TokyochuchuDec 24, 2014
The Terminal is a slight yet memorable comedy from Spielberg. Hanks is magnetic as usual in the central role and Stanley Tucci is also great as Hanks' nemesis. The Terminal is superior rom-com fluff.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
0
Sebe2012Dec 8, 2014
Considering how particular the states in immigration and border control, The film is so unrealistic. In reality , someone like tom hanks character would end up in a detention centre and eventually kicked out of the states.However SpielbergConsidering how particular the states in immigration and border control, The film is so unrealistic. In reality , someone like tom hanks character would end up in a detention centre and eventually kicked out of the states.However Spielberg sugar coats and tones down such story to show how kind the states to the american audience and the world . Tom Hanks's character is coming from an imaginary Eastern European country in turmoil but all he would like to do in New York is to see a jazz concert. Such a thing can only happen in a Spielberg film Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
Anand14Oct 6, 2014
superb film.this is one of my all time favourite movies.tom hanks has outshone himself in this great movie. The direction,camera,editing are all awesome.love this movie
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
8
beingryanjudeAug 27, 2014
The Terminal is one of Spielberg's most overlooked films of his entire career. It's a soft, delicate and warming romance. Tom Hanks is outstanding alongside Catherine Zeta-Jones.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
Iky009Jan 3, 2014
Não um filme bom nem ruim, normal, apesar de seu melodrama ser quase inevitável de fugir tem alguns momento bons para um filme com um roteiro fraco.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
javier_2998Nov 23, 2011
Well, this movie is awesome. The plot is very interesting, the actors did a good job and I liked it very much. This movie will make you laugh, and guarantees to entertain you. Also, I loved when Viktor makes the fountain for Amelia
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
10
gm101Dec 4, 2010
This is definitely one of my all time favorite movies (and this is coming from someone who loves critically loathed summer blockbusters). Great movie to watch before travelling.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
JerryW.Jan 3, 2009
This movie was inane and completely unbelievable. I expect much more from Spielberg and Hanks. A completely lame script has people acting in ways that make no sense. Huge disappointment.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
JackS.Nov 22, 2008
Had some very good humor, Hanks did a really good job in this movie. It didn't have the clearest plot though.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
JeffM.Aug 21, 2006
If a lesser known director had made this movie, I doubt the reviews would be as negative.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JustinCDec 13, 2005
It's a good movie, don't get me wrong, just a loooooooooong and sometimes boring one.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JoséM.Oct 21, 2005
Great!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
patrickd.Oct 6, 2005
Why such the low rating? The Terminal=excellent!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
RyanM.Sep 6, 2005
This movie tries to charm in the cliched Spielberg way. But except for a few moments, this movie disappoints. Completely absurd and unbelievable, the story becomes more and more ridiculous as the movie progresses. Hanks is also disappointing This movie tries to charm in the cliched Spielberg way. But except for a few moments, this movie disappoints. Completely absurd and unbelievable, the story becomes more and more ridiculous as the movie progresses. Hanks is also disappointing with a stereotypical and uneven performance. This Spielberg fairytale is one of his worst. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
4
PatC.Sep 6, 2005
Cheap drawn-out overdramatization and awkward slapstick blows situations that were trying to ring true. Spielberg needs to go back to making movies where the characters are carbon-based life forms.
1 of 1 users found this helpful
3
bunnyc.Sep 2, 2005
Could this be worse? One unbelievable plot point after another. Writing that only an idiot could tolerate.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
elizabethr.Aug 13, 2005
Manipulative, contrived, Hollywood storytelling!! No iota of truth to be found in the stereotyped characters or their predictable situations.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
RogerV.Jul 14, 2005
Slow and tedious. Hard to watch.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
Laura1Jun 24, 2005
Very enjoyable, easy unexpected laughs. Tom Hanks is superb as usual.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JustinC.Jun 16, 2005
I thought this movie was funny and very entertaining. There is nothing not to like about this movie.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
SteveBApr 18, 2005
Maybe I'm just a sucker for silly accents (not to mention my crush on CZJ), but this was a very funny movie.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
SlobodanMar 30, 2005
Very funny.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
MattMar 25, 2005
A truly underrated movie. I thoroughly enjoyed it and believe that in today's bureaucracy, a similar situation could happen.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
JeemMar 11, 2005
Geez... we couldn't even finish it...
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
AndyW.Feb 21, 2005
A misfiring, never-ending, aimless mess that could (and should) have been a little gem of a movie. It bores where it should enthrall, which is a crime considering the talent on display.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
barbd.Feb 13, 2005
Very enjoyable. No sex, violence, or vulgar language, just an enjoyable story. Yes, it's rather absurd as anyone who travels much would know, but it's entertaining, not meant to be a documentary on foreigners traveling to USA. I Very enjoyable. No sex, violence, or vulgar language, just an enjoyable story. Yes, it's rather absurd as anyone who travels much would know, but it's entertaining, not meant to be a documentary on foreigners traveling to USA. I would love to see more clean, enjoyable movies. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
PeterJ.Feb 7, 2005
Tom Hanks saves this movie from a sub 5 rating. While the actual plot wasn't too bad, many of the little things in the movie were way over the top. If they made it a little more realistic I would have given it a 7 or above. It was still Tom Hanks saves this movie from a sub 5 rating. While the actual plot wasn't too bad, many of the little things in the movie were way over the top. If they made it a little more realistic I would have given it a 7 or above. It was still entertaining though, as most Hanks movies are. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
TEMJan 28, 2005
Speilberg should be ashamed of this film.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
GustavoH.R.Jan 16, 2005
While its script is somewhat flat and flawed, and some of the gags do not completely work, this film is still delightful and light-hearted enough to make us want to watch it over and over again. Another great performance by Mr. Hanks helps While its script is somewhat flat and flawed, and some of the gags do not completely work, this film is still delightful and light-hearted enough to make us want to watch it over and over again. Another great performance by Mr. Hanks helps the film go up one step. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
armandosJan 16, 2005
Tom Hanks gives a great performance-he basicallly carries this movie-not top flight Speilberg but better than most critics rated it-it had a bittersweet nature that i found appealing ,even though the premise was a bit farfetched.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
yoonc.Jan 7, 2005
Spielberg has underachieved with terminal but give the man a break. he was on a roll in the 90s with films such as jurassic park, schindler's list, saving private ryan and AI. the problem with the terminal is its one-dimensionality. Spielberg has underachieved with terminal but give the man a break. he was on a roll in the 90s with films such as jurassic park, schindler's list, saving private ryan and AI. the problem with the terminal is its one-dimensionality. notwithstanding few moments of realism, this is capra with all sugar and no salt. it's kinda like an ET for adults. like ET, an alien is stranded between his world and ours. tom hanks, wonderful and funny, is too much of a caricature to take seriously and too real to take lightly. i suppose we could argue that the characterization is very much like the situation the character is trapped in--in a state of limbo. indeed, the movie was based on a true story but it was given the spielberg fairytale treatment. just think of what this movie could have been in the hands of someone like scorsese--or even spielberg of the 90s. still, the movie is interesting as a possible rumination on the meaning of the wandering jew. his status--perpetual outsider, man without a home, scrambling with his wits to survive--speaks volumes about jewish anxiety, intentional or not. the cast of characters of various ethnicity isn't entirely sweet and embracing, but ultimately toothless enough to make the toothfairy work overtime. even the villain of the movie is forgiven and patted on the back as not-so-bad-after-all. if you turn off 25% of your brain and want to be amused for 2 hrs, you can do much worse. besides, there's also the very lovely catherina zeta jones. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
BlueFalconDec 14, 2004
Inoffensive and mildly entertaining.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
MitchM.Dec 4, 2004
Interesting premise, initially absorbing, but veers toward incredulity as it progresses. The Catherine Zeta Jones scenes are the worst offenders. And how could such a schlub become such a hero?
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
JohnT.Dec 1, 2004
It's sad, it's really sad when directors, writers and actors begin to get so lost in their hollywood culture that they no longer understand or relate to mainstream America anymore. I completely gave up on this movie when it became It's sad, it's really sad when directors, writers and actors begin to get so lost in their hollywood culture that they no longer understand or relate to mainstream America anymore. I completely gave up on this movie when it became obvious that Spielberg was more interested in wringing out some vapid emotional response than in attempting to achieve any level of crediblity at all! Imagine government officials speaking paragraph after paragraph to someone who obviously doesn't understand English instead of making him wait in the other room for an interpreter. Imagine that NO ONE else has arrived at that airport on that airplane from this imaginary country. Imagine that one of the largest airports in the world wouldn't provide or send for an interpreter. Imagine laying meal vouchers on a bench rather than putting them in your pocket. Imagine that no one would think to send this person to his country's embassy. Imagine you have such contempt for American intelligence that you don't care that none of it makes any sense. Anyway I see a big, fat lecture on the Ugly American, multiculturalism and intolerance soon so OUT the DVD goes! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
VikramM.Nov 27, 2004
How people can see this movie as boring is unbelievable. Tom Hanks was VERY good in this dramatic romantic comedy. This movie was incredibly funny, I was laughing at almost every point there was comedy. This was a fun movie and everyone will How people can see this movie as boring is unbelievable. Tom Hanks was VERY good in this dramatic romantic comedy. This movie was incredibly funny, I was laughing at almost every point there was comedy. This was a fun movie and everyone will love it. C'mon guys this is hilarious! And dramatic, but still hilarious. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
alecNov 24, 2004
Hanks is the best actor since Chaplin.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
IlzeSNov 23, 2004
Boring! Boring! Boring! I really don?t like this movie. Stupid jokes!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
MichaelM.Oct 22, 2004
A lot of people panned this film, but I thought it was really cool if you could set aside reality. Tom Hanks did a great job (as always), as a man who visits New York from another country, and is not allowed to leave JFK airport or go back A lot of people panned this film, but I thought it was really cool if you could set aside reality. Tom Hanks did a great job (as always), as a man who visits New York from another country, and is not allowed to leave JFK airport or go back home. Stranded in the airport for almost a year he makes many friends (mostly from the janitoring staff) and falls in love with a history-obsessed flight attendant (Catherine Zeta-Jones). The movie is corny at parts, especially at the ending, but if you don't take it too seriously, I promise you you'll have a good time. Stanley Tucci is convincing as an a--hole. He almost always plays a--holes. I wonder why... Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
DavidS.Oct 22, 2004
Disappointing on almost all fronts. The storry was predictable and the result inevertable. Why is the rating for the film above 1! i simply do not see this lurking appeal of this film! Even with the slight humour is was a dry film. Even Disappointing on almost all fronts. The storry was predictable and the result inevertable. Why is the rating for the film above 1! i simply do not see this lurking appeal of this film! Even with the slight humour is was a dry film. Even though i love commedies this was uterly pathedtic. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
AudreyB.Sep 5, 2004
This started out well. The premise was interesting, it made some good commentary on government, and Hanks acted it well. But, around the middle, it started to get downright sappy. The shameless deus ex machina at the end secured its This started out well. The premise was interesting, it made some good commentary on government, and Hanks acted it well. But, around the middle, it started to get downright sappy. The shameless deus ex machina at the end secured its downfall. The only good thing in the end was the resolution of the romance, which never had a real chance anyway. It might be disappointing, but it was, at least, realistic. The rest was just typical, silly Hollywood. There is nothing wrong with silly Hollywood when it admits that it is silly. This thought that it was meaningful. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
FrazierP.Aug 17, 2004
A major disappointment. Slow, boring and predictable.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
HarrisonB.Aug 8, 2004
Very good comedy. Tom Hanks was a very god character in this movie. Very funny. Good movie for the whole family.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
RonR.Aug 5, 2004
My wife and I LOVED this film! Hanks is fabulous with this Russian accent.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
EfeB.Jul 30, 2004
I love spielberg. always did. i have learned to love hanks over the years, especially after saving private ryan and catch me if you can. i thought spielberg and hank was incapable of making a bad movie...i thought wrong! the good thing is, I love spielberg. always did. i have learned to love hanks over the years, especially after saving private ryan and catch me if you can. i thought spielberg and hank was incapable of making a bad movie...i thought wrong! the good thing is, we see that they are human beings and not movie making machines. (at least in the artistic sense) spielberg commands the movie half way through without any hic-ups. however, when all his movie chops are used up and dried out, so does the movie. the film turns into a....well..."meeting everyone!...meeting!...we are sinking, what shall we do???"....ummm mr. spielberg?...."what!?"...ummm...let's get the old indian fella to stop a jumbo jet...."oy!...action!!!" i am sure, if he (steve) had his dinosaur and spaceship making computer fellas with him at the time, he would have ask them to help him out on this one. because if a film ever needs a random t-rex running through the airport and trampling the over acting catherina zeta whats her face, its THIS film. stanley tucci seems like he is "shell shocked" that he is actually acting in a spielberg film, he is not comfortable and portrays and utterly un-beliveable, off the cliff antagonist. i mean, marvin the martian makes more sense than him. why is he so damn angry? because hanks has 2 oscars and he doesn't? hanks is good, but somehow he is always good...i dont know if we are all captivated by his acting skills or his face reminds us his other, better films. whatever the case, i enjoyed his accent and him playing a "non-american" got me going for a while. it seems spielberg wanted to wrap this up and go home so he can make indiana jones 4 or something, the end of the film is un-forgivable for his talents...therefore, unlike his mostly other work...forgetable. the cinematography and opening credits are well done...too bad the rest aint. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
DanielleJul 29, 2004
Better than I expected.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
VincentE.Jul 23, 2004
You're not gonna find a masterpiece here, but you will find a bright, funny and ultimately satisfying movie. It never ceases to entertain. The script does have its flaws but the acting was on the mark. Despite its minor flaws it's You're not gonna find a masterpiece here, but you will find a bright, funny and ultimately satisfying movie. It never ceases to entertain. The script does have its flaws but the acting was on the mark. Despite its minor flaws it's definitely worth seeing. I think the people who failed to see any good in it and voted 0 have little or no appreciation for movies and should probably just sit back and pray for a White Chicks 2. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
EddieB.Jul 1, 2004
This wasn't a romance, it wasn't a comedy (although very funny). It was a movie about Importance. What was important to Viktor was his family. His loyalty to fufill his father's lifelong dream was what this movie was really about.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JasonS.Jul 1, 2004
I loved this film. It is beautifully shot and the characters become close friends by the end of the movie.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
RobertH.Jul 1, 2004
Terminally boring!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
RDJun 28, 2004
It had its funny moments, but the overall effect was terribly unsatisfying. The writers tried so hard NOT to give it a "feel good" ending you left the theater with a sense of frustration at all the unresolved issues and loose ends. Hanks did It had its funny moments, but the overall effect was terribly unsatisfying. The writers tried so hard NOT to give it a "feel good" ending you left the theater with a sense of frustration at all the unresolved issues and loose ends. Hanks did a great job, but the script was too flawed to really work. The most frustrating this is that it could have been so much more! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
NayoM.Jun 27, 2004
I thought it was a great movie because I really got to go on Viktors journey through out his trials. Tom Hanks continues to amaze me in how versitail he can be. Congrats.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
StaceyK.Jun 26, 2004
Spielberg's cinematic magic is ever present, but unfortunately the story's beginning is so unbelievable, that I was unable to suspend my own disbelief to ever truly relax and enjoy myself. I've had my share of nasty customs Spielberg's cinematic magic is ever present, but unfortunately the story's beginning is so unbelievable, that I was unable to suspend my own disbelief to ever truly relax and enjoy myself. I've had my share of nasty customs officials so I know that they can be really bad, but not like this. Otherwise, the characters have an honesty to them that is endearing, even Zeta-Jones'. I was hoping for more, it is Spielberg and probably why I was dissapointed. It was shot masterfully, and is very interesting to look at. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
JeffreyH.Jun 23, 2004
Sappy and silly. One dimensional characters.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
TomasL.Jun 22, 2004
Let me sum it up in one word for you. SUCKED!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
MarkB.Jun 21, 2004
Tom Hanks is frequently compared to James Stewart, Gary Cooper and/or Jack Lemmon, but even those great actors in their heyday didn't have access to the incredible variety of roles Hanks gets and continues to surprise us with. His Tom Hanks is frequently compared to James Stewart, Gary Cooper and/or Jack Lemmon, but even those great actors in their heyday didn't have access to the incredible variety of roles Hanks gets and continues to surprise us with. His naive, innocent but smart and resourceful Viktor Navorski, a would-be US visitor literally trapped in an airport terminal for months on end, is one of his best. Similarly, Steven Spielberg shows no signs of jet lag or coasting: this movie may not be as flashy as the Indiana Jones movies or Saving Private Ryan, but it's just as well-directed, with lots of wonderful, subtle touches--Spielberg makes his one gigantic set, a seemingly mundane airport that all of us who aren't terrified of flying have seen at least a few times, into a world as specific and imaginative as the futuristic ones of A.I. Artificial Intelligence and Minority Report. (And, for once, the built-in product placements are not only necessary to the atmosphere and action, but are beautifully and wittily used.) Spielberg is frequently criticized for not including romances in his films; he answers here in spades by featuring a remarkably poignant one. Roger Ebert is fond of quoting Jean Luc-Godard's adage that the best way to criticize a film is with another film; well, after suffering through the remarkably cynical, acrid Gallic psuedoromance Love Me If You Dare, this proudly one-part Capraesque, one-part Chaplinesque delight is a welcome tonic. (Ironically, BOTH films feature round, metal containers as McGuffins!) In an age where, even after 9/11, the most memorable airport scene in the last few years was Ben Stiller going ballistic on an officious stewardess in Meet the Parents, and we all seem to be getting more and more polarized and distanced from each other as we define ourselves by our jobs, nationalities and political stances rather than our common human identities, The Terminal dares to remind us that bureaucrats who are "just doing their job" are people too; that it's possible to learn important lessons about dealing with people at the precise moment when someone seems most utterly incapable of doing so; and that sometimes the grandest, most self-sacrificing gestures are made by the biggest jerks. In short, this is a film that believes in miracles. And the fact that someone who has both so fully defined the moden-day Hollywood studio system and is as deeply entrenched in it as Spielberg can still make something as sweet, sunny and thoroughly open-hearted as The Terminal may be the biggest miracle of all! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
ChadS.Jun 21, 2004
Most importantly, we don't have a "K-19: The Widowmaker" problem, in which we were all too aware that Harrison Ford is not a Russian. Tom Hanks sounds convincing, so we can relax and watch without distraction, but perhaps, his character Most importantly, we don't have a "K-19: The Widowmaker" problem, in which we were all too aware that Harrison Ford is not a Russian. Tom Hanks sounds convincing, so we can relax and watch without distraction, but perhaps, his character learns English a little too quickly. "The Terminal" works best when paeans to love aren't being expressed through the construction of a fountain, and Tianamen Square so bizzarely evoked. Spielberg is able to create an engaging universe out of the airport, so we never feel the need to see New York. "The Terminal", at times, tries too hard to make us feel good, when we already were. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
KenG.Jun 21, 2004
Although the limits of the terminal itself limit the greatness of the film, this is another successful teaming of Spielberg and Hanks. It's a sweet story, kept from icky sweetness by Hanks' effortless portrayal of an honest man Although the limits of the terminal itself limit the greatness of the film, this is another successful teaming of Spielberg and Hanks. It's a sweet story, kept from icky sweetness by Hanks' effortless portrayal of an honest man lost in a foreign world. The supporting cast is excellent. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
MichaelS.Jun 20, 2004
[***SPOILERS***] Have you ever read a novel which was great right up until the last few pages where it all then suddenly fell apart? Well, this movie is like that. The story takes you on an emotional roller-coaster and then crashes badly at[***SPOILERS***] Have you ever read a novel which was great right up until the last few pages where it all then suddenly fell apart? Well, this movie is like that. The story takes you on an emotional roller-coaster and then crashes badly at the end of the ride. Victor Novarski comes to America to get the last signature from 58 jazz musicians in order to keep a promise to his dead father. Along the way he gets stranded at JFK for a year and falls in love. (Spoiler Alert) But in the end he chooses not to fight for the woman of his dreams but rather meekly goes off to get the last signature. He never even tries to talk to her in order to make her realize just how much he loves her. And she never tells him why she must reject him. All we are left with is a few rather cliche lines which tell us nothing of the truth about the lead characters and which leave a rather bitter taste in our mouths as we leave the theater wondering what the point of the story was in the first place. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
NedJun 20, 2004
The movie was ok but I thought Hanks was great as usual. The story on the other hand, was a little too much. First, Catherine Zeta's character was so bad. The movie tries to make you feel bad for her, but it doesn't develope her The movie was ok but I thought Hanks was great as usual. The story on the other hand, was a little too much. First, Catherine Zeta's character was so bad. The movie tries to make you feel bad for her, but it doesn't develope her character at all. I think the whole love story inside the love story with a food delivery boy and a customs agent is ridiculous. No one agrees to marry someone they've never met just by sending notes to each other through a strange man. How scary is that? And last, i don't think there are people out there that is this evil in the character played by Stanley Tucci. And how in the world would someone do everything he could to stop Hanks from leaving, and then just let him go just because he took 2 steps out of the Airport? Did anyone ever think that he needs to come back and take a flight back to Karvovscia or wherever? Just get him when he get's back! Anyways, Hanks carried the movie, Zeta was a dumb blonde trying to be emotional and smart, and Tucci was a typical Disney Villain. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
JaredH.Jun 20, 2004
Customs should arrest SS for making this crap.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
AndrewK.Jun 19, 2004
People are being way too hard on this film. Honestly, they didn't market it very well, because I thought it'd be a piece of sh.t. I was pleasantly surprised to find that it was not. It was an enjoyable, feel good movie. Maybe its People are being way too hard on this film. Honestly, they didn't market it very well, because I thought it'd be a piece of sh.t. I was pleasantly surprised to find that it was not. It was an enjoyable, feel good movie. Maybe its not "real" enough for some people. I don't know. Remember that not every movie has to have the same attitude toward storytelling. If Spielberg wants to make movies that make people feel good, what's the harm in that? Its not my favorite type of movie, and no, its not a classic, but it does what its supposed to do. It entertains. It did me, anyway. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
C.BhattiJun 19, 2004
Amazing...seriously so many people are doubting it for no reason.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
TracyJun 19, 2004
I went into this movie with mixed feelings. I had checked the metacritic score before going to see it but I had faith in this movie because of the director and the actor. This movie was better than I expected. There was hardly a moment where I went into this movie with mixed feelings. I had checked the metacritic score before going to see it but I had faith in this movie because of the director and the actor. This movie was better than I expected. There was hardly a moment where I wasn't fully drawn into the movie. I admit some parts were a little predictable and unbelievable, but Hanks' performance overshadows the little bad that there is in the movie and gives the audience 2+ hrs of a great emotional rollercoaster. I think this movie has it all. Not one of my favorite movies ever, but a fun flick that any movie goer with an open mind who's not looking for an oscar worthy movie would enjoy. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
CraigA.Jun 19, 2004
Horrible and over sentimental. hanks' accent is also very laughable. dumb story too. boring, boring, boring.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
VincentH.Jun 19, 2004
Spielberg alas has broken his winning streak of recent masterpieces with "The Terminal". Easily his weakest film since the tepid "Amistad", this movie doesn't work as a whole. Why didn't Spielberg just make the film based on the Spielberg alas has broken his winning streak of recent masterpieces with "The Terminal". Easily his weakest film since the tepid "Amistad", this movie doesn't work as a whole. Why didn't Spielberg just make the film based on the true life tale of the man who's been living in an airport in Paris in 1988 by his own will. Instead there are mostly dull subplots including Catherine Zeta-Jones, Stanley Tucci's villian, Hanks' dad trying to get autographs from old-time jazz musicians, etc. The best scenes involve Hanks attempting to adapt to living in this shiftless transportation mode with his group of airport-worker friends, most notably Kumar Pallana, who is HILARIOUS as the janitor Gupta. Overall a bright, often-charming (but never funny) film that is too slight and bland to recommend. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
PatrickM.Jun 19, 2004
[***SPOILERS***] Well, I hate to say I saw this one coming a mile away. A man lives in a terminal...wow, what next? a man lives on an island and befriends a volleyball? But, you think maybe Spielberg and Hanks can team up and make this[***SPOILERS***] Well, I hate to say I saw this one coming a mile away. A man lives in a terminal...wow, what next? a man lives on an island and befriends a volleyball? But, you think maybe Spielberg and Hanks can team up and make this another "catch me if you can" or really any decent spielberg film for that matter. Sadly, the movie suffers from not knowing its own identity...is it a drama, a love story, a comedy? And for me, most of the movie was basic Hollywood schmaltz filler, like the man with the sharp object who was attempting to bring pills to his ailing father in...get this coincidence...Tom Hanks' neighboring country. Hanks calms the man down and convinces Stanley Tucci (a terribly bland antagonist) that they are pills for his pet goat. Then, inexplicably, the man just gets on his plane and leaves without further detainment even after trying to cut security with the knife. The whole scene was useless, as was the movie as it turned out. Then the whole reason Hanks came to New York, to get some jazz players autograph, is pretty much a way for the screenwriter to justify a man sitting in an airport terminal for like a year. Convenient how war started once he was in JFK. And I hate to say this, but the romance between him and Catherine Zeta-Jones, while completely obsurd to begin with, became even harder to stomach as the film dragged on. And I say dragged on because the film made the audience feel like you were in a layover...for a good movie (hah). I expected much better, maybe shouldnt have. I would rather live in Krackovia or however the hell they spelled that, than see this again. Oh, and the most romantic line in the movie: "Meet me at the Sbarro"... thats quite touching. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
BrianC.Jun 18, 2004
This was an annoying piece of fluff, where the antagonists motivation was completely random and pointless. How are we to believe that a man shrewd enough to be promoted to head of airport security can't comprehend that someone sitting This was an annoying piece of fluff, where the antagonists motivation was completely random and pointless. How are we to believe that a man shrewd enough to be promoted to head of airport security can't comprehend that someone sitting in front of him can't speak English? This is the depth to which the motivation of the antagonist is thought out. The screenplay was written with the intention of generating more sappy audience sympathy, not generating believable behavior for a character. This makes the movie frustrating to watch, and it seems to drag on and on. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
[Anonymous]Jun 18, 2004
GREAT MOVIE! Very Well Acted. HIGHLY RECOMMEND!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
JerryH.Jun 18, 2004
Yes, it's light and fluffy. Yes, it has more product placement than, well, maybe any film in history. Yes, the comedy doesn't always work. But Tom Hanks works and, for the most part, Spielberg works -- again. Do not look for Yes, it's light and fluffy. Yes, it has more product placement than, well, maybe any film in history. Yes, the comedy doesn't always work. But Tom Hanks works and, for the most part, Spielberg works -- again. Do not look for "meaning" or "edge". Go enjoy youself. I know this is not enough for some critics, especially with the talent involved, but give me a break. Sure it's as if the airlines paid for the film so romance can be brought back to flying and airports, but we need the industry to be strong, for jobs and or enjoyment. Take 2 hours of your life and get away from reality for awhile. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful