The Terminal - 06/20/04

Written by: Andrew Niccol (story), Sacha Gervasi (story, script), Jeff Nathanson (script)

Starring: Tom Hanks, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Stanley Tucci, Chi McBride, Diego Luna, Barry Shabaka Henley

Official Site

Some spoilers.

The first thing I asked myself when I saw this film was "How did Spielberg get to shoot in a airport, post 9/11?" Was he Spielberg, and he gets to do what he wants? Or was it a set?

Matchstick Men had terminal shots... but those were shot in a mall, made to look like an airport terminal.

With no special effects, no real locations... they built a set. Companies like Borders, Burger King and a few others got to have kiosks and stores built into the set (built in an airport hanger) to try and capitalize on the film. Some of them weren't shown, while others (like Borders) were shown quite prominently.

My hat is finally off to Spielberg for making a film that was not an effects laden picture to take the place of actual storytelling, like I think his last few have been. I'm not including Catch Me If You Can in that set of films... but I didn't enjoy that film very much.

I've been harsh on Spielberg, I know I have. I respect him as a filmmaker, I just enjoy his earlier works more than his later works. I hated A.I., did not like Minority Report, and thought Saving Private Ryan was so-so. Jaws, Raiders of the Lost Ark, E.T.... just great. And, of course, I changed my tune greatly on Schindler's List.

Ok, enough on the man... back to the review.

This is the third pairing between Hanks and Spielberg. He was also the EP on The Money Pit in 1986, Joe Versus the Volcano in 1990. The two are icons in Hollywood, and they work fairly well together. The two, you would think, would have a bankable movie on their hands, even if they were just sitting across from each other, talking about their kids.

Ok, maybe not that...

But The Terminal has proved to be one of the least successful Spielberg films ever. It's opening weekend was at $19.1 million, which is weak, for a summer release with two huge names attached. Hell, three names, including Zeta-Jones.

So, what happened? What about this equation wasn't good enough for the moviegoers of America? Well, it could have been that we weren't getting the Tom Hanks we know and love. We were getting a foreign Hanks. Maybe people weren't interested in a romantic comedy by Spielberg. It's the only one I can think of that didn't have any kind of spirituality involved (Always). I don't think that people are sick of Spielberg. I mean, as someone who doesn't like his movies of late, I still get out to see his films, hoping for a gem to pop out.

Well, this is one of them, in my opinion, in regards to his films of late. Much better than anything I've seen him churn out lately.

Now, that's not to say there aren't problems with this film. There are. Most of which have to do with the script and Zeta-Jones' character. But I have to say that the plot of the film is one of the more original ones I've seen in a long time.

Based on the true story of Merhan Nasseri, who, in 1988, landed at Charles de Gaulle Airport and had his passport and refugee certificate stolen. He wasn't allowed to leave the airport, so he stayed... and has stayed ever since, even though he has been allowed to leave the airport to either return to Iran or enter France.

An incredibly interesting, original premise based on real life. The addition to the plot of Hanks' character is equally original and sentimental and just plain old nice.

Though, this taking place in New York, one is going to have to suspend a little bit of disbelief to really enjoy this film. I'm certain that there are people out there who, post 9/11, are not going to believe a single thing in this film. To them I say, think of this pre-9/11 and just enjoy the film for what it is. Try not to be so cynical about entertainment and the parameters of present society.

Hanks is, of course, brilliant. He's an incredible actor, and has been for quite some time. I think the only film in recent history of his that I haven't seen is The Ladykillers... because everyone hated it. So, I left it alone. But most everything he's been in, I've enjoyed.

Catherine Zeta-Jones is an interesting phenomena in America. She's a decent actress, she's stunningly beautiful, she's married (with children) to another one of the most successful actors around (Michael Douglas)... but what has she really starred in? The Phantom, The Mask of Zorro (where her career really took off), Entrapment ( where we got to see a wonderful shot of her backside, only to find out it was a stunt ass), The Haunting (just terrible), High Fidelity (quick cameo), Traffic, Chicago, Intolerable Cruelty (not a very good movie, and not a stretch for her at all)... Chicago seems to be the only real high profile piece in there... I didn't bother to see that, it's not my kind of movie... but somewhere in there (between Zorro and Chicago) she took off.

In this film she's beautiful, charming, emotional... and pretty much a waste of time. She's there to help propel the script along, that's about it. We get to know her a little bit, about her failure with men. Then we get to see the relationship between her and Hanks grow... and how important she's becoming to Hanks' character. We find out about all of her faults and her biggest failure at the end, in regards to men... but everything that happens with her is strictly to help the pace of the film, and give Hanks' character something to do and think about. That's it.

Even her big finale, getting Hanks' character the emergency visa, is useless in the end. It means nothing. So, what is the point of the character? As a screenwriter, it just didn't make much sense to me. We were set up, from the beginning, to have no pay-off at the end, in regards to her character. Too bad.

Stanley Tucci plays an interesting character, the head of Customs (or something). He's responsible for keeping Hanks in the terminal, while the fictional country of Krakozhia is in flux. Tucci, basically, is mad for really no reason during the entire film. It's almost as if the writers needed a nemesis for Hanks, and picked this guy, gave him really no reason... and then Tucci comes up with things to make Hanks life difficult. That's about it. Very strange.

Tucci is great in his role. He's a lot of fun to watch, but you get the feeling he's a nice guy, not the guy he's portraying. It's a little confusing.

Chi McBride (great in The Frighteners), Diego Luna (who was great in Open Range) and Barry Shabaka Henley (from all of the Wes Anderson films) were all great in their respective roles. They helped make the film more entertaining, each with their different personalities and quirks.

John Williams did a great job with the score, this time. I haven't liked much of his work lately. It all sounds the same... but he went a different way with this film, and the music came off as sentimental and romantic. Well done.

I can't say much about Janusz Kaminski. He's a great DP. The lighting work on this film was pretty great, except for some scenes that seemed to be a little too overlit and got in the way of the actors... you'll see them. Kaminski is responsible for lighting the scenes... Spielberg talked about this during Minority Report... he uses Kaminski to light the scenes, Spielberg shoots them. I'm not sure I understand that relationship, but it seems to work.

All in all, this is an entertaining film with good performances, some script problems. It's not your typical Spielberg film, which might be one of the big reasons I liked it so much.