...it is with great sadness that I write that 'The Terminal' is a step or two away from being a bad movie.
Tools:
Recommend review to a friend »
Long-time DVD Town readers know that I am a major fan of Steven Spielberg. I have two "Saving Private Ryan" posters hanging above my bed. I have a shelf devoted to Spielberg and DreamWorks DVDs. I think that "Minority Report" is the best movie of the past five years.
Therefore, it is with great sadness that I write that "The Terminal" is a step or two away from being a bad movie.
"The Terminal" is based on the true-life story of an Iranian man who, after his documents were stolen, was forced to live in the Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris, France for more than ten years. In the movie, Tom Hanks plays Viktor Navorski, a man from the fictional state of Krakozhia whose passport is no longer valid because his country is in a state of civil unrest. Therefore, the United States no longer recognizes his papers as valid documents. Viktor finds himself stuck in the international terminal in one of New York City´s airports. While twiddling his thumbs in the airport for almost a year, Viktor finds himself at odds with Frank Dixon (Stanley Tucci), an executive who gives Viktor a hard time for no good reason. Viktor also meets a host of quirky characters, including Amelia Warren (Catherine Zeta-Jones), a stewardess who always seems to be falling down.
I have a theory that Spielberg basically makes the same movie all the time. This theory arises from a thematic reading of his works. Basically, in every movie, there is a "little boy lost" and a "chase/quest". The protagonist is a "little boy lost" in the following ways: a) he´s a little boy; b) he´s a grown man with obsessions or hobbies that prevent him from behaving like a rational, responsible adult; c) he´s abandoned by a parental figure; d) he´s geographically lost; e) he´s morally lost. The "chase/quest" is usually a search for a father figure because, for Spielberg, the lack of a father-son bond means that a family can not exist at all.
In "The Terminal", Viktor is a "little boy lost" because, as a stateless person, he is an orphan, unclaimed. He needs to learn how to speak English, which is the equivalent of a child learning how to communicate. He needs to cope with an alien environment, which is the equivalent of the maturation process. He also has a boyish charm because he is played by Tom Hanks (similar to John Anderton in "Minority Report" having a boyish charm because he is played by Tom Cruise). Viktor´s chase/quest is to leave the airport for New York City, where he has an important goal to achieve (the real chase/quest).
I don´t mind that a moviemaker makes the same movie over and over again. Alfred Hitchcock´s thrillers are almost all based on a formula that he developed in Britain during the 1930s, and all of Ang Lee´s movies are about people rebelling against parental figures. However, forcing a narrative to fit a mold rather than developing a narrative from a mold can yield disastrous results. For example, it turns out that Viktor´s visit to New York City was motivated by a promise that he made to his father. Therefore, Viktor´s ultimate chase/quest is to fulfill his father´s dream. This makes "The Terminal" thematically consistent with movies like "Minority Report" (Tom Cruise seeking Max von Sydow´s approval) and "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" (Harrison Ford seeking Sean Connery´s approval), but because we are not told anything about Viktor´s father until very, very, very late in the movie, there is no thematic or emotional resonance that develops from Viktor´s chase/quest. We are simply left with a forced plot point.
We´re used to seeing love stories from Hollywood end with the man and the woman getting together. At first glance, "The Terminal" seems to be a bold departure from "the usual" because Viktor and Amelia decide to remain a non-couple. However, if you think about Spielberg´s world view, the "sad" ending is not entirely unexpected. You see, Amelia is a sad, confused woman with ambiguous sexual morals. Spielberg´s heroes end up with good women like the mother in "Empire of the Sun" or the wife in "Minority Report". Therefore, the goody-two-shoes Viktor can´t possibly end up with her--not in a Spielberg movie! Even a "brave, downbeat" ending doesn´t work (which is awful since a brawny summer actioner like "Terminator 3" can make a "brave, downbeat" ending palatable).
Other plot points bother me. A food delivery man asks Viktor to woo a pretty girl for him. Because the girl never knows who the guy is during the courtship process, it is entirely unbelievable that she would end up with the guy rather than with Viktor, who has been doing the romancing. Also, why did Spielberg reach into the Cheap-Bag-of-Tricks for the climactic kiss between Viktor and Amelia. At first, a fountain that Viktor built for Amelia as a present doesn´t work, but as soon as their lips touch, the water dances and leaps through the air. The moment was so pitiful that I didn´t even want to laugh at its awkwardness; instead, I wanted to leave the theatre.
Making "The Terminal" after "Catch Me If You Can" was a bad idea. Both movies have a lot of scenes set in airports, and the faux-sneaky, light-hearted moments and airport motif probably encouraged composer John Williams to use music that sounds like leftovers from "Catch Me If You Can" sessions. Also, "The Terminal" is tonally inconsistent. Therefore, in addition to a bad case of deja vu, you get more of the "should I be serious or funny" see-sawing that generally weakened "Catch Me If You Can".
Average user rating (1-5):
[release]13108[/release]