The Terminal Movie
| Resolution | Size | Download | ||
|
1280x704 | 4475.88 MiB | 720p | |
|
720x384 | 1737.33 MiB | hidivx | |
|
592x316 | 837.95 MiB | divx | |
|
320x172 | 325.4 MiB | hpc | |
Storyline
TAGLINES
Life is waiting.
Viktor Navorski, a man from an Eastern European country arrives in New York but after he left his country; war broke out and because of that Navorski is a man without a country that the U.S. cannot recognize, thus he is denied entrance to the U.S. However, he also can't be deported so he is told by the Security Manager that he has to remain in the airport until his status can be fixed. And also Navorski doesn't speak English well, so no one can talk to him and he can't talk to anyone. But he somehow adapts and sets up residence in the airport, which makes the man who placed him there unhappy cause, it seems he is line for a promotion but Navroski's presence might complicate that. So he tries to get Navorski to leave but Navorski remains where he is. Navorski makes friends with some of the people who work in the airport and is attracted to a flight attendant he runs into whenever she comes in.
| Tom Hanks | Viktor Navorski |
| Stanley Tucci | Frank Dixon |
| Chi McBride | Mulroy |
| Diego Luna | Enrique Cruz |
| Catherine Zeta-Jones | Amelia Warren |
| Barry Shabaka Henley | Thurman |
| Kumar Pallana | Gupta Rajan |
| Zoe Saldana | Torres |
| Eddie Jones | Salchak |
| Jude Ciccolella | Karl Iverson |
| Corey Reynolds | Waylin |
| Guillermo Díaz | Bobby Alima |
| Rini Bell | Nadia |
| Stephen Mendel | First Class Steward |
| Valeri Nikolayev | Milodragovich |
7.10 out of 10 (66711 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Textured and deep, life-like and worthy, but not a "funny" comedy as it had been advertised to be
posted on 19 Aug 2009"The Terminal" was advertised as a comedy, but it wasn't at all funny--- It had texture, however,and some depth, and addressed some issues of human life that may be important. It is a worthy artistic piece, so overall it was a good movie nonetheless.One of the movie's qualities--- and both a strength and a weakness--- was the evident lack of single purpose, or, perhaps, obvious point. That is, it was unclear what the movie was actually about, and it was equally unclear what the movie was trying to say. Was it saying governments are mean? Borders are bad? Individual humans are mere victims at the whim of political and social powers? I sure couldn't tell what the movie folks thought about the issue, and that was a bit "deflating" as far as my emotional involvement went. That might also explain why some readers here, for example, criticize the movie for being over-long and/or boring.On the other hand, raising such issues, especially in today's security conscious borders, is important. And raising the issues and providing clear and strong answers would have been a disservice to the audience. Leaving the questions unanswered, and simply percolating along, and the audience free to make up their own minds--- or at least give the matter some serious thought--- was a rarity in movies today, and a welcome bit of respect for us from Steven Spielberg as the director.An example of the disjointed vibe some folks have mentioned--- What was Catherine Zeta Jones' character doing in this movie? What was her character's purpose, and place in the scheme of things? Dunno... and that was a bit disconcerting. On the other hand, isn't life frequently like that? Don't we often encounter diverse and dis-connected phenomena, and attach what purpose to those things as suits our own little world at any given time? I think so--- The other characters were equally non-seqeutious--- but also equally plausible in the world of the central character, played by Tom Hanks.Overall, then, I liked this movie well enough, even with a touch of disappointment after finding that it was wasn't, as it had been advertised, a funny comedy.
The main problem with the movie
posted on 19 Aug 2009Here is the main problem with "The Terminal": It doesn't know what genre to be. "The Terminal" could have been a funny human comedy, and at times it works well on that level. However, there are times -- because of the absolute absurdity and unbelievability of much of the plot -- the movie sneaks into allegory and symbolism. And that would be fine. At other times, the movie becomes a harsh, realistic satire on immigration and human nature. And again, it could have been a romantic comedy. Had Spielberg picked a genre and stayed, any of those could have worked, but as a hodgepodge of genres, it is strangely unsatisfying.But the biggest problem is the amazing let down with the jar of peanuts. I was very interested to see what was in it, couldn't wait. "What does Spielberg have in store for me?" I kept thinking. Well, if you have seen the movie, you know how little drama or ethos was in the unveiling.Great acting, great set (unbelievable, actually), interesting story, badly put together.A low 7 out of 10, or high 6.
Pretend Flight Delays
posted on 17 Aug 2009Terminal was one of the best movies I have ever seen. Although someone may not live in a not-in-use terminal, it shows what can happen in life. Viktor got smarter, and sadly, other people didn't like that. That is another thing-differences between me, you, and everybody. My favorite theme was probably how he lost everything, including his father, flew to NY, to finish what his father hadn't/ Love. That is another plot line. Also, how the flight attendent was included in the movie helped make is humouros, along with the serious points. And to be correct, I noticed that Viktor always never looked down in the move. For a newcomer, he wasn't scared of anything. To tell you the truth, this movie was really touching to everybody. Even if you don't believe in living in Terminals, it can happen, it really can.
Terminal Boredom!
posted on 11 Aug 2009I love Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg - but I expected much more from this stellar team. This implausible story dragged on and on. There were some wonderful moments, albeit too few and too far between. The supporting characters often stole the show, and Ms. Zeta-Jones really didn't need to stretch her acting chops much in this role. The most interesting aspect of this movie was the closing credits with the actual autographs of the actors and principle crew written across the screen. If I had rented this movie, I am sure I would have taken several breaks.
Instead, I sat in the dark theatre, checking my Indiglo several times throughout while wondering, will this movie EVER end??? (5 out of 10)
Enjoyable film yet something was missing
posted on 09 Aug 2009I found the movie to be enjoyable, yet there were a number of misses that could have elevated the film to greatness.First, nothing came of the relationship between Hank's character and Jones'. Second, it seemed Tucchi's character kept vacillating between liking him and dismissing him. Third, the ending was not good. Everything for just an autograph? How about something else like someone who saved his father's life during a war or someone who wronged his father or someone who was his own father. I mean of all the emotional surprises, this had to be at the bottom.Nevertheless, the film was good.
Weak comedy
posted on 07 Aug 2009The general plot is outlined in another comment so we can forgo that here. Let's just say that it is not Tom Hank's best effort but that is probably not his fault.The premise stretches the limits of credulity. While this is not uncommon in this genre, I found myself unable to "suspend disbelief" for more than 4 or 5 minutes in a stretch. Hank's character teaches himself English from a book shoplifted from Borders (in a single evening, it would appear). The Homeland Security supervisor is unable to interest any agency in holding him and apparently his own department has no such facilities either. The airport in which Hanks finds himself stranded is JFK but all the people are surprisingly friendly, cordial, and respectful of others (remember the taxicab dispatcher in Sleepless in Seattle? "Why don't you get a little farther from the curb, mack?". Now that's New York). And so on.My biggest complaint, though, is the length. With a running time of over two hours, it became tedious. The director could have made it both better and shorter by eliminating the pointless romance that went nowhere and benefited neither party.
thoroughly enjoyable
posted on 07 Aug 2009This movie was a little sappy at times but nevertheless thoroughly enjoyable. Tom Hanks once again carried the movie on his broad shoulders. Catherine Zeta-Jones was as beautiful as ever although her role felt a bit unnecessary in the end. The rest of the cast provided some good moments. And it was just another day at the (box-)office for Steven Spielberg.One thing that I appreciate about this movie is that although it is classified as a comedy, it tries to be more than that. The seamlessness with which the humor and drama interplay throughout the film is what makes it somewhat unique. 4 out of 5.
Good Movie....Not Great
posted on 28 Jul 2009Well I can Be quick and Spoiler proof....its a movie full of hilarious one liners....and a hooky sob story....that in the end didn't even wrap up to well...Honestly, it's not a bad movie, I enjoyed it. Its fun to watch, but in no way would I say it has any award potential. I enjoyed watching it once; I would never sit though all 2 dragged out hours of it again. The Story is there, it develops a little bit, but in the end it's just a cheesy one liner fest. Yes he doesn't know English...he misinterprets English and does something funny Harahan....he finds out you can make money by returning hand carts....hahahahaha....its nothing NEW though...just a bunch of cheap gags...Then we have these randomly placed Sentimental drama parts that just took away from the whole comedy aspect of the movie. I understand like the reason he was in America part...put some of the other areas, such as Cathera Zita Jones's Character unnecessary...and took away from the story.So that's about it... I gave it a 7, because I laughed I had a good time, I will NEVER see it again.P.S. Spielberg REALLY overdid the Lighting behind the characters so be ready for lots of Silhouettes.
It had a few cute moments
posted on 26 Jul 2009Before I found out Tom Hanks donated to ex-Prez Clinton's legal defense fund, I was a fan of his. Several of his past movies (Private Ryan, You've Got Mail, Splash) are some of my favorites. Now however, I take a critical eye toward his work. This movie has its "cute" moments, but tries too hard.
Mr. Speilberg (Steve you're one of the best directors out there, but romantic comedies just aren't your forte) couldn't even save this stinker!
C-Z Jones, truly the worst actress and most un-deserving Oscar winner of all time, shows us once again (when is she going to fade away?) that outside of an interesting smile she should give up acting, and stick to those obnoxious cell-phone commercials.
Not a great film, but a really good one!
posted on 24 Jul 2009Hanks plays Victor Navorski to tragic perfection. With the accent, he could have become a caricature of himself, but he never allows that to happen. He doesn't go TOO far. The film starts off very quickly, but allowing plenty of time for small things like 'plot development'. You learn very fast where he is from and what it is that keeps him from going back, or even being able to do what he came to America for. This film is like a journey, very much the way "Cast Away" was. You spend the length of the film watching Navorski as he adapts to his new home. You see how he communicates with others and becomes quick friends with those who understand his situation. Catherine Zeta Jones plays against type for once. Although she is absolutely stunning as always, she doesn't play the type of person you would expect her to. The supporting cast, like Stanly Tucci, only adds to this pleasurable experience. It is a memorable film, one that everyone should probably see. My only problem with this film is the romantic subplot. For what is was, it could have either been beefed out more, or should have been left out. Other than that, this is a really good film. B+
Do you know what Napoleon gave to Josephine on her birthday?
posted on 14 Jul 2009I can tell you what he didn't give her. He didn't give her a copy of The Terminal. You can just imagine the writers being delayed at JFK and coming up with this latest cockery. Based on the true story of Iranian refugee Marhan Nasseri who lives at Charles de Gaulle Airport, this story is painfully rehashed for the American palate with a broken thermostat: "If it worked for Castaway, it will work again." Tom Hanks is stranded again this time in the world of bad cinema and becomes a "crack" in the system: he can neither go back to his Balkan home of "crack"ozhia or enter American soil (except for moonlight dinners by the landing strip of course).Our hero becomes messenger for an employee who ends up marrying a customs agent who has never met him but will marry him for the ring (airport women are that shallow) and proceeds to make a fountain for his love interest from airport urinals. The painful moment came when Zeta Jones asks Viktor "you're living at gate 67, I just wanna know why?" you can almost see her read her cue cards. Ouch. Hank's physical performance is Gumpian and his Krackozhian accent gets a bit tedious but he is a remarkable physical actor. Stanley Tucci is perfect as the Airport field commissioner but cannot stop Zeta-Jones from pairing up with older men. For Hanks fans. 2/10.
Beautiful
posted on 08 Jul 2009I saw this today with a little baggage of my own. Heard it wasn't very good, knew it kinda stiffed at the box-office, but I stuck with it anyway. Both the critics and the movie-going public were way wrong: this is a great flick that works on as many levels as there are in the fictional NYC airport wherein all of the action takes place. Hanks is an inadvertent Slavic refugee, a man without a country after civil war has erupted at home. Idiotic bureaucracy keeps him in stasis for several months, during which time he makes use of his contracting knowledge to make a little home for himself in an unused area of the airport.Enter his arch-nemesis -- Tucci -- as the quintessential needle-nosed twerp in charge of the airport's immigration security. He's been in the biz for several years and is hungering for a top spot in the hierarchy. Unfortunately, Hanks' Victor refuses to leave. He's a good Catholic man who is familiar with adverse situations and how to live under stress. Enter Chi McBride and three immigrant-type airport workers (one hateful, & two star-crossed lovers) who help Victor continue to live in his weird exile. Top it off with lovely Zeta-Jones as a lonely stew in search of the perfect man. We all know who he is but she's blinded by material things.The airport set is a gorgeous construction whether real or not and there's are several references to historical situations both ancient and contemporary -- from Napoleon to inexpensive pharmaceuticals -- the latter within the film's emotional high point of Victor attaining heroic status. Great, great underrated film that should become a cult classic.
Mind numbing, very disappointed.
posted on 06 Jul 2009Mind numbing, worst Tom Hanks film ever & worst Steven Spielberg film ever, too long to support the SIMPLE plot, very disappointed in this over rated film. Don't know why/how they could not see the need to "cut" this film and add a little bit more suspense versus the predictable & boring scenes.I went to this film expecting high comedy & great scenes. The most humorous character was the janitor who entertained himself watching passengers & crew members slip on his wet floor, in which he had placed "wet floor" signs all around & everyone in The Terminal ignored. The movie should have had a "Do Not Enter" sign posted outside the theater.
Spielberg and Hanks - It's Magic Time
posted on 06 Jul 2009Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks may just be the best director/star team going. Once again they light up the screen with a terrific quirky portrayal of a man stranded at JFK because his country no longer exists. Hanks character is mesmerizing as he goes from a "not acceptable" to the hero of this city within a city. Spielberg, as usual, has crafted a superb visual experience. His patented crane shots sweeps the architecture of the Terminal, giving us an extraordinary view of this world within a circle. John Williams score once again proves he is the dean of film composers. All in all, this is the best film I've seen this year. Hanks gives an Oscar level performance, Spielberg will undoubtedly be on this year's DGA ballot. This picture could shine come next year. Further it is just the kind of film to weather the summer box office, where one blockbuster after another is knocking each other off top dog spot. This film has legs! 10/10
It wasn't really bad... just not as good as it should have been.
posted on 04 Jul 2009If you are a Tom Hanks fan, go see it, you will really enjoy.
If you like a good, well filmed movie with a bit of humor, alot of drama and some Chick Flick bits, definitely go see it; it has all those things. Good acting, likable people (except, of course, those who are not supposed to be liked, but they are very well played)...Some memorable moments.It has alot of very good things to recommend it. YET... it was in some ways disappointing. Maybe I expected too much. Maybe the previews made it seem more of a comedy than it really was.
Maybe...???It wasn't really bad... just not as good as it should have been. I'm glad I saw it; just wish it hadn't been so very predictable, especially at the end.
US vs. an underdeveloped country...
posted on 20 Jun 2009Won't bore you with the details to the film because you can get them from the 478 other reviews. Some fun concepts to play with though while watching the movie, which I highly recommend: Delay - Viktor is"delayed" at the international terminal in New York, by Frank Dixon, who is in charge of guarding security for the US Immigration department. Who is really delayed? Dixon, representing the US? He follows fear based laws and meanness/revenge rather than simple heart based human kindness and common sense. Viktor behaves as a well adjusted adult making the best of whatever situation he finds himself in. Dixon wants to "control" everything as a frightened child would. His development is delayed/ arrested. Another undercurrent is love/acceptance vs. fear and control: Dixon must control; must have the spy cameras; he needs his army of docile "bull-dogs" Viktor "creates" an army of loving friends/family just by being a kind soul willing to sacrifice himself for the good of another. Playing fair/honest/real vs. playing dirty and corrupt: Viktor was genuine and even offered kindness to Dixon. Frightened little boy Dixon did so many underhanded and dirty things just because he felt threatened. Fortunately it all backfired on him.Terrific and very subtle movie on so many levels. Great life commentary.
Terminally bad - the worst film of the finest of directors
posted on 18 Jun 2009I simply shocked this kind of stuff ever made through the normal challenges of script-committees or approving executives. Unless Spielberg paid this 100% of his pockets, because man, he is off his rockers. 1. Badly mixed genres 2. Frank Caprish idiotic characters 3. credibility less of cartoon 4. complete illogical scenes and plot twists 5. Really really bad acting 6. Awful casting 7. As a product -no audience, no quality, except form of set setting excellence 8. Really bad script and misen-scene directionIssues of the real-life feel of JFK' the fact that it's set in today's NYC, the misunderstanding of how a foreign would grasp English or would behave, the obscene simplicity of the foreigner (almost "racist" is it's assumptions about the simple-minded idiot (we are the only idiots to have wasted 8 Euros on this "movie"), and then it just tops it when bona fide UMDB users hail this with any word of grace. If it didn't say SP on the director's field, and Hanks wasn't there - this would be the trashed and grinded to pieces to have ever shamed talents like Williams and yes, Spielberg himself. Artistic does not mean allegorically silly, and it is embarrassingly silly. It is SO silly that you won't believe your eyes. I have seen directorial debuts, when a new director lumps in improbable plot and sticks a metaphor in the end. And nicely written ones, as used in The Shawshank Redemption is tolerable with the depth it suggests - but this is just so far far in the air, you just want your money back. Wow. I am so disappointed!
Soporific, shallow, stupid, Spielberg
posted on 10 Jun 2009This was terrible. The attempts at humour were so shallow and slap-stick. The plot/ script was thoughtless. I wish everyone would stop kissing Spielberg's butt and call a turd a turd. The situations that they put the 'star' in were so far detached from reality, and the dialogues were anything but natural. Maybe Steve has been so far out of things for so long that he doesn't realize how things are handled in the real world. I got up and left and got my money back about 1:30 minutes through (although I was fighting it since the first 10 minutes, hoping that it would get better. And why can't Steve make a movie in less than 2 hours anymore?? Esp this one - the whole thing takes place in an airport, with just a few characters, with no climax anywhere in sight - couldn't this be made into a 30 minute short?? Any Joe can tell a story with an infinite timeframe and budget - it takes talent to do it with less. Steve doesn't have what it takes.
Better than most have stated
posted on 10 Jun 2009I was surprised to see such a different movie than other folks have described here. I've heard people complaining about "animals" at the end of the movie...what on earth are you talking about? There's nothing weird at the end at all! It's a very touching film, small by Spielberg's standards, but hey, let the guy make whatever kind of film he wants. It has a heart, deep down. Sure it's got its flaws, but it's by no means a bad film, as compared to Pearl Harbor or Armageddon, for crying out loud. Hanks is the man, and can work wonders with any sort of material.
One of the best films of the year
posted on 21 Aug 2009It may not have done well at the box office, but this light romantic comedy, is more than that. In fact, I don't even think you could really call it a romantic comedy. It's more a drama about real life, and as far-fetched as it may seem as a realistic story, it could happen, and is cleverly told as a tale.Arriving at JFK one sunny afternoon, Viktor Navorski (Hanks), goes to the customs booth to get his passport stamped, so that he can enter the land of the free, and the home of the brave. Coming from a country which has been made up for the film, but is similar to an eastern Europe-Russian-Ukranian sort of a country, he does not speak more than a few words in English that he has written down to help him around town. He goes to the head of the airport's office, to speak to them, or more accurately to have them speak to him, and they tell him that because there is a war going on with his country, he does not "exist". Until the war in his country is resolved, they cannot allow him to enter the country, but they also cannot allow him to travel back to his homeland, either. He is a resident of the terminal, now. He is given food vouchers, but they can only last so long, and only has the luggage he's been carrying around and the clothes on his back.The story-line as I said, may sound unreasonably unrealistic, and it may even sound boring, but it is anything but. It is a beautiful piece of work. It will make you laugh, cry and touch your soul at certain parts. It is a human drama, that is not to be taken lightly. It is one of the best films I've ever had the privilege of seeing, and I don't think I could ever get tired of watching it.Cathrine Zeta-Jones co-leads with Tom Hanks, and plays the beautiful stewardess that he has fallen in love with. This is again, a romance, drama, comedy and human story. It should be given applauds for the imagination and cleverness that it carries, and everyone involved in the film, whether it be the cast, crew, director, writer or cinematographer, should be complimented on their work.I recommend to everyone. No one specifically, but everyone. It is an excellent movie, and can be seen with as much of the family as wanted. It's a beautiful movie, and will remain one of my favorites for a long time to come.