Hey folks, Harry here... Got two reviews of THE TERMINAL that came in last night... Which was a busy test screening night in Hollywood, what with the ALFIE remake screening on the Paramount lot as well. The word on terminal is pretty strong here, the only complaint is regarding Catherine Zeta-Jones' performance... which the second reviewer loathed... but the first reviewer enjoyed. Well, enough of me, let's get to it...
Dear AICN:
Long-time daily reader, first-time mailer.
Wednesday night I saw a free screening of THE TERMINAL at The Block in Orange, CA. I got lucky because I got there only 20 minutes before showtime, and I still managed to barely make it in. There were a handful a people behind me who didn't get in.
The announcer gave the usual "You're the only audience EVER to see this film," and told the packed theater that the mystery DreamWorks film for tonight would be THE TERMINAL, to rousing cheers. Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks are still sure-fire crowd pleasers.
I'll try to keep it spoiler-free:
Tom Hanks plays Viktor (I have no idea on the spelling, since the credits were not shown), a man who's traveled to New York from a small (I believe) fictional European country. While he was in the air, there was a military coup and the U.S. doesn't recognize the new government or country, so Viktor is basically a non-citizen. The Department of Homeland Security (fittingly, the bad guys) tell him he can't leave the international airport terminal.
So our hero's stuck in the airport, he barely knows any English, he has no money, and he's aww awone! Awwwww. The rest of the film plays out predictably, with new friends, a possible love interest (played by Catherine Zeta Jones, stretching her skillz into a role that doesn't involve being a stuck-up, self-centered bitch), and one man's heroic struggle against The System. And it's in an airport!
Fortunately, there are enough funny, humorous, and even touching moments that the film is a crowd-pleaser (despite the above paragraph). It appears that Spielberg and Hanks decided, after CATCH ME IF YOU CAN, to make another "safe" Hollywood picture with another annoying big-name co-star (who manages not to be annoying). There's nothing powerful or deep here, but it's light and fun, and I'm glad I saw it, even if I have no intention of seeing it again.
The film opens in 3 weeks, and it already looks finished. Given that the film is a pretty-much guaranteed hit (the post-film response form was shorter and simpler than most test-screening surveys that I've seen), the only reason I can think of for this screening was to build word-of-mouth to get a big opening. Or maybe Hollywood just loves showing movies for free (yeahhhhh, that's the ticket)...
Hope you can use this!
Here's my cheesy code-name:
Mr. Invisible
Now here's a mixed/positive look at it...
Hey Harry, long time reader, first time reviewer. I got to see the new Spielberg movie last nite out here in Orange, CA and as I have not seen any reviews of the movie yet, thought you might be interested. First off I am a huge Spielberg and Hanks fan and had some pretty high expectations. Because of the high expectations I gotta admit I was a little disappointed in Spielberg. I mean this is the man who has made some of the greatest movies of all time making, and here he is making a film that boils down to your standard chick-flick. He definitely needs to get back to Indy 4 or something similar ASAP. What makes this movie fun and actually enjoyable is the performance of Hanks. Once again he shows that he is one of the greatest actors of our time.
So what's good about the movie...well as I said Hanks is awesome. He is the only actor who can carry a movie by himself. Much like Castaway, the movie is completely on his shoulders and he does not disappoint. He goes through every range of emotion possible in 2 hours and is near flawless in his performance. He is especially good as he runs teary eyed through the airport, watching CNN, trying to understand what is happening in his home country that is now engulfed in civil war. Hanks is also quite funny in the picture, from the gag comedy of running into large window, to his misuse of the English language, to his schemes to get food, his humor is great throughout the film. Other highlights of the picture include a great supporting cast, including the Indian janitor who all but steals the show with his juggling, wet floors, and paranoid CIA plots. Chi McBride is underused and underdeveloped, but as a whole shines in his few scenes and Stanley Tucci plays a perfect nemesis to Victor.
And now for the bad I give you on name...Catherine Zeta-Jones! Her character and performance comes quite close to ruining the whole movie. Now its not that I don't mind a little romance in a movie, but this romance is so stupid and far fetched and ridiculous that it takes you away from the movie. The way Jones plays it is even worse, leaving the viewer with a sour taste and wishing that her scenes would end quickly to get back to the characters you actual care about. This was the main complaint of audience and what was looking to be a satisfying ending was ruined when her character shows back up again to spoil the movie. I'm hoping the near unanimous dislike of her character and ending will lead to some re-editing, but its doubtful.
Overall the movie is recommendable and worth the price of admission as Hanks performance, the humor, and the great secondary characters lead to an enjoyable film. The film is fairly original and only clichéd during the romance sections, leaving a refreshing feeling after viewing. But trust me when I say that Jones is overrated and I am now worried about Oceans 12 and having another otherwise great movie spoiled. And as for Spielberg, he needs to get his act together and get back to making the influential and timeless movies that we have all come to expect! Keep up the great work!
~Red79
|
