Terminal
Started by goldenowl73 · · 👁 9 views · 56 replies
#42 ·
Pesic said:The dubbing is synced up on my end, sounds kind of "European," but who knows if it actually hits the mark...
Damned Germans and their dubbing. :2up:
And I can't stand Tom Hanks. Honestly, the guy is just unbearable. He’s got nothing going for him—not the look, not the charm, none of it. Just some slimy, greasy dude who ruins every movie he’s in.
Except for one: Forrest Gump. 😁 He actually put his soul into that one. 😁
Pesic, man, you just read my mind. Seeing your comment made my day because it's exactly how I feel! Every time I see TrollaHanks on screen, I think the same thing. The guy is an embarrassment to acting and the big screen. He ruins the whole vibe of every flick, except for Forrest Gump, mostly because his idiot face actually fits that specific script. He must have Steven Spielberg wrapped around his finger with some blackmail involving tapes of their gay orgies or something. Screw filmmaking!👎
#43 ·
So, I just finished watching it... and honestly, I really enjoyed it. There’s just something about seeing Tom Hanks paired up with Spielberg that works so perfectly for me; it’s such a delicious combination. The movie itself is quite a treat, though I have to say, it starts off feeling a bit heavy and melancholy. It definitely picks up steam as it goes, getting better and better, even if I found myself feeling a little let down by how things wrapped up at the very end. Specifically, during those final 20 minutes...😳
#44 ·
unknown said:I absolutely loved The Terminal! That role was just perfectly cast for Tom Hanks, who already proved himself with Forrest Gump. On a scale of 1 to 10... I'd give it an 8.5. It was such a lovely surprise! Of course, art is subjective, but people usually tell me I have pretty great taste in movies. 😉 And when it comes to the classics, if you haven't seen Scent of a Woman (Al Pacino), The Silence of the Lambs (Anthony Hopkins), unknown (Ed Harris), or Lolita (James Mason) from back in the day—well, you might as well just shoot yourself! 😁
Wait, what was "unknown" about? I can't quite remember if I ever actually sat down to watch it. 😕
#45 ·
I ended up renting this at the airport terminal because I had already run through everything else in my video collection, but the movie is actually quite solid—very good and genuinely funny.
#46 ·
Heads up! Major spoilers ahead!!
This question is strictly for those of you who HAVE ALREADY SEEN THE MOVIE. If you haven't seen it yet, please stop reading right now! I’m about to describe a pivotal plot point that could totally ruin the experience for you.
unknown
If you haven't watched it, don't go any further!🙂
****************
🙂 unknown 😁
*********************
So, I finally sat down and watched the film.
I'd give it a solid 4 out of 5 stars.
That leaves me with two questions for everyone who has already seen it:
1) Why didn't anyone else seem puzzled or even mention how abruptly the romance between Victor (played by Tom Hanks) and Amelia—the flight attendant played by Catherine Zeta-Jones—just... ended?
2) Specifically, how do you all psychologically process that ending? How do you wrap your head around the fact that Amelia and Victor didn't end up together, and she essentially just "went back" to her old lifestyle?
The movie builds their connection so naturally; she praises him to her boss, they bond over his kindness and simplicity, and it really feels like she's falling for him. But then, without any major drama, apologies, or real explanations, she just reverts to that "player" status—the engaged guy she supposedly decided to leave behind to be with Victor.
To me, that part just doesn't add up.😕
This question is strictly for those of you who HAVE ALREADY SEEN THE MOVIE. If you haven't seen it yet, please stop reading right now! I’m about to describe a pivotal plot point that could totally ruin the experience for you.
unknown
If you haven't watched it, don't go any further!🙂
****************
🙂 unknown 😁
*********************
So, I finally sat down and watched the film.
I'd give it a solid 4 out of 5 stars.
That leaves me with two questions for everyone who has already seen it:
1) Why didn't anyone else seem puzzled or even mention how abruptly the romance between Victor (played by Tom Hanks) and Amelia—the flight attendant played by Catherine Zeta-Jones—just... ended?
2) Specifically, how do you all psychologically process that ending? How do you wrap your head around the fact that Amelia and Victor didn't end up together, and she essentially just "went back" to her old lifestyle?
The movie builds their connection so naturally; she praises him to her boss, they bond over his kindness and simplicity, and it really feels like she's falling for him. But then, without any major drama, apologies, or real explanations, she just reverts to that "player" status—the engaged guy she supposedly decided to leave behind to be with Victor.
To me, that part just doesn't add up.😕
#47 ·
1) Why hasn't anyone here questioned, analyzed, or even expressed shock at HOW abruptly the romance between Victor (Tom Hanks) and Amelia—the flight attendant played by Catherine Zeta-Jones—just ended?
2) Specifically, how are you all psychologically justifying the ending? The fact that Amelia and Victor didn't end up together, and instead she just "returned" to her life as a mistress...
The film builds it up so that she praises him to his boss, realizing his kindness and simplicity; their connection develops naturally, making it seem like she truly fell for him. Yet, without any drama, apologies, or explanations, she simply reverts to that "affair status" with the married guy she supposedly decided to leave for Victor.
To me, it makes zero sense.😕 [/B]
Quite simply, she stayed exactly who she was. There’s no deep philosophy there; they just wanted to subvert the typical Hollywood ending, which I actually appreciated. And check out what people are saying about this on IMDb:
"The main character of this movie was originally scripted to arrive from unknown but this was changed after the advice from the unknown. Since unknown would not look credible would a civil War be started in One of The New members of The United States"
Good grief.
2) Specifically, how are you all psychologically justifying the ending? The fact that Amelia and Victor didn't end up together, and instead she just "returned" to her life as a mistress...
The film builds it up so that she praises him to his boss, realizing his kindness and simplicity; their connection develops naturally, making it seem like she truly fell for him. Yet, without any drama, apologies, or explanations, she simply reverts to that "affair status" with the married guy she supposedly decided to leave for Victor.
To me, it makes zero sense.😕 [/B]
Quite simply, she stayed exactly who she was. There’s no deep philosophy there; they just wanted to subvert the typical Hollywood ending, which I actually appreciated. And check out what people are saying about this on IMDb:
"The main character of this movie was originally scripted to arrive from unknown but this was changed after the advice from the unknown. Since unknown would not look credible would a civil War be started in One of The New members of The United States"
Good grief.
#48 ·
The movie feels a bit dragged out. And honestly, they didn't need to go that hard on the Russian guy. At least he wasn't traveling to America chasing those tired cliches about freedom and liberty that usually clutter up movies like this.
Actually, the whole thing is just dull. I had to break it up into several laundry sessions just to get through it. Pretty pathetic overall.
Actually, the whole thing is just dull. I had to break it up into several laundry sessions just to get through it. Pretty pathetic overall.
#49 ·
hiddenpuma75 said:1) Why hasn't anyone here asked, or even seemed surprised, about HOW Viktor's (Tom Hanks) romance with Amelia—the flight attendant played by Catherine Zeta-Jones—suddenly just... ended?
2) I mean, how do you all psychologically interpret the ending of the movie? Specifically, the fact that Amelia and Viktor don't end up together, and she basically just "goes back" to her lifestyle of affairs...
Right before the movie wrapped up, I was actually thinking it might feel a bit forced if they stayed together. 😎
Basically, she has a thing for married men—and honestly, that explains everything...
#50 ·
unknown, it feels so good to see a movie like this these days 😍
I can't really remember the last time a film actually lifted my mood and kept me entertained like this. Spielberg, man, you're the best. Two thumbs up for you!!!
Just one little thing, though. I think I would've preferred if the movie just ended right when 😎 left the
airport terminal. That way, all that stuff about being closed off, the contrast, the isolation... all those other vibes would have hit even harder. So, I'm kind of holding out hope for a
director's cut in a few years without the epilogue; because, at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter if he finished his quest or whatever, what matters is that he tried
And honestly, that's a huge plus in my book 👍
I can't really remember the last time a film actually lifted my mood and kept me entertained like this. Spielberg, man, you're the best. Two thumbs up for you!!!
Just one little thing, though. I think I would've preferred if the movie just ended right when 😎 left the
airport terminal. That way, all that stuff about being closed off, the contrast, the isolation... all those other vibes would have hit even harder. So, I'm kind of holding out hope for a
director's cut in a few years without the epilogue; because, at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter if he finished his quest or whatever, what matters is that he tried
slycrane94 said:At least the guy didn't head to the States chasing some cliché idea of freedom or those typical tropes you usually get served in movies like this.
And honestly, that's a huge plus in my book 👍
#51 ·
Honestly, I was totally blown away by this one. Like I’ve mentioned before, I have a massive soft spot for anything starring Tom Hanks, so I had high hopes—and they were met!
The plot, the concept, the whole vibe... it just works. If you haven't seen it yet, you should probably get on it. Maybe.
The plot, the concept, the whole vibe... it just works. If you haven't seen it yet, you should probably get on it. Maybe.
#52 ·
Honestly, this movie is just a total flop—it's clearly driven by a political agenda and lacks any real substance. It’s honestly such a letdown, especially knowing that Tom Hanks was involved in this project.
#53 ·
The real terminaler is stuck at JFK Airport because he's missing his paperwork,
and he's coming from somewhere in Asia, probably near Iran.
and he's coming from somewhere in Asia, probably near Iran.
#55 ·
nimblescout50 said:A legitimate terminal case is stuck at JFK Airport because they're missing their paperwork,
and they're coming from Asia, somewhere near Iran.
Isn't that Italian woman in America with the massive mortadella not actually a real one?
#56 ·
Jonathan Rodriguez48 said:so why isn't she that classic Italian girl you see in the States, the one with the massive slab of mortadella?
?
#57 ·
Original title:
The Terminal
The genre:
drama, comedy, romance
duration : 121
121'
Release year:
2004
publisher / distributor:
DreamWorks Pictures / Warner Bros.
role:
Tom Hanks, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Stanley Tucci, Barry Shabaka Henley, Chi McBride, Diego Luna, Kumar Pallanatucci, Zoe Saldana
direction:
Steven Spielberg
script:
Sacha Gervasi and Jeff Nathanson
producer/s:
Steven Spielberg, Walter F. Parkes, Laurie MacDonald
After fleeing a war-torn Eastern European nation, immigrant Viktor Navorski (Tom Hanks) lands at an American airport, only to discover that while he was mid-air, his home country surrendered and effectively ceased to exist. This leaves him in a legal limbo where his passport and documentation are suddenly worthless. Since there is no way back and he isn't permitted to step foot onto American soil, Navorski begins his life right there in the airport terminal...
While waiting, he crosses paths with a colorful cast of characters, including Dixon, the stern head of security who finds him quite irritating, and the lovely flight attendant Amelia (Catherine Zeta-Jones). It’s clear that Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks enjoy working together—given their history with hits like Saving Private Ryan and Catch Me If You Can—and, frankly, their collaborations have generally been quite high quality...
This particular story is inspired by the true tale of Mehran Karimi Nasseri, an Iranian refugee who found himself "stuck" in a French airport back in 1988. There was actually a film made about this theme in France in 1994 called Tombes du Ciel, and one could look up the specifics of Nasseri's actual experience on sites like Snopes...
The Terminal markets itself as a human drama exploring loneliness amidst a sea of thousands of daily travelers, touching on themes of freedom versus captivity—noting that even Dixon, the security chief, is just as trapped by the environment as Navorski is. Plot isn't the driving force here; instead, the humor leans toward a Chaplin-esque or Keaton-esque style, attempting that delicate balance of laughter and pathos. Then there is the massive production design; much of the film was shot on a gargantuan airport set built specifically for the movie, where major brands competed to see who could build the most realistic replica of their storefronts, complete with oversized logos designed to flash at the camera, the big screen, and ultimately, our wallets...
The cinematography by Janusz Kaminski is widely praised, as is the score by the legendary John Williams. However, despite these technical triumphs, the film seems to stumble exactly where it shouldn't—with the lead actor and the director. Following both the American and international premieres, some critics even suggested this might be the weakest collaboration between Hanks / Spielberg to date. What are your thoughts?...
The Terminal
The genre:
drama, comedy, romance
duration : 121
121'
Release year:
2004
publisher / distributor:
DreamWorks Pictures / Warner Bros.
role:
Tom Hanks, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Stanley Tucci, Barry Shabaka Henley, Chi McBride, Diego Luna, Kumar Pallanatucci, Zoe Saldana
direction:
Steven Spielberg
script:
Sacha Gervasi and Jeff Nathanson
producer/s:
Steven Spielberg, Walter F. Parkes, Laurie MacDonald
After fleeing a war-torn Eastern European nation, immigrant Viktor Navorski (Tom Hanks) lands at an American airport, only to discover that while he was mid-air, his home country surrendered and effectively ceased to exist. This leaves him in a legal limbo where his passport and documentation are suddenly worthless. Since there is no way back and he isn't permitted to step foot onto American soil, Navorski begins his life right there in the airport terminal...
While waiting, he crosses paths with a colorful cast of characters, including Dixon, the stern head of security who finds him quite irritating, and the lovely flight attendant Amelia (Catherine Zeta-Jones). It’s clear that Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks enjoy working together—given their history with hits like Saving Private Ryan and Catch Me If You Can—and, frankly, their collaborations have generally been quite high quality...
This particular story is inspired by the true tale of Mehran Karimi Nasseri, an Iranian refugee who found himself "stuck" in a French airport back in 1988. There was actually a film made about this theme in France in 1994 called Tombes du Ciel, and one could look up the specifics of Nasseri's actual experience on sites like Snopes...
The Terminal markets itself as a human drama exploring loneliness amidst a sea of thousands of daily travelers, touching on themes of freedom versus captivity—noting that even Dixon, the security chief, is just as trapped by the environment as Navorski is. Plot isn't the driving force here; instead, the humor leans toward a Chaplin-esque or Keaton-esque style, attempting that delicate balance of laughter and pathos. Then there is the massive production design; much of the film was shot on a gargantuan airport set built specifically for the movie, where major brands competed to see who could build the most realistic replica of their storefronts, complete with oversized logos designed to flash at the camera, the big screen, and ultimately, our wallets...
The cinematography by Janusz Kaminski is widely praised, as is the score by the legendary John Williams. However, despite these technical triumphs, the film seems to stumble exactly where it shouldn't—with the lead actor and the director. Following both the American and international premieres, some critics even suggested this might be the weakest collaboration between Hanks / Spielberg to date. What are your thoughts?...
🔗 Similar threads
- Dealing with a terminally ill mother and a difficult father in Psychology & Therapy · Jan 8, 2012
- Grand Central Terminal? in Miscellaneous · May 25, 2009
- The massive benefits of the Chevron LNG terminal in Economy · Oct 16, 2007